Why Tech is trashy

by maverick76904 on Nov 11, 2007 9:52 PM CST Comment 38 comments

After being at the game yesterday, I saw first hand why Texas Tech is trashy, and the fish sticks from the head.

Mike Leach calling out the refs. My Lord in heaven, you have to be kidding me. For once, a team plays better offense than you, and you call at the refs. Your punishment is the same type format as Mangino is '04. Mangino could not eat for 2 weeks. Leach can not drink for two weeks.

Harrel is as whiny as they get. Don't ever try to start a fight with D Lineman of the opposing team...ever. You have an offensive line for a reason. And, hey, you may of lost the game, but you still congradulate the other team on a win.

The best part of the game was watching Harrel go running straight to his locker right after the game, and my adopted son, Derek Lokey, followed after him giving him a piece of his mind. Little man, when you lose, lose with class.

I am calling out the entire Tech team on this one. Did anyone from their team stay and sing Tech's fight song after the game when we gave them time to. Heck No. It was only after it was apparent they were going to their locker room did our announcers start talking over their band.

Dickweed Tech fans in the student section. I have no problem with this, unless you talk trash the entire game and after you lost. Get over it, some day you will find someone that is not as forgiving.

Done with my rant....

First time in a long time I am happy with the entire game we played against good talent.

As always, something I said that does not make sense, or out and out wrong, call me out. I have a bad habit of writing stuff that makes sense in my head, but I screw it up writng it down.

All comments, FanPosts, and FanShots are the views of the reader-authors who create them.

0 recs | Comment 38 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Re:

For once, a team plays better offense than you, and you call at the refs. Your punishment is the same type format as Mangino is '04. Mangino could not eat for 2 weeks. Leach can not drink for two weeks.

First off, it isn't clear that this is true. We had 476 yards and 43 points, you had 551 yards and 59 points. The difference was that you got to play against our defense and we had to play against yours, and I don't think anyone would accuse your defense of being worse than ours.

Second, "for once"? Texas routinely plays better offense than Tech if you are comparing straight up scores, as you guys did that two years ago and three years ago pretty convincingly. Additionally, Texas Tech has been out offensed twice this year, once by Missouri and once by Oklahoma State.

Not allowing Coach Leach to drink, especially after a frustrating loss, would be inconsistent with the 8th Amendment. You are helping the terrorists.

by Red Blooded on Nov 11, 2007 10:31 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Hey RB

could you please post your game thoughts here or on the postgame react thread? We would all appreciate an intelligent Tech fan's opinion on the game. I'm sure you could provide a different perspective of the game from what us orangebloods saw.

Thanks!

atsmahboy Kelson

by BigTexBD on Nov 11, 2007 10:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm too depressed.

The defense let us down, Ruffin had a chance to earn a D-Coord job and blew it. I can't reasonably ask the offense to produce more than 43 points against the Longhorns. That should have been enough to win.

Regarding the ref stuff, I don't think Coach Leach is right, but I don't mind one bit his taking the fight to their door. That's why I love the man so much, he's simply craaaaaazy and it makes for great print. I'd rather have a coach who gets indignant (even over the wrong kinds of things) than one who simply rolls over and accepts it. I didn't feel like the officiating was suspiciously bad, but I did disagree with some of their calls (I would, though, wouldn't I?)

A friend just reminded me of something on the phone that I thought was very true. Texas ran 92 offensive plays, 30 passes and 62 runs, and there wasn't a single holding call. I just find that very difficult to believe.

Also, I think the current policy on reversal is illogical. Deference is given to the first call made on the field over the one made on review, and that doesn't make a bit of sense. You have two calls, one is made live and one is made with the benefit of hindsight and slow motion replay, and you choose the live play as the one more representative of what actually happened? The "irrefutable" standard is bogus. The standard should be "What would I have called were I to have seen this play in slow motion with multiple video angles?"

To sum up, I didn't think the officiating decided the game, but I wasn't crazy about that aspect of it. I was pleased with the Tech offense and horrified by the defense. Since defense is a big part of the game, the only conclusion I can reach is that Texas outplayed Texas Tech, so kudos to you on the win. Obviously I was hoping for a different result, but I'm pretty used to losing to Texas by now. The good news is that I remembered to cut along the wrist to maximize blood loss and thus increase my chances on a successful suicide. Just because Tech fails doesn't mean I have to.

by Red Blooded on Nov 11, 2007 11:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The reply system has become a joke

I really do not understand the replay system at all. Every game, every conference there are different rules as to what can be reviewed and what cannot. In some games they can review whether a penalty occurred or did not, in some they review a fumble after the whistle has blown and in others they can't.

One espn/si/or foxsports writer (i can't remember which) after the UCONN vs. Louisville game said that every call, every nuance in the rule book should be reviewable and really thats the way it should be.

Anybody remember against Nebraska when they review a call two plays after the call was made. Texas snapped the ball and finished a play and then they reviewed the call.

Also i still, to this day, don't understand if the coaches can challenge a play or not. Can someone clarify as to what the coaches can do in regards to replay.

RB the reason that you have to irrefutable evidence is so that refs don't get replaced by machines. It is more of a preemptive measure as to not let the machines get invovled in the game to much and also a microcosm of societ as a whole. We let machines into our lives more and more and yet we complain when we do let them in our lives.

Not now chief I'm in the fucking zone.

by dsmith on Nov 11, 2007 11:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Re:

If machines can do a better job than I say let them do it. I've never refused a calculator for the sake of society. If I thought that goldfish could correctly call every single play of every single game I'd let them make those decisions.

There needs to be another explanation for that particular nuance of review. As it stands now, machines aren't making the reversal decision anyways; homo sapien refs still maintain total hegemony over calls. They simply give their live action, full-speed, completely fallible human eye more deference than slow motion replay, and there isn't any explanation for why that is the case.

by Red Blooded on Nov 11, 2007 11:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think it is more about

the contract with the Reffs than which can do a better job.

I am sure the reffs' union has changing that down as one of their non-starters in negotiations.

by Wells on Nov 12, 2007 7:41 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think it is

more about machines taking over ala Terminator or the Matrix.

by billb on Nov 12, 2007 8:29 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

This compels me.

by Red Blooded on Nov 12, 2007 2:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I just don't see that

I think that the irrefutable evidence rule is good. It doesn't make any sense to make a call from a bunch of video angles that don't show the action well enough. How many times have you seen about three or four angles all show a bunch of people smash each other, and then a ball pops out 3 yards away from the ball carrier, and you're supposed to make a call from that? The only angle we don't have is through an official's eyes, and if we can't tell from the replay, let them have the call.

It's not like the calls kind of show something, and then we just ignore it (except when the replay official is an idiot, in which case, none of this matters). They're either clearly supporting, clearly refuting, or unclear. If you can't really tell, that's unclear. Officials are a part of the game, and expecting to get every call right is ludicrous. Eliminating obviously blown calls is what replay is about, not about nitpicking and stopping play for 20 minutes while we try to decide whether the ball came out one millisecond before or after the knee skimmed a blade of grass. If we could run all the video at 1000 frames/second, that would be reasonable, but at 30 frames/second, you've got a gray area of about 33 milliseconds, and that's assuming the image isn't action-blurred, and that everything is in the frame.

This is not Newtonian football, this is quantum football. You can only come so close, so just accept it.

Growing up, I only fed Jared Norton paper. That's why he eats plays.

by Horn Brain on Nov 12, 2007 12:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Not just 30 frames/second

I don't disagree with anything you said. But sports slow motion these days has a LOT more than 30 frames/second. I don't know the technical specifics, though.

by rezboscace on Nov 12, 2007 12:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Re:

It doesn't make any sense to make a call from a bunch of video angles that don't show the action well enough.

If that's the case then we need to get rid of review all together. Either the videos will provide more or less evidence than a refs memory of a live event happening very fast, where there is no guarantee that he'll even have a better angle than one of many cameramen. And he certainly won't have the benefit of slow motion.

How many times have you seen about three or four angles all show a bunch of people smash each other, and then a ball pops out 3 yards away from the ball carrier, and you're supposed to make a call from that?

Very rarely, actually. I cannot recall the last time I saw a play on review that provided less information than the live action shot did. Obviously the ref has a better perspective than I do (sometimes, since sometimes they are simply out of position), but there's a very good chance that multiple camera angles examined in aggregate will have an even better angle than him. In those instances, the question needs to be asked why give deference to the call that is less likely to be conclusive?

Again, why can't we just reverse the deference? Why not say that the ref's original call is clearly supporting, clearly refuting, or unclear? For the purposes of accuracy I am of the opinion that the call we should depend upon most is the one that has the highest likelihood of being accurate, and the "irrefutable" standard fails to do that.

Officials are a part of the game, and expecting to get every call right is ludicrous.

I don't expect them to get every call right, I just expect them to get the calls right when they raise the point that perhaps they erred. Once we've gotten to review, they should be depending on the evidence that best answers whatever question needs to be asked (was his toe on the line, did the ball hit the ground, etc).

You can only come so close, so just accept it.

If you told me to sign on the line to eliminate the current replay system in CFB, I'd do it. I think it is broken and I question the standard used. This isn't so much (but partially, yes) about getting perfect accuracy on every CFB call ever, it's about having a system that makes sense.

Question: Do you think it is possible for a replay to provide a better angle for making the correct decision than a referee's initial call? I think the answer is yes, as replay and review are predicated on exactly that. If it's true, I think the deference should be given to whichever angle makes the most sense, and I wouldn't place an additional burden on replay so that it has to "irrefutably" reverse the on-field call. If anything, I'd make it work the other way around.

by Red Blooded on Nov 12, 2007 2:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

"irrefutable evidence"

the replay system isnt flawless, but it works. Of 100 replays I see, the officials make the right call 99 times. Sure the oddball happens and you wonder if the guy is reviewing the play or eating Chili-Cheese Nachos.

The irrefutable evidence is also a good rule. It basically says, "If you can tell you made the wrong call, overturn it....If you can confirm you made the right call, uphold it....and if you can't tell 100% positive one way or the other, let is stand." It's one of those "The tie goes to the baserunner" things.

What would the better solution be? "I can't tell either way what happened, so I'll just make whatever call I please."

-flo

by bleed burnt orange on Nov 12, 2007 4:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Re:

The solution I would suggest is that if deference is given to either call, it should be given to the one that is more likely to be accurate. Replays afford more angles, slower viewing, and will generally be easier to identify what really happened vs. an on-field call. So, place the irrefutable burden on the replay, not the on-field call. The question refs ask would shift from "Does the video evidence irrefutably reverse the on-field decision?" to "What would I have called on the field had I the benefit of this replay?"

by Red Blooded on Nov 12, 2007 9:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Not again...

... You're sick, RB, if you really enjoy this...

First of all, I'm not aware of any rule that lets the officials on the field say "Oh I F-ed up, go to replay." I thought that the replay official has to call down to the field and stop play. Correct me if this is wrong, but even if they can self-review, I don't think it happens a whole lot.

Second, you're just arguing for a change of name, because the effect is the same. If the official makes a call, and then it gets reviewed, the only time that you have a problem is when replay cannot confirm or refute the play, right? So how the hell do you make the call from the video if you can't tell what happened from the video? You've got to defer to the official, because maybe he had a better view.

Finally, I saw just today a replay of the UCLA-ASU game. There was a fumble, and the player was almost completely obscured the entire time. You could never get a clear view of the ball and his knee at the same time. What do you do? You go with the official.

Also, rezboscace, about the slow-motion replays. I don't think they come from special cameras, just standard TV cameras that shoot at probably 30 fps. If you're in the field or something, please enlighten us, but the point remains the same: Video is not capable of confirming or refuting every call.

Growing up, I only fed Jared Norton paper. That's why he eats plays.

by Horn Brain on Nov 12, 2007 6:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Got to agree with Horn Brain

Unless we are going to go to the official and try to get him to quantify how sure he was on the call and then compare that to how sure the replay official is from his replay, I think the way it is now is probably the best way due to the fact that we can make a judgment on if the replay is irrefutable or not, but we can not replay what the official saw to make the same judgment.

by Wells on Nov 12, 2007 6:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

We already

ask that he makes a judgment call every single play, in other words, that he "quantify how sure he was on the call". When he is 'very sure' he throws a yellow flag or whatever. When he is 'less sure' he might confer with other refs.

I feel like it's a pretty basic issue: do you want to give deference to a ref's naked eye or do you want to give deference to video replay? I'd choose the latter.

by Red Blooded on Nov 12, 2007 9:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Re:

you're just arguing for a change of name, because the effect is the same. If the official makes a call, and then it gets reviewed, the only time that you have a problem is when replay cannot confirm or refute the play, right? So how the hell do you make the call from the video if you can't tell what happened from the video? You've got to defer to the official, because maybe he had a better view.

I think we've all seen plays that could go either way. As it stands now, it will go whatever way the ref originally ruled because the "irrefutable" standard doesn't allow them to even use the video evidence if it doesn't provide "irrefutable" evidence. If you eliminated this standard, those calls would not be subservient (for reasons yet explained) to the original call, which is necessarily more flawed than a slow motion replay so long as adequate angles for review exist.

How do you make a call from a video if the video is inconclusive? The same way you'd make a call if the on field data flying at you is inconclusive; best judgment. But instead of deferring to your first intuition, why not simply allows refs to combine what they saw on the field with what they saw on the video and make a new call? Why are we protecting their first call? I am absolutely under the impression that for the majority of plays, video evidence after the fact is vastly superior to the naked eye. In those instances where it isn't, where the video evidence is totally ineffective or angles reveal nothing, which is rare, I'm fine with the call on the field. But we've all seen plays that could have gone either way per the video evidence, but they don't, they go whatever way the ref felt like in the first. Why? You say "maybe he had a better view" but even in instances where he didn't, he currently depends on video evidence that is "irrefutable". Let them make value judgments using all the evidence on equal ground. If you must give deference to one call or the other, why are we settling for the one more likely to be in error?

by Red Blooded on Nov 12, 2007 9:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Your arguement

assumes that the same person who is reviewing the replay is the one who made that call, which is not the way the current system works.

by Wells on Nov 13, 2007 2:06 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Doesn't need to.

Same difference, do I give deference to the on-field call or the replay official with the benefit of video review? Similarly, there's a heirarchy on the field based on where the refs are because some might be able to see the action better than others.

by Red Blooded on Nov 13, 2007 6:57 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think you have to give

deference to the on field call if the replay is not conclusive, because you can't determine, unless it is the same ref making the call, if what the ref saw was conclusive.

If you have two judgments, one is not conclusive, and one may or may not be conclusive, then you have to defer to the one that may be.

by Wells on Nov 13, 2007 11:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

If the video evidence

isn't conclusive, I'm not going to necessarily assume that the field call might have been conclusive. If I have two refs making a call, one with a better angle than the other, I'm not simply going to go with the first one who makes that call because the 2nd one (with a better angle) says "I could not conclusively tell what happened."

I think at some point you have to defend the on field call as having some advantage over the replay officials call, on some plays, that is inherent in that they were closer to the play and had a better angle. I simply disagree with the premise, though. I do not think field refs are any better positioned to make calls than someone with the benefit of slow motion and multiple replay angles reviewing live action. If they can't make the call "conclusively" based on the evidence at hand, that certainly doesn't increase my confidence in the original ref's call. So, the question becomes, in the absence of conclusive evidence one way or the other, do I take the field ref or the replay official? I'm substantively choosing a replay official based on the kind of evidence he gets to examine vs. the kind of evidence a field ref gets to look at.

by Red Blooded on Nov 13, 2007 3:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Are you serious?

I'm not going to necessarily assume that the field call might have been conclusive.

You lose the argument.

Growing up, I only fed Jared Norton paper. That's why he eats plays.

by Horn Brain on Nov 13, 2007 4:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Why?

So you are saying sometimes the review reverses conclusive plays? Are you not understanding what I'm saying or what?

It is often the case that field calls are not conclusive, hence the need for replay. Worse than merely not being conclusive, field calls are often times wrong.

I'll ask for the umpteenth time: When given the choice between multiple angles and a ref's on the field judgment, why do you prefer the ref's on the field judgment if the replay does not conclusively prove what we're after? The replay will show us more of what happened than any ref could possibly see and interpret in real time with his human eye balls. So, you are given a choice between depending on his call or the replay, and you're choosing his call. I'm asking why. Your response that "I'd take the call that might be conclusive over the one that definitely isn't" is not sufficient or compelling, since the video replay shows that the ref's on the field call definitely isn't conclusive. He's making an educated guess based on what he saw, and replay tells us that what he saw couldn't possibly have been a definitive judgment, since we have the benefit of slow motion and angles.

Where are we at? Two calls have been made, neither is conclusive. On which are you going to assign the higher standard of review? I say replay, you say field judge. I'm asking why you think a field judge is better enabled to make a call than, for example, 4 combined angles that show the player's from every position the ref could see and more, in slow motion.

by Red Blooded on Nov 13, 2007 8:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You just like to argue

You are making this assumption:

two calls have been made, neither is conclusive.

But you don't know that the refs call on the field is not conclusive. You assume that the replay can show you the same angle that the ref on the field had, but that is just not true.

by Wells on Nov 13, 2007 10:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It does not trouble me

to make that assumption. The structure of the human eye simply does not allow a person to watch both the feet and the hands of a person (for example) to determine whether a catch is made on the sideline. Once we've gotten to the point of review it is quite clear that there's either a) an error on the field or b) a questionable call. With both those things established I would much rather have the replay guy making the call.

by Red Blooded on Nov 13, 2007 11:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You are missing the point

The fact that you can only judge one of the the two sets of data, forces the rule. As I said before, if you had the ref who makes the original call give his opinion on if his original view was better or worse than the replay, then it would be different.

If I have two refs making a call, one with a better angle than the other, I'm not simply going to go with the first one who makes that call because the 2nd one (with a better angle) says "I could not conclusively tell what happened."

But that is exactly what happens on the field. In your situation if the 2nd ref says he could not tell, and the 1st ref says he though this happened, then they are going to go with the 1st ref's call, even if his angle was worse.

by Wells on Nov 13, 2007 7:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Re:

Right now, replay officials are not allowed to make calls under the same standard as refs on the field. I'm suggesting they should be allowed to. When you say:

What I believe you're saying, but might need additional clarification, and I apologize, is that an inconclusive review is comparable to a ref on the field saying "I didn't see a good enough angle to make a call" and thus we defer to the other ref who can make a definitive statement.

This begs the question though. Since the standard for video review and reversal is higher than that for making the call originally, we aren't allowing the replay official to make a judgment on the data available. I have no doubt whatsoever in my mind that "inconclusive" video still provides plenty of available data on which to make an evaluation. If you replay disputed video evidence to 100 refs and ask them to make a decision, they'll do so. And, in fact, that's precisely what we ask them to do on the field: they are presented with data that is sometimes inconclusive and yet are required to make a decision. We ask that refs currently make decisions even when the evidence is somewhat below the standard of "irrefutable". Flags don't come out on "irrefutable" evidence, or else there'd never be a reversed play.

When you say:

I believe, though have missed the point before and want to make sure I'm getting this right, what you're saying is that it is best to defer to the person who has the best view of the events, even if that view comes from a worse angle. The replay official's view and angle and perspective is always better than that of the field judge. That is the premise I'm operating on.

I cannot figure out, assuming that premise (which you may not want to), why anyone would think the field call should take precedent over the replay official call. Under the current rules, we apply a stricter standard to the entity that is better qualified to make the right decision. That doesn't make sense to me.

Let me speak very briefly to my example. The ref saying "I could not conclusively tell what happened" was not at all meant to represent a ref on the field saying "I could not tell what happened". That's what you assigned my hypothetical ref, not what I assigned him. A ref, or anyone really, is capable of saying "I did not see conclusively what happened, but here is what I think happened based on what I did see." The point I was trying to make was, instead, that when there are two refs, and there is no conclusive evidence to any one call or the other, all things equal I would much prefer the opinion of the ref with a better angle than to the one without. That is not a controversial statement whatsoever. That happens all the time on football fields, where two refs think they saw something, and the one who had the better angle wins out. The reason is because field judges don't confer with one another, the first one saying "I saw X" and the 2nd one saying "I saw Y, but I did not see clear and irrefutable evidence of Y". The standard field refs get to make is their best judgment; why can't replay officials enjoy the same?

by Red Blooded on Nov 13, 2007 8:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think

the difference between our two sides is that I don't think you can categorically say that replay is in a better position to make the call.
Without the benefit of allowing the ref who made the call give his input, I think the current system of giving the call on the field the benefit of the doubt is correct because of this.
I would agree that a better system would be to allow the ref on the field to give input to the replay official, or to review the play with the replay official, and then come to a joint decision, but I think implementing that could be difficult without taking too much time.

by Wells on Nov 13, 2007 10:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You also differ...

... In that RB has already lost the argument pages ago by stating that he is not necessarily going to assume that the ref's call might have been conclusive. From what little sense that sentence makes, I can only tell you that, since you have no faith in the ref to make the call anyway, you should be arguing that all calls be made from the review booth in the first place. Sure that would extend the game by 3 hours or so, but you're a Tech fan, so you're used to endlessly dragged out games due to unabated passing already. What's 3 more hours after 6? I'm playing until 4 am, dammit! And don't you try to stop me!

Growing up, I only fed Jared Norton paper. That's why he eats plays.

by Horn Brain on Nov 13, 2007 10:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Re:

I think people who claim victory on internet message boards are typically pretty insecure about their position.

No, I am not going to assume that the field refs call might be conclusive especially if I have the benefit of a replay that shows, from three or four different angles in slow motion, that the correct call is disputable.

Here is an interesting hypothetical to consider:

A player catches the ball on the sideline. He turns in bounds to catch the ball and his foot just barely sneaks in, however he bobbles the ball during the catch and there is some dispute on review as to whether or not he caught the ball. The field ref calls it a catch (or doesn't). The call is challenged by a booth review and the replay is inconclusive as to whether the player caught the ball or not; in other words, there is not "irrefutable" evidence that the field ref was wrong in calling it a catch (or calling it an incomplete). However, the replay conclusively and irrefutably shows that the field judge was behind the receiver when he made the call, and that it wasn't possible for him to see the position of the ball as it was bobbled without the benefit of x-ray vision.

The conundrum stated is that we have conclusive evidence that the field ref might not, in fact did not, have a conclusive view of the play. The rules, however, do not permit the booth to reverse the play absent "irrefutable" evidence that the ref was wrong -- that a catch was made (or wasn't).

The structure of the current rules demand we disregard the opinion of the people who are in a position to make a judgment on the play and accept, right or wrong, the judgment of a person we know could not possibly have made a conclusive decision. I believe that is precisely the kind of counter example that brings the current standard to its knees, and I don't think it is that unlikely. I think in virtually all cases the replay booth is in a better position to make the call.

You've married yourself to the position that we should prefer the person we don't know to have made a conclusive decision (field ref) over the one that we know lacks conclusive evidence (replay judge). That would make sense, except for the same evidence that tells us the repaly judge could not possibly have ruled conclusively on the call is precisely the same evidence that tells us the field ref could not possibly have ruled conclusively on the call. If it wasn't clear on replay who made the catch -- with six eyes, watching four different angles, in slow motion, with the benefit of conference to discuss the call -- than it definitely wasn't clear to the field ref, with two eyes, likely without the benefit of conference, perhaps tired and out of breath from running around the field.

We return to the question; You have two sets of data: One is a single set of eyeballs from a field ref who may or may not have a good angle to make a call. The other is many eyes viewing multiple angles in slow motion to make a call. Ignoring everything else, which of these two sets of data would you give deference to if your life depended on it?

by Red Blooded on Nov 13, 2007 11:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Also...

I just want to make clear that:

From what little sense that sentence makes, I can only tell you that, since you have no faith in the ref to make the call anyway, you should be arguing that all calls be made from the review booth in the first place.

This is not what I think at all. If you gathered that from anything I said, it was my fault for being unclear.

I will make it clear:

If I had to decide between a field judge's decisions that might or might not have been conclusive and a replay official's decision that is definitely inconclusive, I'd take the replay official. Reason is, if a replay official cannot reach a conclusive judgment I am damn near certain that a field ref could not possibly have reached a conclusive judgment, and I'm not willing to assume that the field ref was in any better a position to make the call than the replay official.

by Red Blooded on Nov 13, 2007 11:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I've got one...

There's at least two officials in the replay booth. Why don't you give the field ref one vote and them two each a vote? They don't have to confer with the field ref about anything and no time wasted.

There is no vote taken, obviously. A unanimous decision from the booth overturns a field call and a split decision does not. This still gives the field judge an unusual benefit, seeing as how he has to be overturned by two other persons. And it also gives the replay officials an opportunity to examine the call on the field without having to deal with the "irrefutable" burden.

That would be a concession I could live with, though my preference would still be to give one individual replay ref the benefit of the doubt. Repeating, I premise that on the superiority of perspective, view, and angle of replay over that of field refs.

by Red Blooded on Nov 13, 2007 11:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree re: policy on replay reversal

I always like to see the refs get together for a few seconds and discuss the play by saying "its really too tough to tell by naked eye at full speed, so lets call it what seems most logical (and what the majority of us saw) and give replay the chance to overturn it." I see it in the NFL more than in college. I don't care if it takes a bit of momentum away from the game, because I'd rather they get the call right.

atsmahboy Kelson

by BigTexBD on Nov 12, 2007 12:40 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Leach's problem

Leach is just ticked off that Kansas is already better than he at running his offense (they use a huge running back in the spread, McAnderson?, to make up for lack of run blocking). Oh yeah, and Kansas actually manages to field a defense at the same time.

He's also staring at a 7-5 season in which, assuming he loses to OU, he will have dropped 4 of his last 5. Pretty good time to deflect some attention away from the coaching.

Funny how he didn't mention OU getting calls even though they have been going to bigger bowls than UT lately and they beat his team down every year as well. Probably smart of him not to call them out right before their game.

We'd also be fine if the refs started cracking down on receivers pushing off, illegal picks during crossing patterns, and receivers holding on outside blocks during screens and short passes, but I'm not sure he would want them looking more closely at those practices considering his offense.

With all the great receiving recruits he gets he should just tell them they have to play defense their freshman and sophomore years and then they can play offense as juniors and seniors.

UT has no real rivals, only a couple of teams we deign to care about.

by twalsh on Nov 12, 2007 12:07 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

This wasn't funny, interesting, or clever

the first time.

Great sig by the way, never forget you're better than the rest of us. I'll probably be your butler one day.

by Red Blooded on Nov 12, 2007 6:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

THAT was funny, interesting and clever

I like Leach for the same reasons you do, RB. But unlike the Pirate King, I've seen enough UT games to see Texas get screwed by refs. I dont know if you ever saw the 2001 B12 champ game, but late in the 4th UT forced Colorado to punt. The refs called a bullshit roughing the punter call, with replays showing no one touching CU's kicker. Ostensibly, it was in the Big 12's best interest to have UT win that game. It would have guaranteed a legitimate Big 12 team in the National Champ game. (I know Nebraska got in that year, but that was really a BCS fluke.)

Anyways, I dont mind Leach complaining about the refs as much as I mind Tech fans thinking that there is a conspiracy.

Additionally, I may post something similar to the above statement on Double T nation, so,,,uh,,,dont link back and say it was better the 1st time. And while my butler position is currently being held by a Baylor grad, I am in need of chauffeur or a chef. Interested?

by DogTown on Nov 12, 2007 8:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Let me make something clear:

I can drive while complementing at the same time about as well as anyone. My hat tipping skills are unrivaled and a thing of legend in West Texas. You would do wise by hiring me to drive you around. Since I cannot spell or pronounce the actual position -- is that french or what? -- consider this my official application for "DogTown's driver guy who tips his hat and complements him while driving".

I do not think there was a conspiracy. Most of the Tech fans I've spoken with are supportive of what Mike Leach did for the team without also relying on a conspiracy theory; they simply felt some of the calls were incorrect. I don't speak on behalf of any Tech grads but myself and the ones who tell me their thoughts explicitly, though I will say that some of us are unconvinced a conspiracy exists.

We're all convinced that Mike Leach rules though.

by Red Blooded on Nov 12, 2007 2:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

My Signature and Replay

My Signature was meant to refer to the athletics programs and not individuals, but if the inferiority complex fits.
For instance football:
UT v. OU 57-40-5 (Their 7 National Championships vs. our 4 actually makes this a good rivalry)
UT v. A&M 72-35-5
UT v. Tech 43-14

I didn't know Tech offered courses in butlership and I'm not presently in need of someone versed in the bottle bearing arts, but my three kids make quite a mess so maybe you could recommend a good maid.

Seriously, though, on your replay comments I think the current system is better than nothing, but does need some improvement.

First if they are going to have replay they should have some mandated camera positions, i.e. straight down the goal line and end line. I hate when they are trying to determine whether someone crossed the goal line and the camera is obviously on the 5 yard line giving them a terrible angle.

They should also have a minimum number of camera requirements. I see games played on ESPN2 or Versus where they have only 1 or if they're lucky 2 camera views which doesn't help much. Then you see some games in prime time on ABC where they have 6 angles of the same play, it makes a difference. Also, what do they do on games that are not televised at all? Do they just not have replay or do they actually have some cameras running just for replay?

UT has no real rivals, only a couple of teams we deign to care about.

by twalsh on Nov 12, 2007 7:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs