What was the deal about the delay of game penalty when the refs hadn't signaled the

Whatever the refs problem was, at least they did it to both teams. That was a horrible crew, but not nearly as bad as the ones that called - or should I say, DIDN'T call - the Aubarn game. Talk about having orange and blue blinders on . . .

I’m still trying to figure out why they didn’t review the play where they gave possession/completion to the TAMU receiver when it was clear he was bobbling the ball and Savion clearly had possession of the ball when they went to the ground?

What was strange about each of the delay calls was the officials started the play clock but never informed either team the ball was ready for play.

Even Nessler or Danielson made a comment to that effect.

It happened in another game later in the day. Arizona game maybe?

Is there some new rule we don't know about?

They could have called holding on A and M all day.

It looked to me like a situation where the referees screwed up and didn't let the players know that the ball was in play and ready to go.
The second call against us may have been a payback call to even things up.

CB4 said:

I’m still trying to figure out why they didn’t review the play where they gave possession/completion to the TAMU receiver when it was clear he was bobbling the ball and Savion clearly had possession of the ball when they went to the ground?

What was strange about each of the delay calls was the officials started the play clock but never informed either team the ball was ready for play.

Even Nessler or Danielson made a comment to that effect.

Click to expand...

It may have been reviewed but we wouldn't necessarily know it. From what I can see, the A&M player had possession for a couple of steps and did not bobble the ball until he was down. The play was dead as soon as his rear hit the ground since he already.

There could be some doubt as to whether the receiver performed "an act common to the game"; if he did not, then I could see the going-to-the ground rule comes into play and that the ball was still live when Bama possessed it. I think the refs got it right.

CrimsonSEC said:

It looked to me like a situation where the referees screwed up and didn't let the players know that the ball was in play and ready to go.
The second call against us may have been a payback call to even things up.

Click to expand...

You may be right. I know that I was really confused at the time and Tua asked the ref for an explanation also. It is amazing this year. I just think, oh well, just more yards for the offense to get credit for when we score...

JDMinHSV said:

Whatever the refs problem was, at least they did it to both teams. That was a horrible crew, but not nearly as bad as the ones that called - or should I say, DIDN'T call - the Aubarn game. Talk about having orange and blue blinders on . . .

Click to expand...

Hmmm Tell me more about that.


Sent from my iPad[emoji208]

crimsonaudio said:

I'll never boo a player (on any team) unless they take a cheap shot or something similar.

But I'll boo a ref any day of the week and twice on Sundays. I doubt it happened but I hope one of you heard me shout "you suck, refs - this is why people hate you" on the live broadcast...

Click to expand...

That was YOU?

day-day said:

It may have been reviewed but we wouldn't necessarily know it. From what I can see, the A&M player had possession for a couple of steps and did not bobble the ball until he was down. The play was dead as soon as his rear hit the ground since he already.

There could be some doubt as to whether the receiver performed "an act common to the game"; if he did not, then I could see the going-to-the ground rule comes into play and that the ball was still live when Bama possessed it. I think the refs got it right.

Click to expand...

I could see this as a possibility. To me it looked as though the ball was in his hands (arms extended) but as he brought in to his his body the ball was “bobbled” at which time Savion reached his arms in and began fighting for the ball, all of which took place prior to the TAMU receiver reaching the ground. And the review official may have looked at it. I just thought it warranted a closer look.

To me, the meore Agregious call was the phantom horse collar later in the game that extended the aTm drive where we had them stopped.

BamaInMo1 said:

To me, the meore Agregious call was the phantom horse collar later in the game that extended the aTm drive where we had them stopped.

Click to expand...

Announcer said that was a textbook horse collar . . . didn't seem to be. Hope someone with better audio visual skills than I can show the defensive end or linebacker chasing the QB and being held . . . I initially thought it would be at least off setting fouls.

From row 28, it looked like he grabbed his sleeve.

VirginiaTide57 said:

Announcer said that was a textbook horse collar . . . didn't seem to be. Hope someone with better audio visual skills than I can show the defensive end or linebacker chasing the QB and being held . . . I initially thought it would be at least off setting fouls.

Click to expand...

VirginiaTide57 said:

Announcer said that was a textbook horse collar . . . didn't seem to be. Hope someone with better audio visual skills than I can show the defensive end or linebacker chasing the QB and being held . . . I initially thought it would be at least off setting fouls.

Click to expand...

Definitely pulled the back of his jersey by the collar. I thought horse collar tackles had to involve pulling them down by the back of the pads, not just the jersey.

colbysullivan said:

Definitely pulled the back of his jersey by the collar. I thought horse collar tackles had to involve pulling them down by the back of the pads, not just the jersey.

Click to expand...

Me too. I didn't realize the jersey was involved either.

CB4 said:

I could see this as a possibility. To me it looked as though the ball was in his hands (arms extended) but as he brought in to his his body the ball was “bobbled” at which time Savion reached his arms in and began fighting for the ball, all of which took place prior to the TAMU receiver reaching the ground. And the review official may have looked at it. I just thought it warranted a closer look.

Click to expand...

I've got the feeling that either call would have held up under review. Very tough call and the camera angles may not have been perfect either.

colbysullivan said:

Definitely pulled the back of his jersey by the collar. I thought horse collar tackles had to involve pulling them down by the back of the pads, not just the jersey.

Click to expand...

Rule change a couple years ago added the name plate area if grabbed and pulled back immediately.

I did not see the game so can't help on the delay of game penalties specifically. If it's a 25-second play clock (after an administrative stop like a penalty or most change of possession) there will be a whistle with the starting of the play clock. Between 2 regular scrimmage plays the clock is set to 40 seconds and started with no whistle. The ball is ready for play once the umpire spots the ball and steps away.

Two new rule changes this year are to use the regular 40 second clock after a TD/before the try and after a kickoff/before the first play of the next series. Teams need to have their units ready to go in both cases. The ball is ready once the umpire places it and backs away.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk