SEC Speaks, Let's Put Arkansas RefGate to Bed
by Year2 on Oct 19, 2009 5:24 PM EDT
in Football
48 comments
The SEC has officially spoken, saying that the personal foul called on Malcom Sheppard late in Saturday's Arkansas-Florida game had "no evidence on the video to support" it. As for the disputed pass interference call on Ramon Broadway, the conference says it was a "judgment call" and that "a review of those calls have been communicated to Arkansas." This time, there's no cheeky quote about officials being upset.
So yes, everyone's in agreement that Florida got some help on its late game touchdown drive. But, there was still seven and a half minutes on the clock after that drive and it was a tie game. Arkansas missed a field goal on its next drive and then let Florida, without the aid of penalties, drive the length of the field and kick the game winner.
Both teams had opportunities after the penalty affair; one team missed its kick and one team made its kick. Let's call an end to this with that.
0 recs |
48 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Without the aid of penalties
Except the no-call on the OPI in the end zone. That said, I agree that this should pretty much end discussion for now.
Team Speed Kills. All SEC, all the time.
by cocknfire on Oct 19, 2009 5:27 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
OPI never gets called with less then 2 min left in a game
by Hook85 on Oct 19, 2009 7:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tell Miami that
And then give them the 2002 National Title
Team Speed Kills. All SEC, all the time.
by cocknfire on Oct 19, 2009 7:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry but this is about the biggest BS excuse I’ve ever heard. You guys come up with some crazy stuff.
What you're seeing is team spirit. It's like the Holy Spirit, but more powerful.
-Hank Hill
by Zoltar on Oct 19, 2009 9:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
excuse?
We won, so I dont need to make up excuses. I am just giving the refs a little arguement on thier behalf. I obviously know that there is OPI calls at the end of the game, I was exaggerating when i said never. its rare, is more like it.
by Hook85 on Oct 19, 2009 9:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Excessive celebration never gets...
Oh wait a minute…
by NOLADawg on Oct 20, 2009 12:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You seem very passionate about trying to downplay the effect that the officials had on the outcome of the game. No, it didn’t win it for Florida, but it certainly shifted the momentum. Arkansas had other chances, but they should be given the opportunity to win or lose the game on their own, without the Gators being gifted 30+ yards by the officials. You won’t even admit that the penalties were bogus, just “questionable”. Your team may be “undefeated”, but that record is far from untarnished, and it eats you up inside now that the rest of the country agrees that the record is tarnished.
by dxf04 on Oct 20, 2009 1:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Funny
Georgia had the same opportunity at LSU to match the final touchdown in that game as well, yet few have shut up about that call either.
by Billy Gomila on Oct 19, 2009 5:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Let me make sure I have this right.
There was a horrible call made that gave one team a nice chunk of yardage and a fresh set of downs on their way towards scoring 7 of their 20 points and we’re supposed to just shrug our shoulders and move on?
And to the Florida fans that say either it was first down and not a big third down play or that claim you would have scored anyways, consider this: Your team had fumbled twice in the red zone and Tebow had been sacked 6 times during the game. What in the game leads you to believe that either would not have occurred had the refs not taken that opportunity out of the hands of the Hog defense?
There’s a big difference between 1st & goal from the 10 and 2nd & 10 from the 20. Especially when the refs just made a horrible call giving the home team a decided advantage.
by Cardfanintherock on Oct 19, 2009 5:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This
________________________________
Eric Berry is better at football than you.
by kidbourbon on Oct 19, 2009 6:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree.
If it weren’t for those penalties, Arkansas very well might have forced Florida into a field goal instead of Florida getting a touchdown.
But really, in the long run, I think I’d rather hopefully see Florida play Bama undefeated in the SEC championship, so it wasn’t TOO big of a deal for me. haha.
by jsholt969 on Oct 19, 2009 6:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What's the relevance of fumbles?
Couldn’t UF have fumbled after the penalties as well? I don’t understand why penalties made UF fumbling impossible.
I hope the Arkansas team isn’t as all depressed and angry as their fans are. Ole Miss might roll up 50 before you realize it’s a different week.
by Giant Catfish on Oct 19, 2009 6:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Except
By getting 25 free yards on that drive, it limited the number of plays Florida had to run. Each additional play is one additional chance to turn the ball over.
Team Speed Kills. All SEC, all the time.
by cocknfire on Oct 19, 2009 7:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The point
of the post is, stop complaining. Its over and done with. Arkansas had MANY other chances to win, and tehy didnt take advantage of them. So its not like the refs stole the game from Arky, they let UF have it
by Hook85 on Oct 19, 2009 7:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If this thread had come from anyone other than a Florida fan then I would not have replied.
But it is the Florida fans who keep telling people to move on or keep making hypothetical statements about how they were going to score anyways so I felt the need to reply.
It would be another thing if the rest of the SEC agreed that it was time to move on but from what I can tell, Gator fans are still in the minority. And on message boards its the majority that decides when its time to move on.
by Cardfanintherock on Oct 20, 2009 8:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Move along, nothing to see here
Two demonstratively bogus calls by the same crew in three weeks, and the SEC is OK with issuing apologies and hoping everyone shuts up and moves on. The first call benefited LSU, which was to have an undefeated showdown against Florida the next week; the second benefited Florida, which is to have an undefeated showdown against Alabama in the national championship game. Doop-de-doo, nuttin to see here.
by D.N. Nation on Oct 19, 2009 6:16 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Quit beating around the bush.
Accuse the SEC of rigging games, or don’t. I’m so sick of comments like this one.
by Giant Catfish on Oct 19, 2009 6:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think he just did.
What you're seeing is team spirit. It's like the Holy Spirit, but more powerful.
-Hank Hill
by Zoltar on Oct 19, 2009 6:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No
An accusation is “The SEC instructs officials to actively help undefeated/higher ranked teams in order to set-up big money games later in the year.” Not, “Doop-de-doo, nuttin to see here.”
by Giant Catfish on Oct 19, 2009 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The tying drive
The tying drive doesn’t happen without the benefit of bad calls. There was also the no calls and the bad spot on the first down.
I do not think Arkansas missing a field goal exactly evens things out. But then, my perspective is a little different.
by MikeInValdosta on Oct 19, 2009 6:51 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
"The tying drive doesn’t happen without the benefit of bad calls."
Is logic (or statistics) a lost art? Is it not taught in colleges anymore?
You can’t just say something like the above and expect it to be treated as fact. Maybe the calls all go against Florida, and with the space of extra yardage to work with Tebow goes deep and scores on one play. Is it likely? No, but you can’t say that it couldn’t happen, just like you can’t say that UF couldn’t score with the benefit of the calls.
by Giant Catfish on Oct 19, 2009 6:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"That tying drive doesn't happen the way it [does] without the benefit of bad calls."
That would obviously be the more precise way of phrasing it.
And I think he’s right. Florida had 13 drives this past Saturday with 5 resulting in scores. However, one of the scoring drives is what’s in question, so drop that one and we have 12 total drives with 4 scoring, a 33% chance. Moreover, only one of those four scoring drives resulted in a touchdown, with the other three being field goals, and a touchdown was what was needed. The odds were against Florida scoring a TD there.
by Nashville on Oct 19, 2009 10:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe break it down a little more
Such as how many drives did they score on that they did not fumble. Considering that they fumbled 4 times already, they didnt have a problem driving the ball down the field, the problem was holding onto the ball once they were about to score. So how many times has a SEC team lost 5 fumbles in one game? I doubt the odds of UF fumbling again are very high, so what are the chances of UF scoring if they dont fumble? Also in the second half they were 3-6 in scoring, with one fumble lost. So in the second half they were 3-5 on drives they did not fumble, not counting the one drive. so by odds in the second hald they we scoring 60% of the time they did not fumble.
Also they did not need a TD, they could of settled for a FG, and got a TD next series.
by Hook85 on Oct 19, 2009 10:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your logic here is terrible. If you flip a coin and get heads 4 times in a row, what’s the chance you’ll get it a 5th time? Well, getting 5 heads in a row doesn’t happen often does it? So obviously the chance is pretty low, right? WRONG. It’s 50%.
Similarly, you can’t use the fact that 5 fumbles is rare to support the idea that Florida had a lower chance of fumbling on that drive.
What you're seeing is team spirit. It's like the Holy Spirit, but more powerful.
-Hank Hill
by Zoltar on Oct 20, 2009 12:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
WHAT?????
Your anology is TERRIBLE.
Your comparing flipping a coin for heads and tales to fumbling 5 times in a game? Please explain more on how the two are the same.
Let me explain so maybe youll get it, lets say out of 500 SEC games, only 20 times a team loses 5 fumbles.(not actual numbers just example). Thats a 4% chance of a team losing 5 fumbles in a game. Not very likely.
So nashville says gators only had a 33% chance of scoring. because of 12 other drives proves that percentile.
Why is it ok for him to use a percentage of the chances of UF scoring, but its not ok for me to say UF has a VERY low percentage chance of fumbling 5 times…?
According to your flip-a-coin logic florida might have only scored on 4-12 drives, but they still had a 50% chance of scoring on any drive. I dont think you get how odds work.
by Hook85 on Oct 20, 2009 1:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hook
No doubting your passion for the Gators and the SEC, which is commendable, but you’ve put forth some seriously bad arguments. Not just in this thread but elsewhere, like in that thread you deleted about SoS.
The problem with what you’re doing here is that you’re just deciding not to include 4 drives that ended in fumbles because….well that worsens UF’s profile. Fumbles are completely independent events, especially in a game with dry weather like this one was. That it happened four times earlier doesn’t make it more-or-less likely that it will happen later.
The only drive I discounted was the one that didn’t involve 30 yards of questionable penalties. In assessing the result comprehensiveness should be the goal. So, UF scored on 4-12 drives, but was only 1-12 on drives for touchdowns. There’s another way to look at it: UF earned 391 yards on 73 plays, 5.36 yards per play. Meaning, it would have taken them at least six more plays to earn that yardage, six plays where anything could have happened, including failing to convert a 3rd down conversion, of which they were only 4-13.
by Nashville on Oct 20, 2009 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK
1. My arguement about SoS was bad in your opinion becuase you think the SEC only has ranked teams becuase the media thinks they are good, not that they are actually good teams. If you were to believe that those teams were ranked in the SEC were deserving of that rank, then it is not a bad arguemnt.
2. I deleted that Thread for one reason. I wasnt going to be online for awile and I did not want PAC10 homers trashing me and I could not defend my points.
3. On the website book of odds, the chance of a fumble in the NFL is 1 in 52 rushes. So yes if soeome fumbles on rush 1, that doesnt mean it will be another 52 att. before it happens again. But in your arguement you chose to say the odds were against FL scoring. You say they were 1-12 for scoring a TD. So the odd were against them I agree, but what you are not making sense on is…. the odds of florida fumbling 5 times were not low??? Now I’ll admit I have a little bit of a life, I am not going to research how many 5 fumble games there has been. Common Sense will tell you not a lot. So lets use the NFl for example, 1-52 rushes is the odds of a fumble. So if on play 16 someone fumles, the odds are low that it will happend again. It is not a fact, surely someone could fumble right there on the next play, but according to the odds that is not likely. Do you understand where I am going. The odds of florida fumbling again is low, sure it still could of happend but I would bet it wouldnt have.
4. I take your comments about my arguements being bad personal. If you dont agree with me, that is fine, But you do not need to go out of your way to cut me down. Saying that does not help your arguement or support you in any way, it is you opinion, I can say the same for you as well. I am sure if you started your PAC10 rant in here, people wouldnt approve of your theories. So if you think my arguements are so bad, please dont bother responding to them.
by Hook85 on Oct 22, 2009 11:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Damnit
I had written a much longer response but it got taken away. So the cliffs notes version will have to do.
1. Your argument about SoS was bad because it was poorly argued with bad justifications. You did not provide a convincing reason to use rankings the week of rather than end-of-season rankings. It was not bad because I think the SEC doesn’t have good teams; I regularly argue that the SEC is the best conference. What I did say is that they don’t play the toughest schedule.
2. That doesn’t make any sense. You can reply several days later; people would certainly check back to see their replies. Plus, as a fanpost, it highlights when there have been new comments.
3. You actually make my case for me here. 1-52 rushes is the chance of fumbling. It is the chance on the first hand-off and the chance on the last hand-off. (How does this factor in for fumbles after receptions?) Note that this is NOT the chance of four fumbles happening in a game. It is the chance of a fumble happening on any given rush.
4. Seriously? I haven’t made a single comment about your intelligence, appearance, character, or morals, against which you could understandably take offense. What I have done is just point out that you’ve made two bad arguments. If this bothers you, then make better arguments.
by Nashville on Oct 24, 2009 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
thats fine
To me it came off as, most of my arguements I make are bad. If you want to say those 2 in general are bad and then point out why that is fine.
Also, I told you I used the rankings for that week of theam because the end of season rankings does not mean they were deserving of that rank in week 5. Sure you could argue in week 5 they were over rated, but look at most general sports websites. Take a glance at past seasons W and L’s they display the teams ranking at that week they played them. So I am not the only one with that formula.
Also, like I said the odds of fumbling 5 times in a game are low. I dont have the actual odds…Common sense would tell you it doesnt happen very often. The point about the 1-52 was just an example. The original point was, FL was shooting themselves in the foot fumbling at the end of drives, if they didnt fumble they chances were more likely they would score. Thats pretty basic stuff.
Also, That website was very anti-sec, so to be gone for a week and come back there would have been a lot of comments I would have to respond too defending myself. Wich I was already beating a dead horse, I said what had to be said. Most of the comments were insulting me, another reason I didnt leave it up. I mean actually insulting me, not offending me.
by Hook85 on Oct 25, 2009 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also
Why is it ok for him to use a percentage of the chances of UF scoring, but its not ok for me to say UF has a VERY low percentage chance of fumbling 5 times…?
Because you don’t have any idea what the percentage is, you just made up numbers beforehand and then had them reflect the conclusion you wanted.
Further, and do try and understand this, the odds of Florida fumbling a fifth time were no lower than they were for them fumbling the first time, now that four fumbles had already happened. However, if prior to kickoff you had said, what are the odds of Florida fumbling once compared to five times, then you would be correct to say the odds are lower that they fumble five times.
Also they did not need a TD, they could of settled for a FG, and got a TD next series.
No. They needed a TD. Maybe not that drive, but at some point they were going to need to score a touchdown. When penalties move you almost 1/3 of the field, a TD becomes much more likely.
by Nashville on Oct 20, 2009 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok as I said
they didnt need a TD, on the drive with the bad calls.
Ok W/E you say, you can go with your opinion I’ll go with mine. If I was going to make a bet, and someone said Team A has four fumbles I bet you they will fumble again. I would take that bet. If someone said Tem A has zero fumbles, I bet you they will fumble, I would not take that bet.
a quarter landing on heads or tales, is always 50% becuase there is no other coice, one or the other will happen. In a football play, drive, game, there are 100’s of different outcomes. If you want to argue that Fumbling and not Fumbling are 50% chance of either happening then W/E to that too.
by Hook85 on Oct 22, 2009 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok W/E you say, you can go with your opinion I’ll go with mine. If I was going to make a bet, and someone said Team A has four fumbles I bet you they will fumble again. I would take that bet. If someone said Tem A has zero fumbles, I bet you they will fumble, I would not take that bet.
If the team with four fumbles had the same number of rush attempts remaining as the team with zero fumbles, I wouldn’t take either. In both cases you’re wagering on the likelihood of a single fumble, not a collection of fumbles.
heads or tales
It’s T-A-I-L-S. T-A-L-E-S are stories you tell children. Tails are a rear appendage, or in this case, the reverse side of the coin.
by Nashville on Oct 24, 2009 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
look at the majority
of my posts, I dont mean to offend you on my bad grammar. it is not that I dont care if you have to read it,. It is just a bad habbit of not rechecking what I just wrote.
As I said the I beleive the chances of them fumbling again would of been low.
by Hook85 on Oct 25, 2009 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why do we have to drop it?
It just seems like something people might wanna talk about…the same crew that screwed up big time at the end of the UGA-LSU game has another major screw up just two weeks later. That call on Shepard was incredible BS as was the one on AJ Green a couple of weeks ago. Not only were they BS but they were also at critical points in the game. The same officiating crew messes up the endings of two great SEC football games. SEC football fans are gonna want to talk about it. Some are gonna wanna complain (as they should) and maybe try to figure out what the hell the ref(s) was/were thinking. Nothing wrong with that.
by RGI12 on Oct 19, 2009 9:04 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Were they really the same officiating crew?
I was not aware of that. The call in the LSU-UGA game was bad, though there was a “make-up” call right after LSU scored. Which is really no better, as two wrong don’t make a right. I was actually out and about during the UF-Arkansas game, and have not bothered to watch the replay of that call.
That said, if it’s the same officiating crew (and assuming you guys are right that the call against Arkansas was totally unjustified) then I think the SEC might need to take some action right now.
I agree with the sentiment that people should stop complaining. Officials generally don’t decide games by themselves. That said, they can certainly shape outcomes, and just because they may not have “cost” anyone a game doesn’t mean that shoddy officiating is acceptable.
Gregatron is not responsible for any of the crap he just wrote.
St. Louis vegetarian blog
by Gregatron on Oct 19, 2009 9:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah they were.
Year2 posted a link (on the main page of TSK) to a Chris Low blog post on ESPN that says that they were the same crew.
The address to a replay of the personal foul call against Shepherd is below if you want to see it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzLLs1oeLgo&feature=related
by RGI12 on Oct 19, 2009 10:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I do think it might be time to move on from the specifics of that game but...
When do we see some accountability for the officiating crews? A public apology stops being accountability in 5th grade. It actually irritates me a little more that they apologize and expect that to be the end of it when it happens to the same crew twice in 3 weeks. Please don’t think I’m calling for jobs or fines or anything like that, but they need to figure out their policy. Either keep everything under wraps and don’t address criticisms and bad calls at all, or being it all out in the open and let the fans know what happens when these sort of game changing calls are made. It doesn’t even have to be specific, just let the public have some idea that there are repercussions for this type of thing. I don’t want another Ron Cherry heading up the SEC officials
by NOLADawg on Oct 20, 2009 12:24 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Go Gators!
Beat Mississippi State!!!!
by skigator93 on Oct 20, 2009 11:01 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'll second that.
Beat Mississippi State. Soundly. Comfortably. May the Gators expend much emotional and physical energy driving up the score so as to mesmerize themselves with their own glory whilst dreaming of December and January (and forgetting the rest of October).
by NCT on Oct 20, 2009 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Score will not be huge
Meyer would not score a big number on Mullen in his first year, even if he had the ability (which he probably doesn’t). Look for another game with a score lower than it should be. But just win it.
by skigator93 on Oct 20, 2009 8:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I beg to differ about Florida scoring a lot of points.
After all the zebras are good for at least 14 points right?
by Cardfanintherock on Oct 21, 2009 9:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah but that would only get us to 20, even with the refs, right?
when you take into account all our turnovers, missed field goals and such…..
by skigator93 on Oct 21, 2009 12:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It looks like you're leading scorer from last week was suspended.
What are you going to do now? (p.s. just so we’re clear, this is all in good fun at this point.)
by Cardfanintherock on Oct 21, 2009 6:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Florida should be just as upset.
Florida won the game, the refs took away all the glory. You can’t even claim to be number one now. The SEC has admitted wrong doing and suspended the entire crew that called the game. You are now left with an empty victory and no one thinks that you deserve your ranking. It’s not your fault, you won the game but the refs took away your respect. All you are doing by going on here and trying to defend it and saying “let it go” is chipping away at your teams respect. Sucks to be you.
by hogtalon on Oct 21, 2009 9:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
