Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: TerpsInsider and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Redskins and Sports  |  RSS

Poll: Which call was worse in the Maryland-FIU game?

Don Brown, Maryland’s defensive coordinator, wanted to make clear his thoughts on the personal foul penalty called on Terrapins defensive back Kenny Tate in the first quarter of Saturday's 42-28 win over Florida International. On second and 10 from the Maryland 25, FIU quarterback Wes Carroll threw incomplete down field to Jon Faucher. Tate collided with Faucher to break up the pass. Some of Tate’s helmet may have touched Faucher’s upper chest or arm area; it was unclear on replay. Tate was flagged, FIU got a first down at the Maryland 12 and eventually scored a touchdown.

“That call is atrocious,” Brown said. “Atrocious. I’m disappointed with it. And you negate a great play by a guy who is doing things the right way.”

But there was another controversial call. In the second quarter, Maryland running back Da'Rel Scott ran 56 yards for a touchdown and was assessed an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty for excessive celebration.

Personally, I thought the Scott penalty was worse, but it was not as costly for the Terrapins.

By Eric Prisbell  | September 29, 2010; 11:36 AM ET
Categories:  Football  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Maryland's defense focuses on positives
Next: Franklin did not give O'Brien a 'winning grade' after FIU game

Comments

The Scott penalty was pretty attrocious, but is a fact of life in college football these days, just ask SEC coaches.

However, the Tate penalty was an obvious reaction by the back judge to the FIU receiver's helmet popping off. I could see how the official making that call could have thought it was helmet to helmet, but the crew needs to work together, and the side judges and umpire had perfect views of that play to see that it was just a solid hit.

Posted by: Russtinator | September 29, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

I think the most logical explanation is that the bartender at Buffalo Wild Wings pressed the button to signal the officials to keep the game close.

I keep waiting for a sprinkler-head to pop up and trip Tony Logan on his way to the end zone.

Posted by: mydogsnameisdixon | September 29, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

I was watching with the sound off, as I do, and on both plays, I really wondered what game the freaking officials were working -

Posted by: JohnDinHouston | September 29, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Both penalties were awful calls. If anyone wants to see how officiating should be handled, watch Outside the Lines on ESPN. They focused on the commissioner of the Big 12 Basketball Officials and he had some great advice and how they don't want to draw attention to themselves. I know that it is basketball but the concepts of calling the game the right way and not drawing attention are the keys. Officials should not be affecting games.

And I go back to the following week against WVU. We still would have lost the game but it may have been a little bit different story in my opinion. Ronnie Tyler's catch and fumble towards the end of the first half and the the screen play when Moten intercepted the ball and then fumbled but they called in incomplete. The play were not overturned because of the way the officials called them on the field which hurt us and both calls were against us again.

I don't know how we keep getting into situation with these ridiculous calls but it needs to stop and the officials need to use better judgement. I was a basketball official for a number of years and when you call intentional or technical fouls based on contact with players, it is a judgement call because you can not read their minds and you have to interpret the way the play happened.

Posted by: DiehardTerp | September 29, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company