PonyFans.com

What I saw was the Rice player go to the ground at 0:04, and I heard the whistle blown at 0:02 for the time-out. NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.

My question is this: when Rice was called for holding and moved back 10 yards the clock started again, which gave Rice another 25 seconds to run off the clock. We had a time-out at that point. Why didn't we use it? I'm not sure Rice still wouldn't have been able to run the clock down to 0:01 but you've gotta at least give your team a chance at getting the ball back, no matter how remote the chance.

The side judge on the Rice sideline was blowing his whistle and signalling stop the clock as he ran in toward the middle of the field.

If the clock is only reviewable in conjunction with another reviewable call, why not review the spot and while he's at it, he can review the clock. Perhaps they placed the ball an inch or two too close or the guy's knees may have touched a yard or two further back. That's what a really smart coach would do.

EastStang wrote:If the clock is only reviewable in conjunction with another reviewable call, why not review the spot and while he's at it, he can review the clock. Perhaps they placed the ball an inch or two too close or the guy's knees may have touched a yard or two further back. That's what a really smart coach would do.

My impression from the way it reads is that for instance if a pass was completed and the clock kept running, and then a review showed it was incomplete, they would check to see what the clock read at the time of incompletion and reset it and stop it. I do not interpret that they could say, "since we are reviewing for this reason let's look and see what the clock did". In other words, even if they checked the spot, the clock review would not have been allowed. Once they called the clock stopped at 1 second it was nonreviewable, thus nonchangeable.

The "one-second call" would be a non-issue if the refs had run the clock when they should have when Rice was near the 50 yard line. They gave Rice forward motion to give them the first down, but also stopped the clock for about 23 seconds.
Even with that though, I'm not sure we would have won. We really should have done a better job at keeping the score out of reach in the 4th.

Insane_Pony_Posse wrote:am I paranoid?
is there any question if the roles were reversed
the refs do not put time back on the clock
and let smu kick the winning field goal

I was watching the sideline very closely (one of the Rice coaches is a former TCU teammate of mine) and it looked like they were signaling for the TO when the RB was tackled with at least 1 second - maybe 2 - left on the clock. I thought it was the right call and it wasn't really that close.

Rice won, just as many other teams have beat us late in the game...let's get all the bad karma out this year, maybe it will finally turn in our favor next year.

The Rice's coaches were calling for a timeout with three seconds left. The problem was the player wasn't down yet. He stayed on his feet for longer than the refs realized, that was the true mistake.

Does it really matter? We got like a million holding calls to Rice's one.

I nailed it again. I said we would be worn out in the 4th and we were.

UCF is going to be so far ahead by the 4th it won't matter anyway.

One more home game. Sweet.