yeah i agree

I also agree that in both games, State should probably have not even been in that situation at the end of the game

9/11/2006 11:10:21 AM

Quote :

"and the fact that the game was close has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they shouldve reviewed a play that close with that much impact/effect on the game"

but it has everything to do with how long we should go before we drop it

9/11/2006 11:11:33 AM

remember when Ohio State won the national title a few years ago? Most of their regular season wins were very close games...that has nothing to do with anything...review close plays...dont make excuses about how close the game was...the refs/booth are supposed to do their jobs regardless

9/11/2006 11:12:52 AM

when do you think the BC game will be?

its on my 21st birthday and i was planning to have a bunch of friends up here for a massive party

9/11/2006 11:14:01 AM

you mean like what time will it be?

9/11/2006 11:14:43 AM

yeah its still TBA

9/11/2006 11:15:06 AM

unless your car leaves a cloud of smoke when it hits 80, you are just making nc state fans look like idiots (like we always do)

9/11/2006 11:15:17 AM

if i was watching a game between two teams I didnt care about and the same situation arised, I would want a review...plain and simple...its only right...why even add replays to the college game if they dont use them when its the most important...if they reviewed the run and said he was definitely in...then fine...if there wasnt enough evidence from the review to overturn and they said he got in I dont have a problem with that...that play was the epitome of a play that needed review because it was so close and the outcome was riding on it

9/11/2006 11:16:43 AM

Quote :

"well the photographs are a helluva lot clearer"

I don't remember any case in which the outcome of a game has been changed from a "L" to a "W" based on pictures released after the game is over, so just accept it.

9/11/2006 11:17:03 AM

i accept it but my complaint isnt "we shouldnt have even been in that close of a game"

my complaint is that a play that close should have been reviewed when the outcome was at stake

9/11/2006 11:18:36 AM

And my point is that they didn't and it's too late now.

9/11/2006 11:21:36 AM

guess that thread answers my question

9/11/2006 11:22:52 AM

Upon further review, there is indisputable evidence that this comment belonged in another thread. That comment has been moved.

[Edited on September 11, 2006 at 11:54 AM. Reason : official review, call reversed.]

9/11/2006 11:36:14 AM

The play should have been reviewed. But the play never would have been overturned (because video shows him clearly in.

The photo doesn't prove anything.

9/11/2006 11:37:29 AM

Anyone know if Rick Page was the line judge on that call...or was it someone else?

9/11/2006 12:14:20 PM

ACC backs up the call made on the field...

Quote :

"RALEIGH - ACC coordinator of football officials Tommy Hunt said Sunday he is satisfied that referees made the correct call on Akron's game-winning touchdown Saturday against N.C. State. Hunt was not at the game but said officials who reviewed the three camera angles in the booth and referees on the field told him the Zips' Dennis Kennedy scored on the final play, which gave Akron a 20-17 victory. "We only had three shots of that play and no cameras on the goal line," said Hunt, who attended the Duke-Wake Forest game in Winston-Salem. "[But] our person in the booth can slow it down, re-run it, frame it, and he said it was a touchdown. Officials [also] said it was clearly a touchdown. When I saw it on ESPN, I concurred with their call." Hunt stressed that every play is reviewed, and if there is a question, officials in the booth will stop the game to review. When the game ended, referees scurried to the locker room, which Hunt said they are supposed to do. N.C. State coach Chuck Amato sprinted after them for an explanation, but he didn't have any timeouts remaining, and therefore could not submit a challenge. "If he had had a challenge, we would have looked at [the play again]," Hunt said. "Then they would have told him the same thing. They had already [reviewed it]. From what I've seen, everything was in order, handled properly.""

http://www.newsobserver.com/752/story/484957.html

so we lost the game ourselves, our own fault...now lets just drop it

9/11/2006 12:55:53 PM

its pathetic that some of you guys are bitching that we only lost to Akron b/c of a bad call at the end.

Just face that facts that our teams sucks ass this year.

9/11/2006 1:07:11 PM

I'm bitching because a play that important deserved a review and it didn't appear that it was reviewed...I would be a lot more satisfied if I saw the ref say "after reviewing the play, the call on the field stands...touchdown"

9/11/2006 1:10:25 PM

THEY ARE NOT GOING TO AWARD US WITH A WIN EVEN!!!! IF THEY DO ADMIT IT WAS A TD!!


We should be pissed at our D for giving up those 2 big drives at the end.


DROP THIS "WE WON" BS!

9/11/2006 1:12:51 PM

Quote :

"We should be pissed at our D for giving up those 2 big drives at the end. "

Don't you mean Chuck for not putting ANY pressure on Getsy and going to prevent?

Or don't you mean Chuck for not having disciplined players and giving Akron a 15-yard headstart?

9/11/2006 1:19:06 PM

sooooo, anyone ever get that pack pass link?

9/11/2006 1:30:15 PM

Quote :

"DROP THIS "WE WON" BS!"

i dont think anybody is saying that, or expecting a "reversal"

i just think from an objective standpoint, a call that close that literally determines which team wins should have been reviewed

we are 1-1 and we will never ever ever be 2-0 this season...thats perfectly fine...and thats how it is

but the play shouldve been reviewed

^i've got packpass...what link?

9/11/2006 1:31:17 PM

There is no question that Akron scored a touchdown.

9/11/2006 2:02:24 PM

Quote :

"Don't you mean Chuck for not putting ANY pressure on Getsy and going to prevent? Or don't you mean Chuck for not having disciplined players and giving Akron a 15-yard headstart?"

Prevent was the right call, but the point of the prevent is that you don't allow the deep ball which is exactly what we did, but this is where AJ Davis would have been the difference maker.

agreed on the celebration.

9/11/2006 2:05:30 PM

Quote :

" "We only had three shots of that play and no cameras on the goal line"

i'll never understand with as many calls like this as they make, why they NEVER seem to have a camera that is right on the goaline just for calls like this.

9/11/2006 2:10:05 PM

They also didn't have a camera at an angle that showed where stone was in relation to the line of scrimmage on that 4th and 5 completion to baker that set up a TD. He was well past the line of scrimmage, but the lack of a camera angle that proved it upheld the call.

9/11/2006 2:17:52 PM

shhhhhhh....we are only talking about how we got screwed.

9/11/2006 2:23:21 PM

yeah guys, if we dont talk about how we got screwed all people will love state fans

9/11/2006 2:24:15 PM

Quote :

"i'll never understand with as many calls like this as they make, why they NEVER seem to have a camera that is right on the goaline just for calls like this."

Uh.. because the line judge would be there?

9/11/2006 2:37:33 PM

When the Line Judge is Rick Page you are fucked regardless.

9/11/2006 2:46:03 PM

Tr00

9/11/2006 2:58:37 PM

Let me get this straight

You guys hated him because he got a call wrong

But now that he gets a call right you hate him even more?

[Edited on September 11, 2006 at 3:09 PM. Reason : .]

9/11/2006 3:08:53 PM

Quote :

"When the Line Judge is Rick Page you are fucked regardless."

Some of you would bitch whether it was Rick Page, Rick James, or AlliePaige there. If it wasn't him you'd find somebody else to bitch about.

9/11/2006 3:10:03 PM

I honestly think that man has an agenda outside football. I think he has a grudge against NC State....

9/11/2006 3:10:19 PM

well atleast if we dont go to a bowl game we have an excuse to bitch

9/11/2006 3:11:05 PM

Pfft, name 4 other teams on our schedule we even have a prayer of beating with the team that was on the field Saturday.

9/11/2006 3:16:16 PM

^^ youve got to be kidding. bitch about about not "earning" a bowl appearance because of a single bad call?

ntm bowl games don't matter anyway

9/11/2006 3:39:20 PM

i was being facetious if that counts as kidding

9/11/2006 3:41:19 PM

Quote :

"Just face that facts that our teams sucks ass this year."

9/11/2006 3:48:31 PM

Updated Article on newsobserver.com

actually shows the picture, i hope they print that tommorrow.

9/11/2006 4:11:20 PM

THAT WILL SHOW THEM!!!

9/11/2006 4:11:56 PM

Quote :

"i was being facetious if that counts as kidding"

nope, cause that is too big of a word to be using on here

9/11/2006 5:44:21 PM

Quote :

""Just face that facts that our teams sucks ass this year.""

9/11/2006 5:47:20 PM

lock this thread in hopes that folks will start to let this go

9/11/2006 5:57:31 PM

We lost, only thing Treetwista was trying to say is that the play should have been reviewed again.


Assuming they review every play, they needed more time to review 2 or 3 other plays in the game....why should this play....one that had a much more dramatic effect on the outcome...be any different?


I would have been satisfied if they had done an official review and upheld the call. The fact that they didnt take more time to review this play is what most of us are bitching about.

9/11/2006 6:10:50 PM

^exactly. What some of you don't seem to understand is that there are TWO points being made here, both ENTIRELY SEPARATE from one another:

1. Our team played like shit, there's no reason we should have let Akron come close to beating us like that.

Now, take a second to let that thought get out of your head.....Go on, I know it's tough.

Okay, here's #2. The call should have been reviewed. Period.

9/11/2006 6:26:07 PM

You guys know that the refs on the field don't review calls, right?

The guys in the booth do and in looking at the play on their monitors they decided it wasn't close enough to stop the game (which was already over) to review.

Which is the proper call, because he was clearly in.

9/11/2006 6:41:05 PM

i don't understand how it was clearly in

[Edited on September 11, 2006 at 7:00 PM. Reason : ]

9/11/2006 6:59:38 PM

cause somebody said they saw it on tv and it was clear. that should be proof enough for you.

9/11/2006 7:16:53 PM

being there > tv

9/11/2006 7:17:36 PM