I also saw those 2 DB`s arguing....They knew they got beat and were blaming each other....
they are eating crab legs again, 5 finger discount style...lol
I also saw those 2 DB`s arguing....They knew they got beat and were blaming each other....
they are eating crab legs again, 5 finger discount style...lol
That was a ridiculous call.
#20 was engaged by the DB immediately at the snap. The DB played press man coverage, and is often the case the DB will immediately engage the WR with both hands to disrupt the timing of a route. That's exactly what he did. #20 didn't block the DB, he was engaged with him because the DB put both hands on him and wanted to control him. He did this immediately at the snap, and wanted the contact with the receiver. To him, he did his job, covering his receiver. When he saw the primary uncovered, thats when they got upset because he knew they blew the coverage.
The other WR (#7) ran a slight out and immediately turned in, where the DB stepped right in front of him and also engaged him with both hands. The primary receiver was covered by NOBODY, because the secondary blew the coverage.
Both DBS wanted to engage the receivers, and in fact initiated the contact. To them, they were blanketing the intended receivers. Except for the one they ignored. He was open because of a blown coverage, not because of interference that the defense initiated.
This was a gift call and a terrible one. I don't care what Herbstreit or Holtz or anybody else says as they attempt to defend this call.
Watch the replay again. You will see BOTH DBS engage BOTH receivers with their hands. They weren't blocked, they both initiated contact.
#20 was engaged by the DB immediately at the snap. The DB played press man coverage, and is often the case the DB will immediately engage the WR with both hands to disrupt the timing of a route. That's exactly what he did. #20 didn't block the DB, he was engaged with him because the DB put both hands on him and wanted to control him. He did this immediately at the snap, and wanted the contact with the receiver. To him, he did his job, covering his receiver. When he saw the primary uncovered, thats when they got upset because he knew they blew the coverage.
The other WR (#7) ran a slight out and immediately turned in, where the DB stepped right in front of him and also engaged him with both hands. The primary receiver was covered by NOBODY, because the secondary blew the coverage.
Both DBS wanted to engage the receivers, and in fact initiated the contact. To them, they were blanketing the intended receivers. Except for the one they ignored. He was open because of a blown coverage, not because of interference that the defense initiated.
This was a gift call and a terrible one. I don't care what Herbstreit or Holtz or anybody else says as they attempt to defend this call.
Watch the replay again. You will see BOTH DBS engage BOTH receivers with their hands. They weren't blocked, they both initiated contact.
Here is the video.
http://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/2368090/20141018224709.0.gif
Watch number 20 for Notre Dame. He and the FSU defense both initiate contact and number 20 pushes the defender while the ball is in the air. It is clearly PI and does NOT happen 5-10 times during every single game. Also, number 7 for Notre Dame also initiates contact with the defender but it is less conspicuous but it is a screen.
http://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/2368090/20141018224709.0.gif
Watch number 20 for Notre Dame. He and the FSU defense both initiate contact and number 20 pushes the defender while the ball is in the air. It is clearly PI and does NOT happen 5-10 times during every single game. Also, number 7 for Notre Dame also initiates contact with the defender but it is less conspicuous but it is a screen.
"They throw that flag every time",
Except when they don't throw that flag and then "it's a good no call by the official". Which is the result more often than not.
Having said that, it was piss poor execution by just one WR and it gave the official an opportunity to make a game changing call. One can certainly justify that call, but almost in the same vein as one can justify making an offensive or defensive holding call on just about every play.
The Broncos run that type of rub 6 times a game and never get flagged, but other teams do sometimes.
It's all about the timing and the magnitude
thought it was a definite penalty but one that doesn't gets called at South Bend. i saw wvu and baylor run that same play about 47 times earlier in the afternoon and i think it was flagged once...and there were over 30 penalties called in that game.
no idea why the nd player puts his arms out to block on the play...almost like he thought it was a run call to his side. not a smart play
pretty sure 10/30 is fsu's last chance to lose before the playoffs....
no idea why the nd player puts his arms out to block on the play...almost like he thought it was a run call to his side. not a smart play
pretty sure 10/30 is fsu's last chance to lose before the playoffs....
I'm looking at the remaining schedule for FSU & don't see another team that can beat them.......I guess ifi t happens, it definitely won't be at FSU.........
From my perspective; the play would have been successful just with the flow of the two receivers; who both were blocking their defensive players like linemen on a blocking practice sled; I mean it was just too fvcking obvious, out of control, but; if they had just run clear out routes, maybe bumping their def players; it still would have been a easy td; a key defender did not come up; but that play had to be called; like a guy wrapping his arms around a shooter with one sec to go in basketball; the axiom to let the players play and determine the outcome only works to a certain point....Gr8 game; I cannot remember a season where there have been such fantastic football games...jmho..gl..I would be pissed if I had bet Irish on ml...
What cracked me up was that there were two WR's and they were tying up 3 DB's. Seems like one of them should have gone after the open man. Either you call a play like that every time or not at all. The fact that referees are not consistent on calling that play leaves coaches open to trying it. The guy with his arms out should have acted like he was being held instead of looking like he was blocking. Same goes for illegal blockers down field. Call it all the time or not at all. How about calling defensive holding on the opposite side of where the ball is thrown. Face it, referees either control a game or lose control of a game. The bigger the game the more they are scrutinized.
