Hey folks - as a member of the DawgNation community, please remember to abide by simple rules of civil engagement with other members:
- Please no inappropriate usernames (remember that there may be youngsters in the room)
- Personal attacks on other community members are unacceptable, practice the good manners your mama taught you when engaging with fellow Dawg fans
- Use common sense and respect personal differences in the community: sexual and other inappropriate language or imagery, political rants and belittling the opinions of others will get your posts deleted and result in warnings and/ or banning from the forum
- 3/17/19 UPDATE -- We've updated the permissions for our "Football" and "Commit to the G" recruiting message boards. We aim to be the best free board out there and that has not changed. We do now ask that all of you good people register as a member of our forum in order to see the sugar that is falling from our skies, so to speak.
- Please no inappropriate usernames (remember that there may be youngsters in the room)
- Personal attacks on other community members are unacceptable, practice the good manners your mama taught you when engaging with fellow Dawg fans
- Use common sense and respect personal differences in the community: sexual and other inappropriate language or imagery, political rants and belittling the opinions of others will get your posts deleted and result in warnings and/ or banning from the forum
- 3/17/19 UPDATE -- We've updated the permissions for our "Football" and "Commit to the G" recruiting message boards. We aim to be the best free board out there and that has not changed. We do now ask that all of you good people register as a member of our forum in order to see the sugar that is falling from our skies, so to speak.
Head referee explains reasoning behind controversial Stetson Bennett fumble
System
Posts: 11,319 admin
Head referee explains reasoning behind controversial Stetson Bennett fumble
Georgia football quarterback Stetson Bennett was involved in a controversial call on Monday night.
Comments
Simmons was onside part 2
Bull crap. Bama was given a free pass on at least intentional grounding and Bennett punished on calls that normally are incomplete passes. Not to mention the grabbing the helmet call against Ga. That was correct but Bama’s oline did the same all game long.
BS. As has been said already on this site, how the heck did the ball land 10 yards downfield if the tackler didn't strike the ball?? That's right, the quarterback's arm moving forward is what sent it that way. You don't have to be a physics major to arrive at that correct conclusion. As for Young's fumble, it should've been either that or intentional grounding... but neither?! Again, BS. Thankfully, Georgia overcame these "obstacles" and delivered a decisive victory by dominating the 4th quarter. Go Dawgs!
Alabama got the questionable calls that usually save their pants, but the Dawgs came back and beat them anyway. It made the victory even sweeter in the end.
It's like I've said before, if the Dawgs are to beat Bama it can't be done by a 3-7 point score.
Doesn't matter where the officials come from, SEC, B1G, ACC, they always gift Bama a call.
Physics shows when a QB passes the ball 'forward' 8 yards, it was a pass, not a fumble. The Bama player's momentum was pushing Bennett toward the sideline. The pass went forward...
I'm not accusing the officials of cheating. Maybe they just expect Bama to win, and it plays into how they decide the close calls?
I'm just glad that this time, GA out-scored Bama by more than 7. Otherwise, it would've likely been an overtime game.
Georgia overcame the Tide and the officials. It had to be done for the Dawgs to finally beat Bama. Hopefully, that result will help eliminate the bad and blown calls against GA the next time they play Bama.
Well, if I'm being honest:
- The Bryce Young pass WAS indeed an incompletion. It sucks and was close to a fumble, but it was just good luck on Bama's fault (to counter the bad luck with the injuries that Bama fans won't give up on). I don't know whether it should've been intentional grounding or not.
- I think the Bennett was an appropriate call and although I'm not an expert, it could be the right call. The ball was out of his hand with his arm up. Either way, it wasn't "confirmed", so if called incomplete then it would've been incomplete. The "fumble recovery" was definitely proven correct with an overhead shot showing his foot in bounds with the football. Incredibly pure luck, though, for Bama.
I posted this under another article after most had moved on, so I'll copy/paste it here.
I'm surprised so many are focusing on whether it was a fumble and not whether it was recovered in bounds. They called it a fumble on the field so that it could all play out, just in case it really was one, as they're taught to do. It wasn't clearly a pass, so the call stood. It's not unheard-of to see a fumbled ball travel forward like that. The ball comes out right before the arm starts moving forward, so the ball is still close enough that the forward swinging hand slaps/punches it forward, and at first glance it looks like a pass. I don't have a problem with that layer of the ruling. I'm still at a total loss, though, as to how they couldn't have noticed the defender's toe on the sideline when he brought the ball in.
I thought they got that Young call right, too. His arm was going forward before the ball came out. I did wonder to some degree why grounding wasn't called. It met all the basic criteria. But I wonder if the nature of the tackle was a mitigating factor. I've always wondered about calling grounding when the QB is being hit, as that can obviously affect the distance and trajectory of the thrown ball. If they do make for such an allowance (again, I'm not sure if they do) then I could see that applying to the ruling on Young's situation, as his upper arm was being pinned down as he was trying to get rid of it. But if that shouldn't be considered a factor, by rule, then it was obviously grounding and it should have been called.
Either way, on all of this, who cares, we won! Man, that feels good to say.
In terms of calls, people blame the officials for not calling it against Bama, but you have to understand that Bama COACHES their kids to play the Penalty game. They know how to grab and push JUST ENOUGH so that it affects the player without being called. Remember that Pass Interference play where the Bama guy blatantly grabbed the legs of our receiver and how he looked pleased with himself afterwards? He did exactly what he was taught to. If you're beat, "sweep the leg", take the penalty but save the TD. There's a reason why the NFL doesn't just make it a flat 15 yards. Georgia coaches would NEVER coach that. Never.
Why are people saying that his foot was out of bounds. It was clear in the TV broadcast from an overhead shot that he was IN BOUNDS. It was pure, dumb luck but it was the right call.
Not calling Young for at least intentional grounding on a similar play brought flashbacks to this Georgia fan over previous ref calls that seemed to overlook obvious calls that should have gone against Bama. Ridiculous! However, the dawgs would not be denied so it didn't matter in the end!
Kirkhilles, I think I know the shot you're talking about, and if so, it comes one frame before the one showing the toe on the sideline. There's a shot showing no separation between shoe and paint.
Georgia fans are looking at all this backwards. It's GREAT that these 2 controversial calls went Bama's way... because it just adds to the fact that we beat them by 15 points DESPITE THESE. If those calls went Georgia's way, then it would just add fuel to the fire as to why Bama "should've won".
On that, you and I do agree.