What was all that about?FWIW, it was really blatant in Nebraska's fourth quarter challenge of a referee spot of the football which didn't give us a first down late in the game.
The Huskervision replay showed that the ball was A GOOD HALF-YARD SHORT of where the refs had spotted it. Was it a first down? It was super-close either way. But since the refs had originally called it short, the official call stood.
But here's the mind-boggling part: Replay clearly showed the actual spot was less than an inch (at best) either way. Yet after Nebraska's challenge, the refs returned the ball to their original spot, plus the 5-yard illegal procedure penalty.
What was THAT all about??!? If you're not going to correct an obvious spotting error, why even have replay?
The refs have really made some head scathing decisions that went against us all season. However we've had more calls go our way than in the past. Also we need to stop leaving the game in the hands of the refs. We need to execute, have better play calling, etc. Then the refs decisions at the end of games will be nullified.What was all that about?
How about?
-a 60 yard field goal attempt that was so botched I can't even begin to explain it.
-A field goal attempt by easily your second best placekicker that was closer to Havelock than the uprights.
- Purdy fumbling unmolested at least twice due to carrying the ball like a dang fool. I like Purdy's intensity but for a team that has been as foolish as this one with turnovers, its inconceivable we wouldn't teach and insist on better than that.
There are several areas to question the reffing but they fail in comparison to the things NU can control. We bite out own tail so often we've developed a taste for it.
Good read
A lot of writers get inspiration from forums like BHF or XGood read
But I think he is plagiarizing BHF