Who are these homer-arsed officials?

[prrriiide]

Anyone know? This is the most blatant fixing I have seen since Whoregon.

[Ground_Attack]

wow...not sure how they call that a muff. Not much different than last year's "non" interception in the EZ.

[rawlingsHOH]

Terrible muff call. That was a clear catch and fumble, and then a fumble by Texas for a touchback. Should have been OU ball. And Texas should have been shutout for the half.

[ouduckhunter]

Me thinks that they are they are the same that called the OU - Orygun game, in otherwords Pac 10 refs!

[goingoneight]

The muffed punt call makes absolutely no sense to me. I've yet to see the whorn step out of bounds.

[Rogue]

I dunno...we've gotten our share of breaks in the officiating so far. It's halftime. That last 6 minutes would have been impossible to officiate without replay...sloppy as hell. If the refs are homers, so far I'd say they were imported from North O' The Red.

[ouduckhunter]

I hates all refs, and if yu call me out, I hates all REfs! And trust me I live amongst the best paid refs in the world!.... the Orygyunnn refts!

[TexasLidig8r]

Amazing.. stop whining at the officials.

Perhaps your OC should figure out why you have run for 32 yards..

IN THE LAST TWO YEARS COMBINED in this game.

[Petro-Sooner]

Exactly!

[rainiersooner]

yeah gotta agree with Lid on this one.

[Curly Bill]

Amazing.. stop whining at the officials.

Perhaps your OC should figure out why you have run for 64 yards..

IN THE LAST TWO YEARS COMBINED in this game.

Best post you've ever made LID.

[okiewaker]

OU-10 penaltys
UT-11 penaltys

Enuff

[Gresho Murford]

that was not a muff. horrible horrible call

[Curly Bill]

that was not a muff. horrible horrible call

You should be more familiar with the rules. horrible horrible post




;)

[Tulsa_Fireman]

You should be more familiar with the rules. horrible horrible post




;)

But it wasn't.

[Funky G]

Amazing.. stop whining at the officials.

Perhaps your OC should figure out why you have run for 64 yards..

IN THE LAST TWO YEARS COMBINED in this game.

Horn fans whine about holding when OU won the game. Whining about officiating is always louder from the losing side.

[GottaHavePride]

First: IF you call it a muffed punt, then Texas couldn't advance it - as soon as they had possession the ball was down. The guy didn't NEED to step out of bounds. The muff/fumble call is splitting hairs at this point.



Amazing.. stop whining at the officials.

Perhaps your OC should figure out why you have run for 64 yards..

IN THE LAST TWO YEARS COMBINED in this game.


THIS. Goddamn, you bastards are making me agree with a Horn today.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

First: IF you call it a muffed punt, then Texas couldn't advance it - as soon as they had possession the ball was down. The guy didn't NEED to step out of bounds. The muff/fumble call is splitting hairs at this point.

How?

If Franks is out of bounds with possession, OU ball.

If Franks had possession in bounds and fumbled, touchback. OU ball.

The only way that's a texas possession is for the call to be ruled a muff. From what I could tell, the ball was in possession, Franks was hit which forced the fumble, which was returned then fumbled again out of the back of the end zone for a touchback. It's not an issue of the bonghorn being out of bounds, that's clear from the replay. The only out of bounds question was the return man, and even then, his foot looks to be in bounds. Therefore for that play, it hinges ENTIRELY on the muff/fumble determination. And from what I saw, that was possession and fumble.

[Jock Ewing]

Know excuses

[GottaHavePride]

How?

If Franks is out of bounds with possession, OU ball.

If Franks had possession in bounds and fumbled, touchback. OU ball.

The only way that's a texas possession is for the call to be ruled a muff. From what I could tell, the ball was in possession, Franks was hit which forced the fumble, which was returned then fumbled again out of the back of the end zone for a touchback. It's not an issue of the bonghorn being out of bounds, that's clear from the replay. The only out of bounds question was the return man, and even then, his foot looks to be in bounds. Therefore for that play, it hinges ENTIRELY on the muff/fumble determination. And from what I saw, that was possession and fumble.

By "splitting hairs" I meant that the line between a muff and a fumble is a pretty fine line. Yes, the effect to us is radically different, but to the official standing there making the call it's a gray area. If we want to complain about that play the complaint should be that Franks attempted to field that ball at all instead of just clearing out and letting it bounce away. If he doesn't touch it, we're not having this discussion right now.

[Jock Ewing]

^
|
|
You obviously don't know excuses