Not because we are awesome and crushed his team and their spirit, but because his team quit on him more then once this year.
This is a type of game that gets coaches fired and if I'm an Arkansa fan I would want his head.
Love the comeback win from us though!
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
He probably will be after the last two games flops.
he drinks a lot and hits on boosters. dude burns bridges quickly (#sauces)
Assuming coaches usually fraternize regularly with the big money boosters, and most of these top donors are probably older couples, dude is gettin' liquored up and hittin' on old ladies? Ew.
Also, since Bielema is Butthead's dad
This is his team's second half performance tonight:
Why would you go out for a burger when you have steak at home?
Yeah seriously, this does not compute
Same reason as Tiger Woods.
Once you seen one woman naked you kind of want to see the rest of them.
I've said it before - for every hot woman out there, there's some guy that's tired of dating* her.
*similar sayings may use different verbage
Canned ham?
Keep him around. The $EC needs some comic relief every once in awhile.
You can't can Bert, he's on the rules committee!
That was some bullshit. He was practically in the officials huddle influencing their call!
I really don't understand the hate for Bert for lobbying with the refs until they got it right. When it all was said and done, Bert was right. Arkansas getting the ball back was the correct application of the rule.
Imagine if the scenario was switched and Tech was the punting team on that play. If Coach Fuente knew that, by rule, the Hokies should retain possesion, wouldn't you want him to talk to the refs until they properly gave the ball back to VT? Would you prefer him to just say, "Welp, you are wrong but go ahead and give the ball to the other team."?
There are plenty of reasons to hate on Bert, but this isn't one of them. He was doing his job and fighting for his guys.
It is sad that a coach had to spend that much time to get the refs to do their job right.
^^^ +1000
There is no argument that can be made to me that it was the correct call that the punting team gets back the ball. Holding penalty is considered a post kick penalty, worst case is it should have backed us up ten yards. And I would argue against the Hokies getting the ball on that bullshit as well. At no point in that cluster F&*^ did Arkansas ever have possession of the football.
Its like law... There are written laws to be interpreted for enforcement. How the enforcement interprets it can be influeced. Bielema played a great lawyer there... No ill will. But the refs should have made the decision, right or wrong , quicker and with less theatrics from the COACH(es). It's like they were more worried about reprimand than making a decision (whether, right or wrong)
Add to this he wasn't in Narduzzi mode... just pleading the case.
The refs have to be strong enough and smart enough to prevent coaches from influencing them. Same issue with the Pitt game. Ref's can't be this weak. The CFB/P5/NCAA need to own officiating, since the conferences obviously aren't capable.
Fuck Fat Boy B!
Apparently he's there until the end of 2018
I still don't, and never will, understand how he got that contract from Arkansas. It's not like they'd been scrubs for the previous decade, Bobby Petrino had them humming the prior 2/3 years before John L. Smith let it fall apart in only one season.
Anyone got video on the muffed punt that got called back... promised some FB peeps this ridiculous call
Before you double down on it being ridiculous, hear me out because it was really poorly explained on the field. The call was actually right. I was furious about it the whole time, but after halftime and I heard it explained, it was right.
There was holding called at the line on a VT defender. The punt was muffed and the whistle blew while no one really had possession. The holding awarded Arkansas 10 yards, which gave them a first down; effectively the punt didn't happen because of the penalty. Had there been no holding, VT would have gotten the ball because of the whistle being blown. But the penalty wiped everything downfield out. I was too angry to notice that Arkansas was still on their own side of the field after it was resolved, not the VT 35 or wherever it was.
The referee awkwardly explained it in terms of an "inadvertent whistle," but that was actually not important at all. The holding penalty was what mattered.
Edited to add this official explanation (h/t to Alex):
Wouldn't the hold have happened after the punt occurred? Usually holding penalties on return teams are applied to the end of the punt and don't result in a first down for the punting team. Not saying it's impossible, but it would have to happen immediately after the snap.
Any holding by VT prior to a VT player touching the ball would result in this penalty. Penalties tacked on to the end of the run occur when the returner already has the ball, e.g. possession has changed. There is no change of possession until the returner touches it so Arkansas was still technically on offense until Cam touched it.
You sure about that? I'm pretty sure possession changes once the ball is kicked. The holding must have occurred prior to the kick. Given where the flag was thrown, it's possible the hold was before the kick. Odd, but possible.
I checked the rule book when I got home, and the main reason this all happened was the inadvertant whistle - in rule 4 article 2(b)(3), it states that any inadvertent whistle during a scrimmage kick renders the ball dead, and the ball will be returned to the original LOS and the down replayed.
That was combined with rule 4 article 2(c) that says that any penalty that occurs during that dead ball play will be administered as usual, so the ball was kicked, hold happens, punt is muffed, ball whistled dead inadvertently - now the ball has to be returned to the original LOS to replay the down, and because there was a 10 yd penalty called before all of that, it was assessed from the original LOS with AK having possession, giving AK the first down.
The TV guys mentioned that (assuming the penalty didn't happen) we would have still gotten the ball after the inadvertent whistle, because there is another rule put in place for a recovery in the "immediate action of the play it goes to the team that recovered it", and this can be determined by replay. Can you find this one (assuming you are more familiar with the rule book than I am)?
So basically, if we hadn't muffed the punt, we would have been assessed a 10 yard penalty from where Cam caught the ball. The inadvertent whistle in combination with the penalty is what gave Arkansas the ball. I didn't realize they got the ball back 10 yards from where they kicked it until after halftime because I was so pissed off.
There was so much officiating incompetence on that play.
There was so much officiating incompetence
on that play.the entire game, for calls both ways.That officiating crew should be canned.
Thanks for the explanation... still don't understand how their coach got a special conference with the ref's for 5 mins
Because that ref couldn't make any call without talking to someone, even if a player had punched him in the face. Look at the false start penalties in the second half. Both teams knew what was coming and started moving back five yards while he's finding another zebra to confer with.
I don't buy the inadvertent whistle when a hokie player was holding it 0.2 seconds after the whistle. That is hokie first down in my opinion.
a.) the inadvertent whistle was the ref not paying attention and blowing too soon.
b.) based on the info above, if they had blown the whistle at the correct time (some point after Adonis grabbed the ball), it still would have been called back.
So, the issue is that the refs screwed up first by whistling too soon. Then they screwed up by giving us the ball. Then they screwed up by taking so long to review. Then they screwed up by not properly explaining why they moved the ball back to the other end of the field and gave it to Arkansas.
It is possible that this is the correct interpretation of the rule, but it is never enforced this way. 100 times out of 100 holding at the line gets tacked on to the end of the return if there is no muff.
The inadvertent whistle with no possession, BOTH circumstances, are key.
Had there been no whistle, there would have been a possession and a place to put the ball when the play was over...probably possession by VT wherever Alexander would have been tackled. That would have established the point from where the penalty was assessed against VT. However, because of the whistle, no such point, and no such possession existed.
The priority of the rule is not to allow a penalty to go unpunished. So, by rule, they then go to the previous spot which was was the original LOS with possession by Arky. They assess the penalty and it is enough for a first down. Arky ball at their 29.
Really, really, dumb rule. But that is the rule. Expect them to change the priority in the future with the penalty being decided AFTER applying the "inadvertent whistle who would have had the ball rule" instead of before.
The way I interpret it, the whistle has everything to do with it. If it was on time the penalty yardage would have been from the hokie spot of the ball. What I disagree with is calling it an inadvertent whistle. It was such a bang bang action, I think fumble rules during review should have applied.
I'm really having a hard time figuring out exactly what should have been done, because there seem to be two main interpretations of what should have happened.
There's one interpretation (as posted by Guitarman above) that says that the penalty, which occurred during the first part of the play, essentially wiped everything out afterwards. Which makes sense if you think of big interception plays that get called back for defensive holding or pass interference, or a block in the back on a punt/kick return. In that case, the whistle shouldn't have mattered, because the ball is going back to either the original spot or the spot of the foul, and then getting yards marked off.
The other interpretation is that the penalty yardage should have been marked off after we recovered the ball, which is what the officials originally did.
Regardless of what the correct interpretation is, the officials screwed up by blowing the whistle at the wrong time, spending too long on the conference and replay, and giving a really poor explanation for the ultimate call.
Not to mention, the officials repeatedly said that the hogs declined the penalty which again indicates Hokies get the ball.
Dang, there was so much going on in that play, I forgot about that part.
Here's the problem that I have with the notion that the holding penalty wiped out the rest of the play because it happened before Cam touched the ball:
Imagine a play where the returner bails out and let's the ball roll. Now imagine that before the ball rolls dead, the receiving team gets called for holding. Are you saying that since the receiving team hasn't touched the ball yet, that holding call as the ball is rolling dead gives the ball back to the kicking team?
To me, the moment that punt leaves the punters' foot, any holding penalty will be enforced from the end of the return.
Ed Cunningham did a solid job trying to explain it on TV. Props to him. He's getting lots of love from the Razorbacks on Twitter, as one might imagine.
I was pondering this call after the game going down the road. I was thinking it had to be the holding penalty that was enforced and resulted in a first down for them, if not this was the most terribly officiated play in history. I honestly dont think the refs had any idea what was going on, hence the terrible explanation and how long it took. I still dont know if it was the right call, but had they said what was being called on the field, it would have made a lot more sense. The holding call itself is suspicious. A holding call on the receiving team before possession was changed that resulted in a first down for kicking team? That is possible, but is rarely seen. I dont know if I have ever seen that, and Lord knows I have watched a lot of football.
Will say, I lost it after the call. And for about 10
Minutes AFTER the 7 minute 'conference' with bielogna.
However, after that call (right or wrong) the D came out looking to kill someone and absolutely laid the wood for the rest of the game. The rage after that call was an obvious, definite inflection point. Without which I'm not sure we get off the bus and stomp the $ec we$t.
This is probably what turned the game around at that point.
Agreed, we should be thanking Bert for the 10 minutes of arguing his rules committee knowledge, we were a different team after that.
Best thing about this call... my daughter and I decided to hit the concessions early to avoid the halftime rush. Muffed punt happens as we get out of the stands. We get back to our seats just after Arkansas got the ball.
Second best thing -- it saved the ESPN viewers about 15 extra minutes of Mack Brown calling the game after ours.
Could care less since we don't play hen for the next two decades pending a bowl game.
We win. End of story.
Obvious, but needs to be said....Fuck Pat Narduzzi
Suck it, Bulimia!
I agree that Bielema's seat has gotta be hot right now. But can't we enjoy our win with a dignity and not totally tear the guy down?
I might agree with you usually, but this is a guy who fakes getting pushed by opposing players to draw unsportsmanlike calls, then dances to celebrate when he gets the call.
Link
Yeah like we've been doing to Nardouche since that win...../s
Can him? Like a ham?
Yes they did and the difference was more than apparent. You could amost see the Arkie O saying holly shit.
You know, I remember being a little kid and feeling sorry for someone that was being bullied or might have been neglected or maybe even ugly. I have some of those same feelings for Bret right now.
No way! Just kidding. Its a pig eat pig world out there.
I'd like to think that I am at least partially responsible for the win. At the half, seeking someway to change the momentum, I cooked up a batch of bacon wrapped jalapeno poppers. The peppers were so hot, they overpowered the bacon and took over my mouth. Sound familiar?
I thought it was the batch of popcorn I made and the change in how I was sitting on the couch; but your bacon jalapeos make much more sense.
To test my theory, I heated up the few leftover poppers yesterday at halftime while we watched our replay of the game. Damn, it worked again! I recommend my approach for those who can take the heat.
Bielma looks like a cross between a Soviet and 70s porn cameraman.
I thought it was weird how Bret didn't even show for the game. Even weirder was the guy he let stand in for him:
Fuck Drew Morgan. Maybe he could have held on to the ball if he wasn't spitting all over it.
Arkansas didn't just lose, they had a senior suspended for trying to steal from a bowl sponsor and a senior ejected for spitting on a player. That's fucking disgraceful.
It sure wasn't a good look.
Part of college sports is supposed to be developing the character of the student-athlete.
Bielema makes me want to throw up.