"The Play"

[AstroDin]

Beat the snot out of the DOGS!

[apaladin]

You know what was more disappointing is we got back within 3 at half then give up a 75/yard 5 play drive in a minute and 20 seconds. That was THE turning point.

[gofurman]

You know what was more disappointing is we got back within 3 at half then give up a 75/yard 5 play drive in a minute and 20 seconds. That was THE turning point.

exactly. People are so caught on a referee that they are missing all of our miscues. Three Fumbles. Huge gash running plays (3 of those too!!) allowed by D (over and over and over)- CCH himself said we let a bad thing become "cataclysmic" and good veteran teams should not do that. right on.


So go beat the Dogs !! That cures a lot of ills

[The Jackal]

You know what was more disappointing is we got back within 3 at half then give up a 75/yard 5 play drive in a minute and 20 seconds. That was THE turning point.

exactly. People are so caught on a referee that they are missing all of our miscues. Three Fumbles. Huge gash running plays (3 of those too!!) allowed by D (over and over and over)- CCH himself said we let a bad thing become "cataclysmic" and good veteran teams should not do that. right on.


So go beat the Dogs !! That cures a lot of ills

Not a single person here has suggested that the referee cost Furman the game.

What they've said is that at a critical moment when Furman was dominating both sides of the ball, the referees turned the game into their own showcase of ineptitude and cost Furman all momentum and the possibility of putting Samford on the ropes early in the contest.

[gofurman]

You know what was more disappointing is we got back within 3 at half then give up a 75/yard 5 play drive in a minute and 20 seconds. That was THE turning point.

exactly. People are so caught on a referee that they are missing all of our miscues. Three Fumbles. Huge gash running plays (3 of those too!!) allowed by D (over and over and over)- CCH himself said we let a bad thing become "cataclysmic" and good veteran teams should not do that. right on.


So go beat the Dogs !! That cures a lot of ills

Not a single person here has suggested that the referee cost Furman the game.

What they've said is that at a critical moment when Furman was dominating both sides of the ball, the referees turned the game into their own showcase of ineptitude and cost Furman all momentum and the possibility of putting Samford on the ropes early in the contest.

actually at least one person did suggest that - DM. They said the momentum shift was so large that it probably cost us the game. Granted you couldn't see that message. So no worries.

However, I THINK one or two prior public messages implied the same. That up 17-0 (which isn't a given by any means) the entire game would have swung to where we could run the ball and keep their O off the field and we probably win - which is basically saying the ref cost us the game

Anyhow, let's move on and beat Citadel ! Beat them dogs

[The Jackal]

10 points wasn't going to beat Samford. Neither was 17.

It'd have been nice to be up three scores, though, when Samford's offense started to get it going.

[Davemeister]

Another sad aspect of "The Play" is that all the talk about officiating deprived Yates of the recognition he deserved for making a great play.

I watched the ESPN+ replay of the game and the anouncers said that should have been one of ESPN's Top Ten Plays Of The Week. He hit the receiver as hard as you can these days without drawing a flag or being charged with Targeting. AND he came away with the ball. A "Bang-Bang" play if ever there was one!

[tim]

...... And to be fair, I was really impressed with Chandler Smith as a receiver. I thought his day was done after that play but he came back. Good receiver.

[FUBeAR]

Another sad aspect of "The Play" is that all the talk about officiating deprived Yates of the recognition he deserved for making a great play.

I watched the ESPN+ replay of the game and the anouncers said that should have been one of ESPN's Top Ten Plays Of The Week. He hit the receiver as hard as you can these days without drawing a flag or being charged with Targeting. AND he came away with the ball. A "Bang-Bang" play if ever there was one!

...... And to be fair, I was really impressed with Chandler Smith as a receiver. I thought his day was done after that play but he came back. Good receiver.

Smith is a Walk-on from Walton HS (‘18) in East Cobb who shines above ALL of their Recruited HS and Rented Portal FBS & FCS Retrievers.

Yates is a Roswell HS (‘20) Hornet from North Fulton (8 miles from Walton). FUBeAR speculates that’s prolly not the 1st time those 2 have run into one another on the gridiron.

[Furman Sports Report]

http://www.furmansportsreport.com/2022/ ... -dins.html

Thanks to Mr. Taggart for the astute observation about MLB rules regarding replays, which I stole for my story here.

[FUBeAR]

http://www.furmansportsreport.com/2022/ ... -dins.html

Thanks to Mr. Taggart for the astute observation about MLB rules regarding replays, which I stole for my story here.

We’re you able to work the phrase, “a-whompin' and a-whumpin'” into the article?

Mr. Taggart appreciates any alluded homage to a Number 6.

[The Jackal]

So, this is from the game notes:

Quarter (Clock Time): 2nd, 10:29
Score: Furman leading 10-0
Possession (Down & Distance, Spot): Samford, 1st & 10 at SAM 24
Play: Samford quarterback Michael Hiers attempts pass to Chandler Smith, who is decleated by Furman cornerback Ivan Yates at the SAM 28 the moment the pass reaches Smith. The ball is never possessed by Smith, and loose ball is caught out of the air by Yates.
Result: Side judge approximately eight yards from the play rules the pass a reception by Smith and spots the ball at SAM 28.
Review: Play is reviewed over the course of several minutes and call on the field is re- versed. Yates is credited with the interception, and Furman is awarded the football at the SAM 28. Following more lengthy discussion on the field, the review decision is nullified and Samford is awarded the ball at the SAM 28 by rule that a play ending in forward progress can’t be reviewed.

I'm assuming some of this is probably pieced together from whatever send/response Furman got from the SoCon office.

According to this, it appears it wasn't a review of a review, but a review and then Chris Hatcher arguing that you can't review forward progress. Hatcher's argument assumes Smith possessed the ball, which he never did.

Forward progress cannot be reviewed except in line to gain and goal line situations, but turnovers and interceptions absolutely can be reviewed. They missed the call on the field, then got it right, and then just completely blew it.

I get it, move on, my goodness what an abysmal display of referring a football game. They screwed up half a dozen times in a single play.