Unbelievable...

[bengalcub]

Kramer cannot comment on officiating. If he did he could be suspended from coaching the next game. The Big Sky Conference does not tolerate coaches coaches going after officials on the field or in the media. Kramer did what he has been told to do. Not comment.

I see head coaches all of the time yelling out to the officials during games on calls or missed calls. I do not see them getting kicked out of games are suspended unless they go crazy. I do see a penalty for un sportsmen like conduct. I have to think Kramer felt the call was correct otherwise he would have said something to the officials during the time of the call especially with the call deciding the game in OT. You cannot fear a suspension as a head coach if you feel the call was incorrect. You stand up for your team, assistants, and fans.

Who cares if he thought it was correct or not? The game is in the books as a loss. Nothing you say is going to change the outcome. Shit if you don't care about suspensions--get three or four a season just so you can say "I stood up for the team"...sometimes I feel like I am listening to Ratt blare loud in my head when I read your post. Round and Round...Round and Round...somebody shoot me.

 

[up for the challenge]

Your topic Bengalcub so why the harsh remarks when posters give their opinion..You can stop protecting Kramer all of the time as he is a big boy

 

[bengalcub]

Not protecting Kramer at all...

How do you like this? I think Kramer has made some silly decisions with regards to not recruiting scholarship punters and kickers. I hate the roll punt--it has did way more harm than good. Punt the freaking ball 45 yards for a fair catch. Fake punt out of a traditional set if you want. The roll punt has not helped at all with regards being able to fake punts and extend drives.

No reliable FG kicker? As someone said--you get what you pay for. Inexcusable to not dominate in the kicking game when you play in a Dome five to six times a year. Idaho State is about all American Punters and Kickers and for that matter long-snappers.

Is that enough for you or did I stroke Kramer too much in this little rant.

Now back to you and how I try to protect you...from yourself. You make some good points every once in a millennium. You lose credit when you post the same redundant circular messages over and over. Please share your opinion--but no need to hijack threads or make multiple threads...no need to bump a topic to get your topic more looks and no need to antagonize those that have went silent.

Lastly, if you are going to war with me on a message board...bring a little more than the "I am a Kramer lover and protector" that will ban you if you disagree with me drivel...its weak at best.

 

[up for the challenge]

You can ban posters for your harsh comments toward them or because you do not like their comments? Please ban me or maybe you should fire yourself first as nobody wants a manager that is that controlling for football conversations. You sound like a child sometimes - hilarious

 

[FormerISUSID]

BengalCub makes one great point....one he's made before. You have to have a scholarship kicker and punter at ISU, because you play in a dome for sometimes seven games....you need that weapon, especially if you aren't as good as the other team.

Why was UNM so good at special teams when I was there....Eddie Johnson, Jaret Johnson, Jon Vanderweilen. Holy crap...Vanderweilen sat for THREE SEASONS and was a 46-yard per punt guy. Pete Garces hit 11 50-yard field goals, and one was a 60-yarder. We had a special teams All-American for something like seven straight years.

You have to rectify that situation. Those are FREE POINTS.

Former ISU SID

 

[sasquatch]

You can ban posters for your harsh comments toward them or because you do not like their comments? Please ban me or maybe you should fire yourself first as nobody wants a manager that is that controlling for football conversations. You sound like a child sometimes - hilarious

Re-read his comment. He's not threatening to ban you, he's saying don't add to the drivel like some do on here that bash him by accusing him of banning members.

It goes both ways. You know the saying, opinions are like *censored*, everybody has one. Just because somebody doesn't believe in yours doesn't mean you have to bash them or repeat the same topic, over and over and over and over and over and over.

 

[up for the challenge]

BengalCub makes one great point....one he's made before. You have to have a scholarship kicker and punter at ISU, because you play in a dome for sometimes seven games....you need that weapon, especially if you aren't as good as the other team.

Why was UNM so good at special teams when I was there....Eddie Johnson, Jaret Johnson, Jon Vanderweilen. Holy crap...Vanderweilen sat for THREE SEASONS and was a 46-yard per punt guy. Pete Garces hit 11 50-yard field goals, and one was a 60-yarder. We had a special teams All-American for something like seven straight years.

You have to rectify that situation. Those are FREE POINTS.

Former ISU SID

You and Bengalcub are not the only ones that have made that suggestion as many posters including myself have been wanting to see a full scholarship kicker/ field goal kicker and punter for years. Kramer has said many times he will never give a full scholarship to kickers. He must be content with the Grandma Style punters and kickers. We also need a Tavoy Moore type of kick off returner and punt returner in my opinion that brings a threat and excitement to the game. Again, Kramer is content with fair catching the ball after punts. Can you say Boring? It is all about recruiting but it would appear that Kramer does not believe in giving these type of specialist full scholarships so the beat goes on.

 

[FormerISUSID]

Somehow this didn't post but thank you guys for the kind words. There are definitely times when I miss the ol' place...but I've been to one NIT and three NCAA Tournaments at New Mexico, and now I'm one win away from my first postseason/Bowl berth in 18 football seasons. I'm pretty happy in the Land of Enchantment....

Former ISU SID

 

[votb]

Per an NCAA rule change, it would appear that the officials made a correct call on the final play of Saturday's game against Montana. Before the start of the 2014 season, the NCAA changed the rules regarding what constitutes a fumble recovery. Because of numerous situations where still camera shots appear to show a player in possession of a loose ball while lying on the ground for at least a split second, the fumble recovery rule was changed to mirror the rules for a completed pass. A player must have continuous control of the ball and come to a complete stop on the ground for the play to be blown dead. The video replay apparently did not show anything meeting that criteria. And since there was no "continuous control" of the ball, a fumble recovery had not happened yet and the officials could not construe that when the ball was flipped into the air it was being "controlled". If the fumble was not legally "recovered", the ball could not have technically been "controlled", and the flip towards the end zone could not be ruled a "forward lateral", but rather still a loose ball.

I don't like it, but I got that from an official who did not work the game, yet watched the video then quoted the rules.

 

[up for the challenge]

Per an NCAA rule change, it would appear that the officials made a correct call on the final play of Saturday's game against Montana. Before the start of the 2014 season, the NCAA changed the rules regarding what constitutes a fumble recovery. Because of numerous situations where still camera shots appear to show a player in possession of a loose ball while lying on the ground for at least a split second, the fumble recovery rule was changed to mirror the rules for a completed pass. A player must have continuous control of the ball and come to a complete stop on the ground for the play to be blown dead. The video replay apparently did not show anything meeting that criteria. And since there was no "continuous control" of the ball, a fumble recovery had not happened yet and the officials could not construe that when the ball was flipped into the air it was being "controlled". If the fumble was not legally "recovered", the ball could not have technically been "controlled", and the flip towards the end zone could not be ruled a "forward lateral", but rather still a loose ball.

I don't like it, but I got that from an official who did not work the game, yet watched the video then quoted the rules.

Thanks votb for the ruling clarification. That is the way I saw it even though it was a close call. I enjoy listening to your broadcasts.

 

[BengalBannMan]

Fair description of what happened VOTB. Bad rule though. I get why the needed to make it a rule, but that leaves the team open to continually batting at, and sliding into the ball in a direction that would benefit them. I feel that's what #18 did while fighting Tanner for the ball. But thanks for posting the rule. LOVE THE INFORMATION AND CHATTER.
Go Bengals. Beat the Bobcats!

 

[isusuperfan]

So what was the reasoning for overturning the fumble recovery for a TD? I didn't see indisputable evidence for it to be overturned.

 

[BengalBannMan]

So what was the reasoning for overturning the fumble recovery for a TD? I didn't see indisputable evidence for it to be overturned.

I haven't seen that replay isusuperfan. Any have that? Was that 3rd quarter?

 

[isusuperfan]

So what was the reasoning for overturning the fumble recovery for a TD? I didn't see indisputable evidence for it to be overturned.

I haven't seen that replay isusuperfan. Any have that? Was that 3rd quarter?

Yeah when we forced the fumble and Kurt Karstetter (#48) ran it back for the TD. From all the replays I saw on my phone watching the game, it didn't seem like there was enough "indisputable" evidence to overturn the call in favor of giving Montana 2nd and 11 instead of our fumble recovery.