3 calls that didn’t go our way

Viewing 5 reply threads

- 09/09/2023 at 7:01 PM #195477
  6
  
  ProudUte
  Ute Fan
  
  @proudute
  
  There were three bad calls/no calls that did not favor us (outside the questionable holding calls).
  
  1. The worst was on the fumble return that was overturned – a Baylor coach ran onto the field during the return which had an effect on the return. Regardless if the call was overturned, there should have been a 15-yard penalty on the Baylor bench. By the way, I don’t think the call should have been overturned.
  
  2. I think when Pittman got hit on the punt return – it should have been targeting. There was definite helmet-to-helmet contact.
  
  3. I think that Baylor missed the first FG. I think the replay showed that it was not good.
  
  I am not really concerned, because calls will be missed. But, many are complaining about a potentially missed PI against us. So, I wanted to point out some bad calls/no calls. The worst is when a Baylor coach ran onto the field. But, we won and I am happy.
- 09/09/2023 at 7:07 PM #195485
  2
  
  The Miami Ute
  Ute Fan
  
  @themiamiute
  
  2. I think when Pittman got hit on the punt return – it should have been targeting. There was definite helmet-to-helmet contact.
  
  I mentioned that on the chat and wondered why it wasn’t reviewed. As you said, there was helmet-to-helmet contact.
  - 09/09/2023 at 7:37 PM #195503
    
    RedUte14
    Ute Fan
    
    @redute14
    
    it was reviewed
    
    it wasn’t reviewed
- 09/09/2023 at 7:29 PM #195498
  2
  
  ravensute
  Ute Fan
  
  @ravensute
  
  On the Pittman hit, the way the rule is written now it’s only targeting if it’s crown of the helmet OR a non-crown blow to head of a “defenseless” player. It definitely wasn’t crown of the helmet. He did seem pretty defenseless to me, but it’s a judgement call I guess.
  - 09/09/2023 at 7:32 PM #195499
    13
    
    NarfUte
    Ute Fan
    
    @narfute
    
    If Pittman had possession long enough to become a ‘runner’ (not defenseless) then the Baylor WR had possession enough to fumble.
    - 09/09/2023 at 7:37 PM #195504
      4
      
      MFury
      Ute Fan
      
      @mfury
      
      ^^this
      
      Between that and the ticky tacky holding calls, I was pretty frustrated.
- 09/09/2023 at 7:37 PM #195502
  
  RedUte14
  Ute Fan
  
  @redute14
  
  with the new rules, that is not targeting.
- 09/09/2023 at 10:40 PM #195561
  1
  
  2008 National Champ
  Ute Fan
  
  @cptmrgn05
  
  There were some bad camera angles on that broadcast but I also thought Baylor missed that first field goal. And the replay didn’t change my opinion. Have to trust the ref under the post but it didn’t look anywhere close on TV
- 09/09/2023 at 10:48 PM #195564
  
  alexsmith
  Ute Fan
  
  @alexsmith
  
  I agree on the first field goal. I thought I may be the only one to think it was no good, glad to know others think the same