SIAP - Video - 3yr old girl on the 1st down measurement

Submitted by superstringer on January 4th, 2013 at 1:09 PM

If you havent seen this, it's worth the 60 seconds it takes to watch the video.  Someone recorded his 3 yr old daughter analyzing the measurement that the refs made in the bowl game.  The girl basically agrees with Spurrier, although, she's a lot more cute about it.

 

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_c4#/video/us/2013/01/03/3-year-old-gamecock-fan.cnn

Comments

PB-J Time

January 4th, 2013 at 1:23 PM ^

The one thing I must say (even though I would badly have wanted M to pull it out), is that at least with SCarolina winning the game that boneheaded call was made moot. 

(Yes them winning and Clowney sending Smith's helmet back to the endzone)

goblueram

January 4th, 2013 at 1:39 PM ^

I don't think making a good play against your opponent really nullifies an unfair call from a neutral referee.  Who knows what would have happened?  Maybe SC would have gotten the ball and scored, kicked off to Michigan, and then forced the turnover.

It was a bad call, and of course a bad call affects the game, but I don't think we can't really know the extent of that effect (or call it moot). 

M-Wolverine

January 4th, 2013 at 1:47 PM ^

All in all, it negated one whole play. In fact, the sequence was to their advantage.  If we just turn it over it's actually deeper than where they recovered it after the tackle behind the line of scrimmage. So they were closer to scoring than if we had just turned it over. Not to mention all the momentum and excitement from not only being "jobbed", but the massive play after.

I'm not sure how you can say after a whole drive that the situation would be the same (us trailing vs. leading with a 1st down) that everything would happen the same. That's just creating an entirely new storyline, not altering just one play. I could say if the refs marked the ball "correctly" and had the ball an inch more forward then there's no controversy, SC doesn't get fired up, we don't turn it over, drive down and score and win the game easily. But that's creating my own "what if" storyline. It has nothing to do with the actual outcome. 

How many bad calls do you really still think about in games you won?  And due to the sequence of events this may have been the most inconsequential bad call I've ever seen.

Bosch

January 4th, 2013 at 3:40 PM ^

How many bad calls do you really still think about in games you won?

If you are the average fan, you rarely remember such a play.  If it's brought up, you might even crack a smile about it.

If you are a State fan, you carry on about it excessively.

Exhibit A.....  The Pylon TD.  If you didn't know better, you might think that MSU lost that game by the way they carry on over that one play.  Is there another fan base that constantly complains that they didn't win by as much as they should have?

 

snarling wolverine

January 4th, 2013 at 2:06 PM ^

I don't see the point of all your hypotheticals.  It was a bad call, yes, and denied SCar the ball. But they got it (in slightly better field position, no less) on the very next play.  From that point onward, that call had no effect on the game.  They did not need to go on to win the game for it to become moot; it already was.

 

jtmc33

January 4th, 2013 at 1:26 PM ^

For some reason I can picture Bill Snyder making the same exact argument, in the same exact way, if that would have happened to K-State

2Blue4You

January 4th, 2013 at 1:33 PM ^

I wish they would have got the call right.  That way Vincent Smith would still have his head attached, the momentum shift would not have been as drastic (although stopping a fake punt would have been big for SC), and hopefully we could have won the game and the legitimate gripes would not have been so obvious.  

M-Wolverine

January 4th, 2013 at 1:40 PM ^

How big a deal we make, and how much hinges on, the ref just basically taking a "guess" on where the ball ended up, picking it up, moving it to where he thought it was, and sometimes even moving it to another line on the field to mark it? Games, careers, millions of dollars, and outrage and controversy are all based on a guy making a split second estimation sometimes yards and yards away.

Yet we all care about where he finally put it and how it measures, rather than caring a lick about how it got put there in the first place.

wildbackdunesman

January 4th, 2013 at 2:06 PM ^

You are so correct.  I worked on a chain gang for a short time and it is an inexact science.  I don't think the average football fan knows just how much estimation is used in the process...just where the ball got to...lining up the chain on a 1st down with a ball in the middle of the field....and the yardline clip that you attach to the chain - for lining up on the field for measurements - which never is in "perfect" placement if it comes down to an inch or less.  Throughout every game I would notice a few inches lost or gained here or there based on my view on the sidelines and where the marker was attached to the chain.

In the ref's defense the camera wasn't dead on perpendicular either and all the ball has to do is be flush with the front of the pole...not saying the ref got it right...but I doubt he was out to get SC and he had the best view.

Smash Lampjaw

January 4th, 2013 at 3:13 PM ^

Now I think that the official making the call did not agree with the spot, and had already made up his mind about the first down. If I recall, I think he started to make the 1st down motion once or twice earlier, before the chain was stretched. Also, the guy holding the pole seemed to lean it back over the ball to make it look better. There were a few times this bowl season where I noticed officials on each end of plays spotting the balls in different locations. Maybe the guy who placed the ball saw it short, while the guy making the call had already decided first down and did not even want the measurement. Captain Obvious, I suppose.

jtmc33

January 4th, 2013 at 4:50 PM ^

Northerners don't have accents.   It's everybody else that talks funny.

Am I right, you guys?  I mean, alls I'm saying is that we sound better than everyone else.

Who wants a pop?  I'm buying.

Paps

January 4th, 2013 at 5:05 PM ^

This is the stuff that pisses me off. I was born and raised in the south. Yet I'm still a Michigan fan. When we come up for a football game every year, people look at us like we have two heads because of the southern accent. These are the people that really piss me off and give northerners a bad name down here.

Jonesy

January 4th, 2013 at 7:02 PM ^

Whaaat?  The accent made it, it was adorable.  I loved her obsession with the ref's shoes and socks, i'm not sure why she thought those were relevant.  As for accents, if you live in the midwest, you have an accent that makes you sound funny too, except its not cute on babies and cute girls like a southern one is.  FYI, I'm from california so I don't have an accent and I know its true because I sound like the people on TV, so there.

chewieblue

January 4th, 2013 at 4:15 PM ^

I don't hear many people who state the obvious.... THE CAMERA IS AT LEAST FIVE YARDS BEHIND THE BALL !!!!! Tirico sounds like an idiot, and all of America takes anything an ESPN employee says as fact. Just like Fitz's touchdown that was taken away last year against Ohio, the camera has to be in line with the line of sight to be able to even judge it correctly. This infuriates me time and again and I am amazed that no announcer ever mentions it.

JHendo

January 4th, 2013 at 5:09 PM ^

That was a waste of time.  Wasn't funny, wasn't particularly cute, and clearly didn't provide any hidden insight.  I get why CNN would waste space with this unnecessary video, but I'd expect better here.