Goochland 13 Buckingham 7 overtime
- Thread starter BCKnights
- Start date
They had one against KW in the playoffs that is probably one of the most heartbreaking losses in KW history. Both teams came in undefeated. Last play of the game, they literally stopped us at the 3 inch line.
Knights got screwed in overtime big time. After stopping Goochland on their 1st possession in overtime the Knights QB stucked the ball clearly across the goaline on 3rd down and goal from the 1 and the ball was smacked backwards. Td game over and they ruled it a fumble. Tough ome to swallow here.
Not sure how to put the Friday night endzone clip on so someone more technologically advanced do it! If you’re at the 6 inch line and your 6 foot+ QB stretches his long arms over the pile it’s a TD! Goal line is treated as a plane that goes straight up!
It's hard to tell with the straight on video, but @knightfan64 you are correct on the rule.
I will say though, just going off of his size wont give the answer. The ball is a 6 inch line, then you have the center, then the QB.
There is only 2 possible reasons why they would call no TD, either he didn't get to the goal line, or he started to lose it before he got there.
Either way a really tough way to lose a game that could end up with implications for hosting playoff games
I will say though, just going off of his size wont give the answer. The ball is a 6 inch line, then you have the center, then the QB.
There is only 2 possible reasons why they would call no TD, either he didn't get to the goal line, or he started to lose it before he got there.
Either way a really tough way to lose a game that could end up with implications for hosting playoff games
If it’s the play where he jumped up and stuck the ball straight out, it looked like he may have broken the plain. Looked like a close call on the sneak by Goochland too and didn’t look much different from the angle. Anyone have a picture or video from the goal line? I agree that’s a tough loss to take based on the video.
The play before I was messing with one of Goochland's coaches at the goaline saying he got in and he said he had a better angle. So on the next play when the QB reached over the plain I asked him about that angle and he said he scored but I'll take it. He stuck that ball a foot over the plane. On another note the Knights allowed it to get to that point. They left 21 points on the field in the 1st half.
If Goochland QB had awareness, they would've put up 21 in the 4th alone... Buckingham gave them the middle of the field for majority of the night..
That sneak on Buckingham seemed as if it was just a 50/50 call
That sneak on Buckingham seemed as if it was just a 50/50 call
I feel ya on the 50/50 showtime but after the years of all 50/50 calls favoring the Bulldogs you figure at least one 50/50 would go our way sometime?
[QUOTE="Gunz41, post: 355258, member:
There is only 2 possible reasons why they would call no TD, either he didn't get to the goal line, or he started to lose it before he got there.QUOTE]
There's a 3rd possible reason. He saw the ball cross the plain and still chose with intent, not to call it a touchdown. To assume all officials are 100 percent infallible and only make a bad call due to an accident or not seeing the play clearly is faulty. We are ok knowing that almost all cops, fireman, paramedics, Doctors, nurses, and theologians are good people and try to do the right thing, but there are a small few who chose to not do the right thing. Officials are not exempt. We mostly know and accept the fact that a small portion of police officers are bad. Same with Doctors and Judges and most all professions, but we somehow have it in our mind that a High School Official is infallible. That assumption of infallibility toward officials is a faulty assumption.
I don't know what the right call was in the BC game or whether it was good, not the right call or whatever. I'm just saying that if the wrong call was made, it wasn't automatically an accident (most likely it would definitely be accidental if the wrong call) but it is possible that it was intentional, on purpose.
2 percent of the US male population meet the criteria for a diagnosis of psychopathy. These people mostly don't stack bodies in the back yard and only 1 in 5,000 psychopaths kill someone in their lifetime. Many choose professions of power and control such as CEOs, Surgeons, Police Officers, Attorneys, Judges, and yes, even officiating. They are often successful in work. Statistically 1 in every 50 officials are actually psychopaths and if a male is in a profession involving power or control, the FBI estimates 3 in 100 males are psychopaths in these areas. If true, nearly 1 in 30-33 officials are actually people with no problems being dishonest, doing the wrong thing, or lying because that's what psychopathy is. These few people, very few, but they are out there do not feel guilty or empathy like we do, and they are in all walks of life, even a tiny portion of those guys wearing stripes on the football field.
There is only 2 possible reasons why they would call no TD, either he didn't get to the goal line, or he started to lose it before he got there.QUOTE]
There's a 3rd possible reason. He saw the ball cross the plain and still chose with intent, not to call it a touchdown. To assume all officials are 100 percent infallible and only make a bad call due to an accident or not seeing the play clearly is faulty. We are ok knowing that almost all cops, fireman, paramedics, Doctors, nurses, and theologians are good people and try to do the right thing, but there are a small few who chose to not do the right thing. Officials are not exempt. We mostly know and accept the fact that a small portion of police officers are bad. Same with Doctors and Judges and most all professions, but we somehow have it in our mind that a High School Official is infallible. That assumption of infallibility toward officials is a faulty assumption.
I don't know what the right call was in the BC game or whether it was good, not the right call or whatever. I'm just saying that if the wrong call was made, it wasn't automatically an accident (most likely it would definitely be accidental if the wrong call) but it is possible that it was intentional, on purpose.
2 percent of the US male population meet the criteria for a diagnosis of psychopathy. These people mostly don't stack bodies in the back yard and only 1 in 5,000 psychopaths kill someone in their lifetime. Many choose professions of power and control such as CEOs, Surgeons, Police Officers, Attorneys, Judges, and yes, even officiating. They are often successful in work. Statistically 1 in every 50 officials are actually psychopaths and if a male is in a profession involving power or control, the FBI estimates 3 in 100 males are psychopaths in these areas. If true, nearly 1 in 30-33 officials are actually people with no problems being dishonest, doing the wrong thing, or lying because that's what psychopathy is. These few people, very few, but they are out there do not feel guilty or empathy like we do, and they are in all walks of life, even a tiny portion of those guys wearing stripes on the football field.
Last edited:
Yes, obviously there is that minuscule chance. But it sounds like it was this one call, so I am not going to even hint at that in a post.
For one, its almost impossible to prove intent, and a high school football game outcome is A LOT different than the things you brought up.
Not once did I say that officials are infallible. Very well could have been a wrong call, but to get into % of psychopathy seems a bit much
3 percent is what the FBI says. That ain't minuscule. That 1 in 33. About the call, it might have been the correct call. It might have not been. I agree, small chance if the wrong call that it was intentional, but out of the two possibilities you gave, I gave you a third one. I also never wrote about your thoughts on infallibility. I don't know what they are. I do know what many people to think. They think many officials are infallible and that there is just no way that any official could possibly make the wrong call on purpose. As to whether intent can be proven in officiating does not mean that every call made is with the right intent.
I never said that the % of psychopathy was minuscule, but that the chance of the wrong call being made on purpose would be.
People tend to think that calls are made on purpose against them, when in reality a small % of those actually are. I am sure that it happens, but I really see no reason to bring it up. All it really does is brings something up just to say something that rarely happens. I don't see the need. I certainly don't see the need for negative things to be brought up for every subject (not saying you, but for everything it seems like now a days).
So if you thought I was saying in my initial post that there was zero chance that it was done on purpose, and that it has never happened in history then I apologize. I just don't feel that every conceivable thing has to be brought up, some things are known without needing to be spoken
Gunz41, I hear ya man and agree. Sorry if I misunderstand you. Hey man, we see it all the time in every sport at every level, a 50-50 call that goes against fans of one team feels like the refs are out to get em. Human nature I guess. I brought up the psychopathy stuff because in my former line of work, I was a Roanoke City Detective (Criminal Investigations) for 23 years. I'm retired now after being shot by a psychopath. My line of work, years of training with criminologists, psychologist, psychiatrists, and FBI instructors in the field drilled me on psychopathy. I'm well versed in it.....literally unfortunately. These people are railroad workers, school teachers, attorneys, Doctors, Pastors, Police officers and janitors and homeless people, super rich, middle class that are of any race or nationality. They are amongst us in all walks of life and based on my past everyday life, I just can't discount em knowing that 3 in 100 is a well studied and researched stat and that has and always has scared the hell out of me.
If there were 160 or so games in VA this weekend and 5 officials per game, that's 800 officials working in VA this weekend. That means that 24 officials on the field in VA somewhere across/ spreaded out the state would statistically meet the criteria for psychopathy. That's all I'm saying. These people are out there. I agree with you certainly, most missed calls, well not just most, but the overwhelming portion of missed calls are accidents. Also, a psychopath isn't going to automatically be dishonest with each and every call either. Many could go a season without any intentional bad call, but if you had one that for some reason or another, wants one team to win, he could and will be a problem because by their very nature, they don't have the ability to be objective and live up to the moral code that officials hold to. They can't do this in their lives, their marriages, with their family members or with any substantial obligation, and for them, making a dishonest call in a football game is no different than filling up the gas tank in the truck or showering in the morning.
Sorry for my rant on psychopathy. It's a bit personal for me. I agree with you. Not just officals, buy all professionals and people in general try to do right, but there are a very very small few that don't have the capability due to the way their brain is designed at birth. Officiating is tough. We certainly need more of them.
I gotta say very informative posts, also had no clue we were going go down that rabbit hole but were here now! Lol
I haven't read all these posts on this thread, but here's one that had me scratching and shaking my head from Saturday.
Essex had the ball at the one. RB pushes forward in a pile of humanity. He reaches out and a KW player apparently took the ball out of his hands. What was crazy to me was that the officials ruled it a touchback. To me if that's what they came up with it should've been an Essex TD or a safety.
Essex had the ball at the one. RB pushes forward in a pile of humanity. He reaches out and a KW player apparently took the ball out of his hands. What was crazy to me was that the officials ruled it a touchback. To me if that's what they came up with it should've been an Essex TD or a safety.
Well if they ruled it was fumbled before he crossed and recovered in endzone it's a touchback.
But if he literally took it out of his hands, then that is strange
