Home Cookin' in Austin

[Cinco Ranch Cougar]

Not that it matters but -
Could someone explain that call that was overturned when Baylor should have had the ball on the UT 1 foot line but the refs reviewed and gave it to the Whorns on the 20?
Unbelievable.

[King Crimson]

terrible call. touchback, yeah right.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Mack blew a ref.

[MyT Oklahoma]

Because they are playing UT in Austin. Next question please.

[Crucifax Autumn]

texass sucks Sooner nuts.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Same thing on the fumbled punt before the end of the game. There was some mighty fine home cooking. I would have thought Bible was calling the game.

[soonercastor]

makes me happy

[stoopified]

Mack blew a ref.
To get that call ,he had to do the entire crew.

[silverwheels]

The touchback call was correct. Brown muffed the punt, went back to recover it, and didn't gain possession until he was in the endzone. Then he was tackled in the endzone without advancing the ball completely out.

[RADsooner]

I thought the baptists ended up with the ball?

[Seamus]

Mack blew a ref.

That almost explains his teeth.

[Husker In Oklahoma]

Not that it matters but -
Could someone explain that call that was overturned when Baylor should have had the ball on the UT 1 foot line but the refs reviewed and gave it to the Whorns on the 20?
Unbelievable.

Because Texas owns your confrence. That should have been a safety.

[soonercastor]

Because Texas owns your confrence. That should have been a safety.

It's not 2011 yet :rolleyes:

[RacerX]

Because Texas owns your confrence. That should have been a safety.

http://www.kittybean.com/images/stfu/wahmbulance.jpg

[SoonerDan1]

Because Texas owns your confrence. That should have been a safety.

another husker fan that doesn't know football rules. I hate uterus but the call was correct.

[colleyvillesooner]

It must really suck to have lost to this 4-4 Texas team.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

If anybody knows what Texas owns, it is Nebraska

[badger]

If anybody knows what Texas owns, it is Nebraska

http://www.plixer.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/applause.gif

[badger]

btw, just posted new pictures of loss #4 in the fark board here. (http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144981&page=5) Pics of losses #1-#3 can also be viewed here.

And, in what could be labeled "Let me answer that for Chris part 2," Muschamp interrupted the postgame presser yesterday:


After each loss, it's like the players and coaches read from a teleprompter in the post-game interviews. After the UCLA, Oklahoma and Iowa State games, players said "we'll fight through this adversity because that's what good teams do." Coaches said, "I'm not sure [what happened], we'll have to look at the film."

Basically, the same old song we've heard for weeks and as we see on Saturday's nothing changes.

So in an effort to expose the team's true emotions, a reporter asked some players to explain how they really felt after the painful loss to Baylor. But before either quarterback Garrett Gilbert or defensive end Sam Acho could answer, defensive coordinator Will Muschamp snapped.

"Well I can honestly tell you they don't feel good, OK?" Mushcamp blasted in a tone that one might think he'd yell at his players in. Then the reporter tried to interject and say he knows they don't feel good, but then Muschamp fired back again.

"I'm just trying to tell you they don't feel good. These guys are working their butts off, do you understand that? All right then, let's understand that."

The press room fell silent and Muschamp's booming comeback ended the interviews.

Muschamp was angry, as he should be, but the question needed to be asked. The players put on a perfect façade after each loss and it's difficult to crack their emotional shells.

[bluedogok]

The touchback call was correct. Brown muffed the punt, went back to recover it, and didn't gain possession until he was in the endzone. Then he was tackled in the endzone without advancing the ball completely out.

another husker fan that doesn't know football rules. I hate uterus but the call was correct.
Usually "tackled in the end zone" is ruled a safety and not a touchback. The player going down on his own, usually kneeling is considered a touchback.
It looked to me like he went down via contact with an opposing player, which should be a safety. I guess there may be some obscure exception to that which is normal.

[BU BEAR]

If a punt returner muffs a punt in open field, then the ball is live and can be turned over to the kicking team.

But, if punt returner muffs a punt in open field and it goes into the endzone, then he can take the live ball and get tackled or take a knee in endzone and effectively kill the ball and get a touchback and not a safety. That sort of rule rewards a mistake made deep in the returning team's own territory.

If that really is the rule, then it is a terrible rule. You cannot kill a live ball like that on a kickoff and to draw that sort of distinction on a punt is just silly.

[cmoneyou]

Usually "tackled in the end zone" is ruled a safety and not a touchback. The player going down on his own, usually kneeling is considered a touchback.
It looked to me like he went down via contact with an opposing player, which should be a safety. I guess there may be some obscure exception to that which is normal.

This isn't really true at all. The only determination for a safety vs a touchback is whether the player has left the endzone or not with possession of the ball. Muffed punts have specific rules.

[bluedogok]

This isn't really true at all. The only determination for a safety vs a touchback is whether the player has left the endzone or not with possession of the ball. Muffed punts have specific rules.
I guess punts have an almost NFL pass like interpretation of "possession", it looked to me like he clearly possessed the ball when he was tackled and did fumble after he was down by contact.

I'll just say that may be the letter of the rule but like the NFL pass reception rule I think that interpretation is bogus. Just like with our laws, common sense is thrown out the window in favor of flawed interpretations.

[texaspokieokie]

yep.but it's the same for everyone.

[silverwheels]

Think of it like this: on kickoffs, if the receiving team catches the ball in the endzone and for some reason the returner gets tackled without advancing the ball out of the endzone, it's a touchback, same as if he had just kneeled. It's different than taking an offensive snap from the 1 and the QB getting sacked in the endzone.

[bluedogok]

I think that a touchback should only be awarded if you go down VOLUNTARILY kneel down, once you decide to run you changed the situation from that of a touchback to that of a running play, therefore a safety should be awarded if you are down by contact in the end zone. There should NEVER be a safety awarded in a down by contact situation in the end zone.

Just my opinion on the matter....not that it does matter.

[cmoneyou]

I think that a touchback should only be awarded if you go down VOLUNTARILY kneel down, once you decide to run you changed the situation from that of a touchback to that of a running play, therefore a safety should be awarded if you are down by contact in the end zone. There should NEVER be a safety awarded in a down by contact situation in the end zone.

Just my opinion on the matter....not that it does matter.

What is your reasoning behind this change? I don't understand how you expect refs to judge intention.

[brainpimp]

That was either a safety or a TD depending upon whether you ruled him down on his elbow. He did not muff the punt into the end-zone. He turned and picked it up and ran into the end-zone trying to escape the oncoming wave of tacklers.

There were only 2 valid outcomes. Texas refs invented a 3rd.

[silverwheels]

He didn't have full possession of the ball until he was in the end zone. It was the correct call.

[StoopTroup]

They used to have cooks in Lincoln....they must have all left after finding out the University decided to move the Team into the blackhole of college football

[Sooner_Tuf]

Because Texas owns your confrence. That should have been a safety.

There is just no way to make the red *** look attractive. Other than to not show it.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

http://www.kittybean.com/images/stfu/wahmbulance.jpgNo shiite!

[StoopTroup]

tejas drops 3 games in a row for the first time in 13 years. :D

[Leroy Lizard]

tejas drops 3 games in a row for the first time in 13 years. :D

:confused:

[soonercastor]

:confused:

:P He probably meant 3 home games in a row

[BoulderSooner79]

I didn't see the play you're talking about, but the rule is the same on kick-off too. I've seen the returner attempt to field the ball in the field (and touch it) and have it roll into the endzone and be called a touchback after he retreats and downs it. There is no consequence from touching the ball before it makes the endzone unless the other team recovers. Again, possession in the field is the key.