Surprised we got our share of calls
- Thread starter gary2
- Start date
Pitt most certainly did receive their fair share of officiating calls in the game vs Clemson. Without them, I doubt they would have a chance to win.
Bad calls kept our last 2 scoring drives alive when they were otherwise dead. . The call on Boulware was atrocious. The phantom D holding call was equally ridiculous, and huge. We'll take it and run. Huge program win.
The officiating was fair... They called the same things both ways... It's all you can ask.
Which is actually true most t every game, except to the homers here in
Which is actually true most t every game, except to the homers here in
Last edited:
Yep, all things being said I think we were fortunate with the officiating, which as usual was below average.
Agree with the OP. Nice to see the opposing coach going ape crap for a change.
We continue to get called for phantom pass interference, but the handsy way we play the WRs encourages those calls.
Where we've been missing the boat is we don't throw the ball down field enough to get the pass interference calls, and when we do, NP often doesn't put the ball in a good enough spot to induce the pass interference. Yesterday we got one or two pass interference calls, and they were good calls.
Go Pitt.
We continue to get called for phantom pass interference, but the handsy way we play the WRs encourages those calls.
Where we've been missing the boat is we don't throw the ball down field enough to get the pass interference calls, and when we do, NP often doesn't put the ball in a good enough spot to induce the pass interference. Yesterday we got one or two pass interference calls, and they were good calls.
Go Pitt.
Narduzzi looked like the seasoned coach talking with refs and Dabo did not. Might have paid off. Having said that, our defensive lineman were literally tackled 15 times without a call for holding. It happens every game to every team but yesterday was above average.
Our defensive backs are not great but they also get shoved,punched,thrown more than the average unit with any calls.
I think that Narduzzi's blow up with the refs at the VT game had a direct influence on this game. The bad calls were evenly distributed today which has not been the case with most ACC games when a legacy member is playing a relative newbie. This bias of favoring the original ACC teams is evident in both basketball and football. So everyone who was wailing at Narduzzi's behavior was short sighted. Coach had a longer view and the results are beginning to show.
Do you think we were called for a lot of "phantom" PI in the VT game? Because what I saw in that game was our guys holding, grabbing, tugging, arm-barring, and finding other more creative ways to physically interfere with the VT receivers on nearly every play. Point being, there's nothing phantom about our PI. The only variable is how it's being called, and how consistent the officials are in calling it.
I seriously doubt they had the actual view on the replay to overturn Whiteheads TD, but I get why they gave it back to Clemson.
Clemson had a couple calls go their way, but OUTSIDE of the reversal, they absolutely have grounds to feel as though they got the sort end of the stick.
That said, I agree with most, given how many times Pitt has seen the short end of the stick by refs leaning to the established ACC programs, they deserved it.
Clemson had a couple calls go their way, but OUTSIDE of the reversal, they absolutely have grounds to feel as though they got the sort end of the stick.
That said, I agree with most, given how many times Pitt has seen the short end of the stick by refs leaning to the established ACC programs, they deserved it.
Lol. We both know what you'd think of that call had it gone against Pitt in a critical situation instead of Clemson.
That said, we have been down a long time and we deserve some breaks to go our way, and they did yesterday. It was a huge win for the program and there are no asterisks. Hopefully it's a springboard for the whole program going forward.
Nobody likes an unnecessary roughness penalty in critical situations, but the refs know when they blow the whistle and the play is then dead. Had he not tackled him to the ground it doesn't get called.
I guarantee, that exact situation happens in the white out game against OSU, and it was PSU making the 100 yard return, that call doesn't get reversed.
Agree with you on the Whitehead play replay. Overhead view didn't show ball over goal line and Whitehead blocked the other view. Seemed like he got in but no definitive evidence in my view.
Go Pitt
Our DBs have to play smarter. Lewis got called for pass interference on a 3rd and 26, and that should never happen. Make him catch the damn ball to get a first down, don't just give it to him, which is what Lewis did. He was out of position and just threw his arms straight into the receiver for an obvious PI call. Its the kind of play you might make in the end zone on a long pass to stop a score, conceding the 15 yard penalty. Doing that on 3rd and 26 is inexcusable, especially for a senior.
I'm fairly confident the rule is any part of the football touches the end zone line ,. Not needing to cross the line, it's a touchdown.
That being said, the tip crossed the line before wirginis made contact.
So the play is over at that point.
I give the refs credit for allowing the play to continue, just in case. They gave Pitt the benefit of the doubt.
That being said, the tip crossed the line before wirginis made contact.
So the play is over at that point.
I give the refs credit for allowing the play to continue, just in case. They gave Pitt the benefit of the doubt.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Recruiting Article Cass Tech star Marcus Jennings sets Pitt official visit
- Latest: Forbes Ave Panther
-
