Kiffin: "I was basically lied to"
- Thread starter bamanut_aj
- Start date
The side judge has no authority to overrule the referee, grant a timeout and add a second to the clock, especially after the replay booth confirms that time expired. Even if this was a bad call (and it wasn't), there are still dozens of other plays that your team could have made to avoid being in a situation where a call affects the outcome of the game.
If the conference has any guts at all, Kiffin will be fined and publicly chastised for criticizing the officials in public. That is totally classless. But then, the words "Kiffin" and "class" shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence anyway.
If the conference has any guts at all, Kiffin will be fined and publicly chastised for criticizing the officials in public. That is totally classless. But then, the words "Kiffin" and "class" shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence anyway.
I feel differently that most posts here. Kiffen had told the refs he wanted a timeout as soon as the player was down. When they reviewed it, he was clearly down (in bounds) with one second on the clock. He should have been given the time out with one second left (probably tenths of a second but it's not basketball). Either way, he should have ran a different play or instructed the player to go down in the middle of the field for the FG try. He does that, and it's a moot point.
Wasn't Kiffin reprimanded by the SEC after the '09 Bama game? He said something to the effect of wanting a shorter field goal but was afraid to pass because he knew that UT would get a convient holding call if he tried another pass thus having to settle for a 40 plus yard FG attempt and it getting blocked. This is a tiresome road that he has already been down and I am surprised his dad has not had him tone things down. I am sure that Pat Hayden has had Kiffin in his office today because I do not thin Pat to be the type of man that puts up with this kind of attitude.
I don't like Kiffen or USC one bit, so the salve is that I can enjoy that. But it's kind of like Auburn beating UT, it's not the result I would want. Having said that, I do not like the way the game was handled, and even if technically correct, it raises some of my concerns with the way games are called period.
1: I didn't see the celebration penalty, so I can't comment beyond saying I hate the notion of celebrations changing the outcome of the game.
2: The whole clock thing is on Kiffen and the player, because it shouldn't have been that close. We've seen this come up before, but basically I think there should be an ability to insure that a coach gets a timeout the instant he calls it rather than leaving it up to the discretion of the ref. If you call a timeout, you should get one, period. It's messed up that getting one at a crucial point is entirely reliant on the ref's reaction time. If you make a rule that says timeouts within the final 2 minutes are reviewable or something along those lines it might save this controversy we seem to see a couple times every year. Who wants a game to end because a timeout wasn't given fast enough?
3: I still don't quite get the placement of the holding call. There seems to be some indication it should have been marked much further back, but the way the refs handled it they were saying it was 3 yards past the first down marker. I'm not sure why that situation wasn't better explained as the spot it happened was crucial, but without explanation they could basically be saying that the holding everyone seemed to think they saw wasn't what was called.
4: I have MAJOR issue with the roughness penalty. A big issue, my brother likes to argue with me, so he's the devil's advocate here as he claimed A: It was helmet to helmet, then B: Claimed the USC player was trying to hurt the Stanford player.
I'm not going to get into looking up the rules, but I am against any rule in football that basically tells the guy he can't make a play. Mind you, without the penalty this is a 4th and 6 situation. Luck was being stopped by USC and the entire game would have hinged on the next play.
So, we see a big hit, a flag and they get a first down and 15 yards. We know how it goes from there. My problem is two-fold, live, my argument was how else does he make that play? He's supposed to stop the player right? He wasn't spearing, he didn't have time to react, he was making a play and to make that play a penalty in my mind says you have to just let him catch the ball. That makes no sense to me.
After seeing the videos, I've gone from just questioning the rules to questioning the call itself.
Here's a video which shows it live:
http://youtu.be/CbjBC0534Ss
The key thing to take away here is the real speed of the play. I think you can both see how the refs, in that split second might throw the flag but you also see how little time the defender really has to respond (as watching it in slow motion gives the false impression he had all day to register and respond to him not having the ball).
Now, watch the replay (slightly higher quality)
http://youtu.be/q1yurG8JvgA
The first replay shows all you need to see. If you watch you see a few things, at the 9 second mark of the replay you see that the ball is in the air around the receivers numbers and he's reaching for it, at this point McDonald has already lowered his shoulder and is trying to make the play. In the next second of the replay, you can clearly see that if there is any helmet to helmet contact it is glancing at best, as the Stanford's player head doesn't move, then as the shoulder pad impacts the player, you see the violent collision.
So, it's not helmet to helmet. That's pretty clear, however, is there a penalty at all? And whether or not there is one, how do we expect him to make that play? Clearly, the player was trying to make the catch as he approached, he's running at full speed and less than a single stride away when the ball was at the numbers of the receiver. I honestly don't know how else you tell him to make that play, so am I the only one that feels that way? I'd like a better explanation than someone imagining that's helmet to helmet.
1: I didn't see the celebration penalty, so I can't comment beyond saying I hate the notion of celebrations changing the outcome of the game.
2: The whole clock thing is on Kiffen and the player, because it shouldn't have been that close. We've seen this come up before, but basically I think there should be an ability to insure that a coach gets a timeout the instant he calls it rather than leaving it up to the discretion of the ref. If you call a timeout, you should get one, period. It's messed up that getting one at a crucial point is entirely reliant on the ref's reaction time. If you make a rule that says timeouts within the final 2 minutes are reviewable or something along those lines it might save this controversy we seem to see a couple times every year. Who wants a game to end because a timeout wasn't given fast enough?
3: I still don't quite get the placement of the holding call. There seems to be some indication it should have been marked much further back, but the way the refs handled it they were saying it was 3 yards past the first down marker. I'm not sure why that situation wasn't better explained as the spot it happened was crucial, but without explanation they could basically be saying that the holding everyone seemed to think they saw wasn't what was called.
4: I have MAJOR issue with the roughness penalty. A big issue, my brother likes to argue with me, so he's the devil's advocate here as he claimed A: It was helmet to helmet, then B: Claimed the USC player was trying to hurt the Stanford player.
I'm not going to get into looking up the rules, but I am against any rule in football that basically tells the guy he can't make a play. Mind you, without the penalty this is a 4th and 6 situation. Luck was being stopped by USC and the entire game would have hinged on the next play.
So, we see a big hit, a flag and they get a first down and 15 yards. We know how it goes from there. My problem is two-fold, live, my argument was how else does he make that play? He's supposed to stop the player right? He wasn't spearing, he didn't have time to react, he was making a play and to make that play a penalty in my mind says you have to just let him catch the ball. That makes no sense to me.
After seeing the videos, I've gone from just questioning the rules to questioning the call itself.
Here's a video which shows it live:
http://youtu.be/CbjBC0534Ss
The key thing to take away here is the real speed of the play. I think you can both see how the refs, in that split second might throw the flag but you also see how little time the defender really has to respond (as watching it in slow motion gives the false impression he had all day to register and respond to him not having the ball).
Now, watch the replay (slightly higher quality)
http://youtu.be/q1yurG8JvgA
The first replay shows all you need to see. If you watch you see a few things, at the 9 second mark of the replay you see that the ball is in the air around the receivers numbers and he's reaching for it, at this point McDonald has already lowered his shoulder and is trying to make the play. In the next second of the replay, you can clearly see that if there is any helmet to helmet contact it is glancing at best, as the Stanford's player head doesn't move, then as the shoulder pad impacts the player, you see the violent collision.
So, it's not helmet to helmet. That's pretty clear, however, is there a penalty at all? And whether or not there is one, how do we expect him to make that play? Clearly, the player was trying to make the catch as he approached, he's running at full speed and less than a single stride away when the ball was at the numbers of the receiver. I honestly don't know how else you tell him to make that play, so am I the only one that feels that way? I'd like a better explanation than someone imagining that's helmet to helmet.
Typical "it's not my fault" mentality of this day and age.
Let's see...USCw gives up 35 points in a game and a seven point lead in the last three minutes (coaching), poor execution of a questionable play call with six seconds left (again coaching)...but let's forget all that and concentrate on that last micro-second.
Perhaps they should have stopped them at least once. Man up LK, you and your staff did a crappy job...and since you're the head coach, you should take the heat.
Let's see...USCw gives up 35 points in a game and a seven point lead in the last three minutes (coaching), poor execution of a questionable play call with six seconds left (again coaching)...but let's forget all that and concentrate on that last micro-second.
Perhaps they should have stopped them at least once. Man up LK, you and your staff did a crappy job...and since you're the head coach, you should take the heat.
THIS! You and your team control what you are supposed to do and you won't have to depend on an official to win the game for you!Typical "it's not my fault" mentality of this day and age.
Let's see...USCw gives up 35 points in a game and a seven point lead in the last three minutes (coaching), poor execution of a questionable play call with six seconds left (again coaching)...but let's forget all that and concentrate on that last micro-second.
I was screaming at the tv about how stupid the play call. Figures from Kiffin though.
Kiffin is a believer in long kicks.
Remember, when he was head coach of the Raiders he called for a 76-yard field goal attempt. :tongue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXTvv4mjur0
Remember, when he was head coach of the Raiders he called for a 76-yard field goal attempt. :tongue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXTvv4mjur0
But guys, remember what he did to tennessee...
Seriously, he's an idiot, but how can you hate someone who screwed ut over so badly?
Hahahaha
I should send him Christmas cards. I'm seriously beginning to question some of you guys' hatred for ut...
Seriously, he's an idiot, but how can you hate someone who screwed ut over so badly?
Hahahaha
I should send him Christmas cards. I'm seriously beginning to question some of you guys' hatred for ut...
i think that is absolutely the right way to think about it. we should pool our money together and get kiffy a big al bobblehead.
Agree. My gripe with Kiffin is that he left TN too soon. He had TN headed toward a slow-motion train wreck.
With any luck the Vol faithful will jump the gun and fire Dooley before he has a chance to turn 'em around.
Last edited:
I had the same reaction. I'm not sure how else the defender was supposed to have played it.
