forums

ACC Refs

Calinative said:
That isn't why the holding was called dude. In fact that right hand literally gets disengaged and then does the swipe. It was 1000% called because of the swipe down and he ends up on his face. lmao. Ref thought he pulled down with both hands. Simple
Click to expand...
Yeah. This is your core flaw. You are quite plainly presuming someone else’s state of mind. I’m not sure you understand how evidence works.
 
The holding call was a makeup call for the previous play where it was extremely blatant. Our guys shoulder pads and jersey were all messed up.

INT was the right call.
 
DubCaliCane said:
Again, completely wrong. You’re looking at the play wrong. What I just sent you is a textbook hold and it was called.
Click to expand...
Right textbook hold. Why even have an oline? You can call that textbook 5x per play for each olineman on the field. Be real. That wasn't the reason it was called. It was called because the ref thought he pulled him down. Failing to admit that is hilarious. Then from there we KNOW that the ot disengaged the hand and swiped wilsons arm - he didn't pull....

AT best you can argue the LT pulled with his left hand while swiping with his right. But thats not what you're arguing lol. If Wilson doesn't end up on his face there is a literal 0% chance this is called a hold ever.
 
Calinative said:
Engaged. Doesn't mean he's pulling him down with it. In fact I clearly said it doesn't look like he is. The Right hand is doing all the work. I mean yall gotta be real here. Wilson has one arm on the OT and is angled. LT disengages the right hand and then swipes down on Wilsons arm. He immediately falls in that direction. Lets just think for a second here lol
Click to expand...
Well see what the ACC says.
 
I think we would be very mad had that holding call been made against us. He does grab the outside part of Wilson's shoulder pad, but only briefly and he doesn't yank him or gain an advantage from it. He won the rep with a legal move.

However, we won. FSU lost and still sucks. **** them.
 
LuCane said:
Yeah. This is your core flaw. You are quite plainly presuming someone else’s state of mind. I’m not sure you understand how evidence works.
Click to expand...
You think if Wilson doesn't end up on his face there is any realm that is a holding call? Lmao. Sure.....
So what caused Wilson to end up on his face? What could be the possible reason the ref thought caused that?

It is so obviously because of the swipe when ref thought it was a pull. This is obvious dude.
 
Calinative said:
Right textbook hold. Why even have an oline? You can call that textbook 5x per play for each olineman on the field. Be real. That wasn't the reason it was called. It was called because the ref thought he pulled him down. Failing to admit that is hilarious. Then from there we KNOW that the ot disengaged the hand and swiped wilsons arm - he didn't pull....

AT best you can argue the LT pulled with his left hand while swiping with his right. But thats not what you're arguing lol. If Wilson doesn't end up on his face there is a literal 0% chance this is called a hold ever.
Click to expand...
I don’t really understand. A hold was called on a play where I just showed you proof of the definition of a hold “outside the frame” that resulted in a DL shoulder pad ending up in a ninety degree angle.

If the ref explained EXACTLY what move of the engagement the holding was called on, I must have missed that on the broadcast.

But, logically, a holding penalty that was called on a play and a player where there is video evidence of holding should be holding, imo
 
Calinative said:
You think if Wilson doesn't end up on his face there is any realm that is a holding call? Lmao. Sure.....
So what caused Wilson to end up on his face? What could be the possible reason the ref thought caused that?

It is so obviously because of the swipe when ref thought it was a pull. This is obvious dude.
Click to expand...
I think you’re squirming for some conclusive evidence that doesn’t exist - on either side.

Here is what you cannot argue at all: a judgement call was made and there is sufficient evidence to argue that was a legit hold call. The call was made before the outcome was known by someone far away from that outcome. This is not some weird rig. This is another play within a football game.

Everything else is a collection of nonsense and feelings.
 
LuCane said:
I think you’re squirming for some conclusive evidence that doesn’t exist - on either side.

Here is what you cannot argue at all: a judgement call was made and there is sufficient evidence to argue that was a legit hold call. The call was made before the outcome was known by someone far away from that outcome. This is not some weird rig. This is another play within a football game.

Everything else is a collection of nonsense and feelings.
Click to expand...
Its genuinely like you're arguing something I'm not.
I literally said I fully understand why it was called by the ref lmao. Literally LIVE during the gamethread I said as such and that it seemed like OT snatched/pulled Wilson down. In this thread my first comment (Before I saw a clear replay of OTs right hand disengaging and swiping down) I said this:
Calinative

Post in thread 'ACC Refs'

BloodEunsOrangeAndGreen said:
Naw there was a hold they just said the wrong players number when they called it. RT clearly grabbed defensive end after he was beat.
Click to expand...
No I'm pretty sure they called the hold for the pull down the tackle did as that is a hold. It's only not a hold if you hit/swipe their arms down and that causes them to fall...
  • Like

It just wasn't actually a correct holding call after you view the right arm swipe clearly by the OT with replay. Period.
 
Calinative said:
Its genuinely like you're arguing something I'm not.
I literally said I fully understand why it was called by the ref lmao. Literally LIVE during the gamethread I said as such and that it seemed like OT snatched/pulled Wilson down.

It just wasn't actually a correct holding call after you view the right arm swipe clearly by the OT with replay. Period.
Click to expand...
No, I’m arguing the last part. I don’t think your view is necessarily right. There is a dude you’re engaged with above who’s given you a pretty rational dialogue showing you why he concludes it’s the definition of a hold. I believe he has as much legitimacy to his position as you might. Therefore, fair call.
 
LuCane said:
I think you’re squirming for some conclusive evidence that doesn’t exist - on either side.

Here is what you cannot argue at all: a judgement call was made and there is sufficient evidence to argue that was a legit hold call. The call was made before the outcome was known by someone far away from that outcome. This is not some weird rig. This is another play within a football game.

Everything else is a collection of nonsense and feelings.
Click to expand...
In a nutshell.
 
LuCane said:
No, I’m arguing the last part. I don’t think your view is necessarily right. There is a dude you’re engaged with above who’s given you a pretty rational dialogue showing you why he concludes it’s the definition of a hold. I believe he has as much legitimacy to his position as you might. Therefore, fair call.
Click to expand...

No that is just a laughable defense because
A) That picture is OPPOSITE view of the ref
B) It doesn't stop Wilson from getting to the QB
C) The OT has guard help about to engage in a double team there (which btw makes it signficantly more unlikely a ref to call a hold for where the OT is pulling the jersery/pad to side he is getting help from, as double teams are usually not ever called holds unless the defender gets around/through and is prohibited from getting past - so not the case here).

There is LITERALLY and I don't mean that witch a sliver of sarcasm that "hold" of the shoulder pad is EVER called by the ref if it didn't involve Wilson getting his hand swiped and ending up on his face. It was called a Hold because he ended up on his face and ref thought he pulled him down.

Like I said if the argument it's a hold because OTs LEFT HAND is pulling Wilson Down while the right hand swipes... Okay. That is the valid argument though. Not anything else. I'd also like to see if @gogeta4 or @Landon Tengwall had any objective comment on this from an Olinemans perspective
 
By the way, you could tell that most of these people didn’t watch the game because the one person who didn’t contest that it was an interception at the time was Robinson. He literally got up with his head down and walked away. He didn’t even like yelled at the refs or anything.
 
nycane said:
By the way, you could tell that most of these people didn’t watch the game because the one person who didn’t contest that it was an interception at the time was Robinson. He literally got up with his head down and walked away. He didn’t even like yelled at the refs or anything.
Click to expand...
Which arguably was the dumbest thing possible. That dumbass should have fought signficantly harder for the ball after they landed and been yelling at the ref that he had it lol. Cause Its not like the ref signalled INT immediately. In fact it looked like he signaled incomplete until he got to the pile up and saw Fitzgerald had acquired sole full posession.

But hey, I'll take it. I mean I genuinely also think Fitz really had the pick, as even in the air you can see Deuces hand leaves the ball on way down and you can't really see both hands on or anything when it's in Fitzs lap.... So IMO def an INT. BUT Tie usually goes to offense and if Deuce had fought harder for ball after they landed and yelled to refs... who knows what they call on the field.

However also what people ignore is they'd still need the 2pt to even tie it and we had stuffed them on two 4th and shorts prior....
 
Season 4 Life GIF by Sony Pictures Television


Holding/TD? INT/TD? Who cares?! Ask Western Michigan how that discussion is going! We’ve been on the short end of so many calls, this is a way for the CFB world to balance itself.
 
Back
Top