Clemson Postgame

[Animal02]

From what I can gather on the internets, the NCAA did away with the halo rule a while back.

It is not a halo....
"It is an interference foul if, before the receiver touches the ball, a Team A player enters the area defined by the width of the receiver’s shoulders and extending one yard in front of him. When in question it is a foul. (A.R. 6-4-1:X-XIII)"
It was a judgement call....he was to the side not directly in front.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

It is not a halo....
"It is an interference foul if, before the receiver touches the ball, a Team A player enters the area defined by the width of the receiver’s shoulders and extending one yard in front of him. When in question it is a foul. (A.R. 6-4-1:X-XIII)"
It was a judgement call....he was to the side not directly in front.

And the camera angle was terrible.

 

[bobongo]

It is not a halo....
"It is an interference foul if, before the receiver touches the ball, a Team A player enters the area defined by the width of the receiver’s shoulders and extending one yard in front of him. When in question it is a foul. (A.R. 6-4-1:X-XIII)"
It was a judgement call....he was to the side not directly in front.

Dumb, picky little question: Exactly what does "When in question it is a foul." mean? If it's "in question" whether the team A player was within the one yard? So if it's questionable, it's a foul?

 

[Animal02]

Dumb, picky little question: Exactly what does "When in question it is a foul." mean? If it's "in question" whether the team A player was within the one yard?

I have no clue.....I just copied and pasted the rule. (I thought it a bit odd as well) Maybe it means it is a judgement call and cannot be overturned....or maybe it is only enforced against non SEC teams playing SEC teams

 

[Dustman]

I have no clue.....I just copied and pasted the rule. (I thought it a bit odd as well) Maybe it means it is a judgement call and cannot be overturned....or maybe it is only enforced against non SEC teams playing SEC teams

Assume we are talking about Juanyeh’s fumble. From my seat (south stands, end zone, 10 rows in front of the boxes) it looked like JT was interfered with to me. I’m just now checking in - 48 hour rule for me.

 

[Animal02]

Assume we are talking about Juanyeh’s fumble. From my seat (south stands, end zone, 10 rows in front of the boxes) it looked like JT was interfered with to me. I’m just now checking in - 48 hour rule for me.

As I said, I think it was a judgement call, as it could have gone either way.....he went to the side, not directly in front of him.

 

[Dustman]

As I said, I think it was a judgement call, as it could have gone either way.....he went to the side, not directly in front of him.

It looked to me like it affected JTs ability to track the ball. It came down to his left. Just my opinion though, from my live viewing angle. I also thought there was a false start by the LT on that short field scoring drive. I’m ready for the home opener to get a better look at what we’ve got.

 

[Animal02]

It looked to me like it affected JTs ability to track the ball. It came down to his left. Just my opinion though, from my live viewing angle. I also thought there was a false start by the LT on that short field scoring drive. I’m ready for the home opener to get a better look at what we’ve got.

I work the chains for my 12 y.o's games...the refs also do H.S. so they have a bit of experience. I must watch a different game from what they call. ..so I no longer am sure of anything I see anymore.

 

[Skeptic]

My Clemson friend, who actually knows a bit about football, was on the sideline Thursday night, said Tech "has a long way to go in almost every phase," but thought Graham was quite good at QB, though suspect passing -- isn't every Georgia Tech quarterback? -- , but there "is something dynamic in the guy."

 

[awbuzz]

From what I can gather on the internets, the NCAA did away with the halo rule a while back.

From what I recall, you are correct. Happened a few years back.

 

[33jacket]

From what I recall, you are correct. Happened a few years back.

2003

 

[Dustman]

My Clemson friend, who actually knows a bit about football, was on the sideline Thursday night, said Tech "has a long way to go in almost every phase," but thought Graham was quite good at QB, though suspect passing -- isn't every Georgia Tech quarterback? -- , but there "is something dynamic in the guy."

If Clemson is his yardstick then he’s absolutely right

 

[alentrekin]

Dumb, picky little question: Exactly what does "When in question it is a foul." mean? If it's "in question" whether the team A player was within the one yard? So if it's questionable, it's a foul?

It means that all doubt is resolved in favor of it being interference. I.E. if it is a judgment call, it's a foul because it's a player safety issue.

 

[slugboy]

We did not make the misery list, or even the honorable mentions for the misery list: https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...misery-index-florida-state-oregon/2187172001/

USF did, though. Tennessee helmed the list. South Carolina and FSU were solidly on it.

Chip Kelly or Jeff Brohm have had great coaching reputations—especially Brohm lately—but dang.

Maybe the writer (Dan Wolken) doesn’t have the ACC Network.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Skeptic]

We did not make the misery list, or even the honorable mentions for the misery list: https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...misery-index-florida-state-oregon/2187172001/

USF did, though. Tennessee helmed the list. South Carolina and FSU were solidly on it.

Chip Kelly or Jeff Brohm have had great coaching reputations—especially Brohm lately—but dang.

Maybe the writer (Dan Wolken) doesn’t have the ACC Network.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That short lease on Muschamp at South Carolina is now officially a choke chain. The guy had and has a long-standing reputation as a coach who could not build a program, but could coach within a program. He got hired anyway. No sooner had the final whistle blew than a -star RB commitment walked away.

 

[lv20gt]

We did not make the misery list, or even the honorable mentions for the misery list: https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...misery-index-florida-state-oregon/2187172001/

Well yeah, we're in the middle of a pretty big overhaul, and a bad loss to the #1 team in the country on the road was, or should have been, expected.

 

[LibertyTurns]

Well yeah, we're in the middle of a pretty big overhaul, and a bad loss to the #1 team in the country on the road was, or should have been, expected.

The loss to Clemp was bad but it barely registered nationally. People expected the flogging and dare I say it we maybe were slightly on the positive upside even though the results were not good. The next 3 will be telling. Play well and we got a solid launch point.

Again the only negative was many, myself included, expected something different than an option offense. It may be we played what was best for Clemp & just need time to evolve, but our advertising pre-game was to expect something different. We solidly got that on defense. Offense was frustrating & not because we did poorly against a talented team, but that we did poorly with a scheme that we thought we had left in the rear view mirror.

Now Clemp is in the rear view mirror. We turn a page against USF and the Clemp game will be completely forgotten.

 

[BCJacket]

It is not a halo....
"It is an interference foul if, before the receiver touches the ball, a Team A player enters the area defined by the width of the receiver’s shoulders and extending one yard in front of him. When in question it is a foul. (A.R. 6-4-1:X-XIII)"
It was a judgement call....he was to the side not directly in front.

Not the best angle, but given the locations of their feet relative to the hashmarks, I'm convinced that should have been a flag. The Clemson player's left arm is within inches of the receiver when he passes by.

 

[BCJacket]

Well yeah, we're in the middle of a pretty big overhaul, and a [not-especially-bad-by-Clemson-standards] loss to the #1 team in the country on the road was, or should have been, expected.

Fixed it for you

Let's keep some perspective:
10/6/2018 Clemson at Wake Forest W 63–3
10/20/2018 Clemson vs No. 16 NC State W 41–7
10/27/2018 Clemson at Florida State W 59–10
11/3/2018 Clemson vs Louisville W 77–16
12/9/2018 Clemson vs. No. 3 Notre Dame* W 30–3
1/7/2019 Clemson vs. No. 1 Alabama* W 44–16

 

[slugboy]

My bedside manner must SUCK. That was not what I was trying to get out of that post at all.



OK, on to USF [emoji106]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk