Jump to content

2014-2015 NCAA football thread


Recommended Posts

That's the one, it's on the new route tree.

 

 

No. This is the dumbest line of reasoning in any sport for any call made involving officials.

 

By definition, the players DID decide the game by their actions. Otherwise what you are saying is "anything goes" on this last play so "the players decide the game."

 

BTW, I keep hearing about "he's not being impeded because he's not going anywhere." Not sure if that's actually in the rule, but to me being shoved backwards is impeding.

 

They tried to run a pick play (or the WR was clueless on how to wait before blocking), didn't think they'd get caught or it'd get called. They were wrong this time.

 

Yes, impeding is in the PI rule, and the PI rule is specific to the person the ball is being thrown to. By definition you can't commit pass interference against anybody other than the receiver who the ball is thrown to or the defender(s) attempting to cover that receiver. At no point is either guy attempting to cover that receiver. Being shoved backwards isn't impeding if the receiver is to his side. If he actually tries to move towards Robinson and gets shoved that's impeding. At no point does either defender ever make a move towards Robinson. Fuller's guy, the one closest to Robinson, actually takes a couple steps the opposite direction before there is contact with Fuller.

 

And no, it's not a pick play. A pick play takes out someone else's man, not your own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Oct 19, 2014 -> 12:41 PM)
That's the one, it's on the new route tree.

 

 

No. This is the dumbest line of reasoning in any sport for any call made involving officials.

 

And yet you say "the call was right." Then it's made. The end.

 

By definition, the players DID decide the game by their actions. Otherwise what you are saying is "anything goes" on this last play so "the players decide the game."

 

BTW, I keep hearing about "he's not being impeded because he's not going anywhere." Not sure if that's actually in the rule, but to me being shoved backwards is impeding.

 

They tried to run a pick play (or the WR was clueless on how to wait before blocking), didn't think they'd get caught or it'd get called. They were wrong this time.

You could make that call on almost any screen play in any football game. It's rarely called ever, it shouldn't be called on the last play of the game especially when Robinson was going to be open no matter what.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Oct 19, 2014 -> 12:38 PM)
That logic does not apply to the polls. ND fell to #8 in the coaches poll, behind both MSU and Oregon (Oregon is behind MSU which is also ridiculous). Now maybe the playoff committee will not be as influenced by the polls as I fear they will be, but ND will most definitely be behind both in the polls if they all end up with 1 loss. Only possible exception is if ND puts up double digit wins against both ASU and USC and the other teams have very close wins against bad teams. That's the only way those votes might flip.

Behind Oregon but ahead of MSU in the AP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (kev211 @ Oct 19, 2014 -> 01:11 PM)
You could make that call on almost any screen play in any football game. It's rarely called ever, it shouldn't be called on the last play of the game especially when Robinson was going to be open no matter what.

Yeah right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (kev211 @ Oct 19, 2014 -> 02:11 PM)
You could make that call on almost any screen play in any football game. It's rarely called ever, it shouldn't be called on the last play of the game especially when Robinson was going to be open no matter what.

 

 

 

someone can correct me if i'm wrong but i think the rule is youre allowed to block down field if the pass is thrown/completed behind the line of scrimmage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Oct 19, 2014 -> 03:57 PM)
The rulebook must be insane then.

Youre the absolute only person in here who doesnt think it was a penalty. They could have called multiple penalties on that play if they wanted. Go cry about it some more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Youre the absolute only person in here who doesnt think it was a penalty. They could have called multiple penalties on that play if they wanted. Go cry about it some more.

 

I'm also probably the only one who has actually read the rule. Quite a coincidence, huh?

 

Yes, they could have called multiple penalties, like the automatic unsportsmanlike conduct penalty for removing your helmet on the field of play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Oct 19, 2014 -> 05:00 PM)
I'm also probably the only one who has actually read the rule. Quite a coincidence, huh?

 

Yes, they could have called multiple penalties, like the automatic unsportsmanlike conduct penalty for removing your helmet on the field of play.

 

You admitted earlier you didn't even see anyone remove their helmet. Youre all alone. May as well let it go. Nobody going to change their mind after arguing all day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You admitted earlier you didn't even see anyone remove their helmet. Youre all alone. May as well let it go. Nobody going to change their mind after arguing all day.

 

I said I haven't seen footage of it, but the ACC has already admitted that the officials missed that penalty.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Oct 19, 2014 -> 06:13 PM)
I said I haven't seen footage of it, but the ACC has already admitted that the officials missed that penalty.

 

 

 

were you out there saying Pitt should've gotten to re-kick the missed FG against ND back in 2012 when ND had two defensive players wearing the same number out on the field?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Oct 19, 2014 -> 05:00 PM)
I'm also probably the only one who has actually read the rule. Quite a coincidence, huh?

 

Yes, they could have called multiple penalties, like the automatic unsportsmanlike conduct penalty for removing your helmet on the field of play.

The fact that you had to go read the rules to try to prove your point isnt helping your case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Brian @ Oct 19, 2014 -> 05:10 PM)
You admitted earlier you didn't even see anyone remove their helmet. Youre all alone. May as well let it go. Nobody going to change their mind after arguing all day.

It happened. You can see it on the original broadcast of the play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

were you out there saying Pitt should've gotten to re-kick the missed FG against ND back in 2012 when ND had two defensive players wearing the same number out on the field?

 

Yes, except for the missed face mask penalty on Pitt in the 2nd OT that would have eliminated the need for the 3rd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Oct 19, 2014 -> 06:00 PM)
Because penalties shouldn't be called by the rulebook but by what the majority thinks the rule is???

Thats not what I said but nice try. Most people who watch or have played football know what pass interference is without having to run to the rulebook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watch the angle in THIS video:

 

http://www.ndinsider.com/football/notre-da...1a4bcf6878.html

 

Remember that the penalty was called on Fuller (#7). Fuller starts toward the corner and then cuts back inside. On that cut, his defender (#3) GOES TOWARD FULLER which is the opposite direction of Robinson (#88). That can't possibly be pass interference, regardless of what contact is made. The defender is clearly not playing the intended receiver on the play.

 

Now watch Prosise (#20). Immediately on the snap, his defender (#8) locks him up with his arms. At that point, it doesn't matter that Prosise bulls straight forward. The defender initiated contact, and the receiver has the right to fight through it, and again #8 isn't even having a single thought about trying to cover Robinson.

 

It was a busted coverage that FSU whined their way out of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...