Oh I'm going to bed, but to act like we benefited from bad officiating is in-game recency bias. And commentating bias. Because that was ridiculous.
Awful officiating
- Thread starter gatorshime
- Start date
Oh I'm going to bed, but to act like we benefited from bad officiating is in-game recency bias. And commentating bias. Because that was ridiculous.
We play in the SEC. Bad officiating is a given. But the UF/USC game was particularly atrocious, IMO. But both teams benefited and suffered from blown calls at different points in the game. On Pierce's TD run, there is no doubt our right tackle came out of his stance before the snap and we should have been flagged for illegal motion. And yes there were multiple instances where calls should have been made against South Carolina that weren't and they had big plays as a result. Good teams overcome adversity and find a way to win. Florida did that. And while I'm sure Mullen made his positions known to the officials when calls or no-calls went against us, Muschamp did his typical tirade and totally lost his cool on national TV, embarrassing himself and his team. The better team won and I'm glad we have the coach we have and not the coach they have.
Either way, I cannot ever remember a time when UF benefited from bad officiating. Can you? One game UF has ever benefited from bad officiating. Now would those non calls ultimately change the overall outcome of the game? Here on this board, I've only seen no more than 2-3 people incessantly complain about last week's(LSU game) officiating. Don't include me with that group.
The dipsh*t I actually responded to(ohsfan28) is an Auburn fan who also trolls other boards with the same username but uses at least 13-15 different numbers next to his name.
The 1st half was definitely slanted against UF, with both terrible calls and no-calls.
Did someone call the SEC Home Office at the half and tell them that they couldn't get away with it for 2 games in a row?
In the 2nd half, most of the bad calls or no-call went against SCa.
~~ Were they attempting to balance out the 1st half?
So my question is this. Are they biased against UF, or are they just that incompetent at calling the game correctly and evenly?
PS
An when is Dan going to start questioning the refs always chitty-biased ball spots.
-- 1st downs - receiver in bounds - punts....
Did someone call the SEC Home Office at the half and tell them that they couldn't get away with it for 2 games in a row?
In the 2nd half, most of the bad calls or no-call went against SCa.
~~ Were they attempting to balance out the 1st half?
So my question is this. Are they biased against UF, or are they just that incompetent at calling the game correctly and evenly?
PS
An when is Dan going to start questioning the refs always chitty-biased ball spots.
-- 1st downs - receiver in bounds - punts....
First rule on the internet, when you have no good argument talk about grammar. I didn't even read my post. Something you want to say, Mr Intelligent?
100% they got points on non calls and so did we. We out scored them. Out played SC.
There have been a couple of Kentucky games fairly recently where we got what were at least borderline calls.
The NO CALL that BOOM blew a gasket on was correctly called imoho.
Hammond stops and the DB that was supposed to cover Pitts ran into Hammond, who put his arms/hands up to keep from being run over. He never grabbed on to the DB or held him.
The DB should have run around Hammond. Then if Hammond had grabbed him or jumped in his path of travel, then he would have been called.
The way to defend the 'RUB' play is to call switch to the other DB that just stood there in the way. That DB should have gone with Pitts and left Hammond locked up with the DB that they claimed that he was blocking.
The 'RUB' is an old standard play that can be defended if the DB's just switch on the play.
EDIT PS
On the Pierce run, why didn't the DB just throw his weight into Hammond and into Pierce when they were all running abreast down the sideline? That would have taken Pierce out of bounds?
The Officials Analyst that they brought on screen to dissect the play said that it was a good no-call. And they also didn't throw a flag when that DB grabbed Hammond by the face mask...
Hammond stops and the DB that was supposed to cover Pitts ran into Hammond, who put his arms/hands up to keep from being run over. He never grabbed on to the DB or held him.
The DB should have run around Hammond. Then if Hammond had grabbed him or jumped in his path of travel, then he would have been called.
The way to defend the 'RUB' play is to call switch to the other DB that just stood there in the way. That DB should have gone with Pitts and left Hammond locked up with the DB that they claimed that he was blocking.
The 'RUB' is an old standard play that can be defended if the DB's just switch on the play.
EDIT PS
On the Pierce run, why didn't the DB just throw his weight into Hammond and into Pierce when they were all running abreast down the sideline? That would have taken Pierce out of bounds?
The Officials Analyst that they brought on screen to dissect the play said that it was a good no-call. And they also didn't throw a flag when that DB grabbed Hammond by the face mask...
Last edited:
