Started By
Message
Can you not challenge calls?
Posted on 10/9/16 at 4:38 pm
Posted on 10/9/16 at 4:38 pm
Smart should have used a timeout. Smart should have used a timeout to get that reviewed. His on-field management needs to improve.
2
Posted on 10/9/16 at 5:06 pm to Leon S Kennedy
quote:
Smart should have used a timeout. Smart should have used a timeout to get that reviewed. His on-field management needs to improve.
Which call are you talking about? I am guessing the interception? No. You can't challenge that. The only time I recall Kirby messing up, really, was the end of the first half....time management.
I disagree with the offensive game plan. Looked as if they didn't even try to get Eason involved.
Posted on 10/9/16 at 6:38 pm to DawgsLife
Yeah the interception. That was a huge momentum swing. At least call timeout so they can think about reviewing it.
Posted on 10/9/16 at 6:45 pm to Leon S Kennedy
quote:
Yeah the interception. That was a huge momentum swing. At least call timeout so they can think about reviewing it.
I understand what you are thinking...but if you call timeout and they decide not to....then you will need that timeout for sure later on. It's one of those things that Kirby had a split second to make a decision on. In my opinion he did the right thing by letting it go and saving the timeout, but you never know how it will end up. They could have gone down and scored and it cost us the game. But, if he calls timeout and they decide not to look at it...or if they decide it wasn't an interception and they score, we would have needed that timeout badly. Just one of those things. We got away with a couple of PI...it evens out usually.
Posted on 10/9/16 at 6:52 pm to DawgsLife
Failure to call timeout after the interception was malpractice. Eason and Smart were both huge disappointments today.
The future doesn't look promising.
The future doesn't look promising.
Posted on 10/9/16 at 8:06 pm to Whiznot
All turnovers and scoring plays are automatically reviewed. It's a matter of stopping the game to take a longer look at it. But the play was reviewed
Posted on 10/9/16 at 8:48 pm to Whiznot
quote:
The future doesn't look promising
I've been pretty critical of Smart so far and even I think you're being dramatic.
Posted on 10/9/16 at 9:10 pm to SneakyWaff1es
It's one snapshot in time but I don't see much good.
Posted on 10/9/16 at 9:27 pm to Leon S Kennedy
Smart commented on this post game. He said that he was confident that it would've been a wasted time out since a joint reception goes to the offense. If he calls a timeout it's a wasted timeout.
Personally I think it was an incomplete pass since neither had possession....so I may have taken the timeout....but it's not like he had his thumb in his mouth wondering what to do. If you believe his explanation.
Personally I think it was an incomplete pass since neither had possession....so I may have taken the timeout....but it's not like he had his thumb in his mouth wondering what to do. If you believe his explanation.
Posted on 10/9/16 at 9:34 pm to SquatchDawg
I thought it was a clear interception with the receiver taking the ball after the defender was down. We don't know what the men upstairs told Kirby though.
Posted on 10/9/16 at 10:07 pm to Whiznot
Either he didn't see it well or he was minimizing what seemed to be a tactical error.
Posted on 10/9/16 at 10:53 pm to Whiznot
quote:
I thought it was a clear interception with the receiver taking the ball after the defender was down.
That's the way it looked to me yet they moved along to the next play as if no one upstairs even bothered to look at the play.
Posted on 10/9/16 at 10:57 pm to GurleyGirl
Looked like both the receiver and defender had their hands on the ball. That is a reception unless the defender comes away with the ball (which didn't happen).
Posted on 10/9/16 at 11:17 pm to meansonny
From every televised angle, I don't think the receiver ever touched the ball with his hands until after our defender was on the ground.
Posted on 10/10/16 at 6:17 am to Whiznot
quote:
All turnovers and scoring plays are automatically reviewed. It's a matter of stopping the game to take a longer look at it. But the play was reviewed
I call BS, the receiver never touched the ball until they were on the ground. It was stripped and fell. If we didn't get the interception no one caught it. It was as obvious as the no catch at Tennessee.
Posted on 10/10/16 at 6:45 am to TrackDawg
I think a review would have at least shown it was incomplete, at best, shown the ball was ripped out after the defender made the catch and was down by contact.
Posted on 10/10/16 at 7:23 am to Whiznot
quote:
I thought it was a clear interception with the receiver taking the ball after the defender was down. We don't know what the men upstairs told Kirby though.
I actually felt the same, but like you said...no telling what the coaches upstairs told Kirby, or what the officials would have called. All in ll, I think he did the right thing by keeping the timeout.
Posted on 10/10/16 at 7:29 am to DawgsLife
There was little time left in the game and we were up by two scores. We didn't need the time out. We needed that turnover or at least 4th and long.
Posted on 10/10/16 at 8:12 am to Peter Buck
quote:
There was little time left in the game and we were up by two scores. We didn't need the time out. We needed that turnover or at least 4th and long.
Legitimate point.
Posted on 10/10/16 at 8:12 am to DawgsLife
I was at the game so I didn't see the review, but what I thought I saw was our defender catch the ball, come down, then I saw the ball on the ground. I assumed it was a dropped interception. I was completely confused when it was a reception for them. So South Carolina took it away?
Page 1 of 2
Latest Georgia News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News