Taxslayer Wrap-up

[jacobchbe]

This is what bothers me when my Clemson buddies say Venables has Paul figured out. Venables' roster is what has us figured out, plain and simple.

Apparently they have Urban Meyer's offense figured out even more than ours.

 

[LibertyTurns]

I know this is totally off topic, but Penn State is running wild in the second half. They should have been in the playoffs rather than Ohio State.

They're sticking it in USC's 5 hole but then again State Penn U is known for that

 

[Animal02]

They're sticking it in USC's 5 hole but then again State Penn U is known for that

Is there no play by play announcers......Or is it just ESPN feed in Jamaica? It is rather pleasant not hearing the talking heads.

 

[ilovetheoption]

Is there no play by play announcers......Or is it just ESPN feed in Jamaica? It is rather pleasant not hearing the talking heads.

I hate you a little bit.

 

[Animal02]

I hate you a little bit.

So I take it everyone else has play by play.

 

[ilovetheoption]

So I take it everyone else has play by play.

LOL, yes, but enjoy jamaica. I'd trade play by play for not being in DC

 

[Animal02]

LOL, yes, but enjoy jamaica. I'd trade play by play for not being in DC

Unfortunately I return to the grind on Thursday.

 

[Bennett]

I know this is totally off topic, but Penn State is running wild in the second half. They should have been in the playoffs rather than Ohio State.[/QUO

If Penn St would have taken care of business and beat Pitt they would have been in the playoff

 

[Skeptic]

This is what bothers me when my Clemson buddies say Venables has Paul figured out. Venables' roster is what has us figured out, plain and simple.

Yes. They are stacking 4 and 5-stars two and three deep in some places and so can afford to lose seven defensive starters and go back to the NC game a year later. Great athletes making great plays will beat any scheme any time, I think. Ask OSU, because Meyer got embarrassed even as he sees that recruiting advantage grow. It's not taking anything from Venables, and he is good, to say a lot of guys could be good with that much talent. Your Clemson friends are just feeling their oats. Maybe they should be.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Unfortunately I return to the grind on Thursday.

Hope they're not testing for "herbal supplements...."

 

[orientalnc]

I watched GT Bob's replay last night.

I would like to get confirmation, but it looks like the hoopla at the end of the first half was all according to Hoyle. Brad's 4th down catch as he was falling toward the sideline was ruled a clean catch and then out of bounds by the linesman. The replay showed Brad was clearly down just barely in bounds. It was also a close call as to whether he got to the first down marker. The game clock showed :01 left in the 1st half. As we lined up to kick a field goal, Mark Stoops notified the ref he wanted to challenge the previous call.

When the ref approached Stoops as they met on the field, you can read Stoop's lips asking the ref if Brad was out of bounds. I am sure the ref told Stoops that, yes, that was the call. And that the receiver was out of bounds beyond the first down marker. I am also sure Stoops wanted to challenge both calls, but the NCAA only allows coaches to challenge one call per game. So here were the choices Stoops faced, knowing it was always possible the game clock would be reset as part of the review:

1- Challenge the in bounds call, and maybe prevent Tech from having enough time to snap the ball, if the call was overturned,

2- Challenge the first down call, and get possession of the ball, if the call was overturned.

Neither was a clear choice for him, as the evidence had to be conclusive. The downside in both cases was that Tech would be able to line up and attempt the FG. The upside for the first down challenge was clearly better. The noise on the UK board was all about the out of bounds call, saying UK was robbed. After further review, the refs handled it correctly and I think Stoops made the correct decision (even though his challenge was unsuccessful). BTW, the game clock was reset to :03 after the review.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I watched GT Bob's replay last night.

I would like to get confirmation, but it looks like the hoopla at the end of the first half was all according to Hoyle. Brad's 4th down catch as he was falling toward the sideline was ruled a clean catch and then out of bounds by the linesman. The replay showed Brad was clearly down just barely in bounds. It was also a close call as to whether he got to the first down marker. The game clock showed :01 left in the 1st half. As we lined up to kick a field goal, Mark Stoops notified the ref he wanted to challenge the previous call.

When the ref approached Stoops as they met on the field, you can read Stoop's lips asking the ref if Brad was out of bounds. I am sure the ref told Stoops that, yes, that was the call. And that the receiver was out of bounds beyond the first down marker. I am also sure Stoops wanted to challenge both calls, but the NCAA only allows coaches to challenge one call per game. So here were the choices Stoops faced, knowing it was always possible the game clock would be reset as part of the review:

1- Challenge the in bounds call, and maybe prevent Tech from having enough time to snap the ball, if the call was overturned,

2- Challenge the first down call, and get possession of the ball, if the call was overturned.

Neither was a clear choice for him, as the evidence had to be conclusive. The downside in both cases was that Tech would be able to line up and attempt the FG. The upside for the first down challenge was clearly better. The noise on the UK board was all about the out of bounds call, saying UK was robbed. After further review, the refs handled it correctly and I think Stoops made the correct decision (even though his challenge was unsuccessful). BTW, the game clock was reset to :03 after the review.

Didn't Brad land falling down? If so, then I don't see how he could have landed in bounds and then gone out of bounds, he would have been down in bounds by contact with the ground. The clock should have run immediately after the ball was set on the ground for play. With one second, there would have been little chance to get a kick off.

I think the refs muffed this call.

 

[FredJacket]

I watched GT Bob's replay last night.

I would like to get confirmation, but it looks like the hoopla at the end of the first half was all according to Hoyle. Brad's 4th down catch as he was falling toward the sideline was ruled a clean catch and then out of bounds by the linesman. The replay showed Brad was clearly down just barely in bounds. It was also a close call as to whether he got to the first down marker. The game clock showed :01 left in the 1st half. As we lined up to kick a field goal, Mark Stoops notified the ref he wanted to challenge the previous call.

When the ref approached Stoops as they met on the field, you can read Stoop's lips asking the ref if Brad was out of bounds. I am sure the ref told Stoops that, yes, that was the call. And that the receiver was out of bounds beyond the first down marker. I am also sure Stoops wanted to challenge both calls, but the NCAA only allows coaches to challenge one call per game. So here were the choices Stoops faced, knowing it was always possible the game clock would be reset as part of the review:

1- Challenge the in bounds call, and maybe prevent Tech from having enough time to snap the ball, if the call was overturned,

2- Challenge the first down call, and get possession of the ball, if the call was overturned.

Neither was a clear choice for him, as the evidence had to be conclusive. The downside in both cases was that Tech would be able to line up and attempt the FG. The upside for the first down challenge was clearly better. The noise on the UK board was all about the out of bounds call, saying UK was robbed. After further review, the refs handled it correctly and I think Stoops made the correct decision (even though his challenge was unsuccessful). BTW, the game clock was reset to :03 after the review.

Good synopsis. Brad Stewart landed and was down in bounds. The officials erred in calling him out of bounds and stopping the clock.

I do not think (not sure) Stoops could actually challenge whether he was down in bounds or not (see below). His only option (challenge-wise) was to challenge the catch/possession or the spot. He challenged the spot.

"Ball carrier in or out of bounds. If a ball carrier is ruled out of bounds, the play is not reviewable, except as in Rules 12-3-1-a and 12-3-3-d."

Source: https://cfo.arbitersports.com/Group...ootball_Casebook_04302014_r3_FINAL_ONLINE.pdf

 

[AE 87]

I watched GT Bob's replay last night.

I would like to get confirmation, but it looks like the hoopla at the end of the first half was all according to Hoyle. Brad's 4th down catch as he was falling toward the sideline was ruled a clean catch and then out of bounds by the linesman. The replay showed Brad was clearly down just barely in bounds. It was also a close call as to whether he got to the first down marker. The game clock showed :01 left in the 1st half. As we lined up to kick a field goal, Mark Stoops notified the ref he wanted to challenge the previous call.

When the ref approached Stoops as they met on the field, you can read Stoop's lips asking the ref if Brad was out of bounds. I am sure the ref told Stoops that, yes, that was the call. And that the receiver was out of bounds beyond the first down marker. I am also sure Stoops wanted to challenge both calls, but the NCAA only allows coaches to challenge one call per game. So here were the choices Stoops faced, knowing it was always possible the game clock would be reset as part of the review:

1- Challenge the in bounds call, and maybe prevent Tech from having enough time to snap the ball, if the call was overturned,

2- Challenge the first down call, and get possession of the ball, if the call was overturned.

Neither was a clear choice for him, as the evidence had to be conclusive. The downside in both cases was that Tech would be able to line up and attempt the FG. The upside for the first down challenge was clearly better. The noise on the UK board was all about the out of bounds call, saying UK was robbed. After further review, the refs handled it correctly and I think Stoops made the correct decision (even though his challenge was unsuccessful). BTW, the game clock was reset to :03 after the review.

Based on Stoops' comments after the game, he got conflicting reports about whether it was out of bounds or not.

Regardless, let's say the refs got it right that it was a first down in bounds causing the clock to stop temporarily. It restarts when refs rule "ready for play" not just when they set it down. They have some discretion of when they signal this, iiuc, especially with respect to giving opposition a chance to substitute players and for all refs to get set. I'm not sure that it's that much different from the 2014 georgie game where the clock was at 4 sec.

 

[Dustman]

Based on Stoops' comments after the game, he got conflicting reports about whether it was out of bounds or not.

Regardless, let's say the refs got it right that it was a first down in bounds causing the clock to stop temporarily. It restarts when refs rule "ready for play" not just when they set it down. They have some discretion of when they signal this, iiuc, especially with respect to giving opposition a chance to substitute players and for all refs to get set. I'm not sure that it's that much different from the 2014 georgie game where the clock was at 4 sec.

2014 Georgie the clock stopped because JT ran out of bounds. The issue was the play clock almost got us but Richt bailed us out with the timeout. Or are you talking about something else?

 

[Dustman]

Didn't Brad land falling down? If so, then I don't see how he could have landed in bounds and then gone out of bounds, he would have been down in bounds by contact with the ground. The clock should have run immediately after the ball was set on the ground for play. With one second, there would have been little chance to get a kick off.

I think the refs muffed this call.

I didn't think about that because I wasn't looking at his feet. I need to watch it again. You're absolutely right if he left his feet to make the catch which I believe he did. He can't be ruled out of bounds AND complete if that's the case.

 

[AE 87]

2014 Georgie the clock stopped because JT ran out of bounds. The issue was the play clock almost got us but Richt bailed us out with the timeout. Or are you talking about something else?

That's it. I misremembered.

 

[John]

CPJ was yelling something to our FG team while all this was going on. I saw Harrison go through his routine and the rest of the FG unit frozen in their positions ready for the kick even before the challenge was announced. So I got the feeling that CPJ thought the refs would start the clock right away after their conference.

I would say the refs did make a mistake on this call but it evens out from the time they let the clock continue to roll before half time at UNC in 2009 and pissed CPJ off.

In either case, doubt it would've changed the end result.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

If you watch the replay again, when CPJ called a timeout at 12 seconds, it ran all the way down to 1 and the refs had to reset it. But they only reset it back to 10 seconds. So I think the other 2 seconds was added back in because of that...3 plays later. The refs really bungled everything in that series of a few plays. Given 3 seconds, we should be able to hike it and kick. 1 second, maybe, maybe not. But it was academic by that point. Once Stoops decided to challenge something, it gave everyone a day and a half to get set up. But he forgets Searcy had just dropped a pass that was wide open and easily worth 15 yards. And that BS unsportsmanlike conduct call on our bench. I think all was well that ended well on that play. The points that we finished with were probably right. The refs also missed a helmet to helmet call against KU, they called Mills down when he was just rolling over the pile and had a chance at a touchdown once. Brant and Vic almost were able to return an INT and blocked punt in. And no doubt we played conservative with the FGs when way ahead instead of going for it. That game was just as likely to be blown wide open than it was to be the refs fault it wasn't closer.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

If you watch the replay again, when CPJ called a timeout at 12 seconds, it ran all the way down to 1 and the refs had to reset it. But they only reset it back to 10 seconds. So I think the other 2 seconds was added back in because of that...3 plays later. The refs really bungled everything in that series of a few plays. Given 3 seconds, we should be able to hike it and kick. 1 second, maybe, maybe not. But it was academic by that point. Once Stoops decided to challenge something, it gave everyone a day and a half to get set up. But he forgets Searcy had just dropped a pass that was wide open and easily worth 15 yards. And that BS unsportsmanlike conduct call on our bench. I think all was well that ended well on that play. The points that we finished with were probably right. The refs also missed a helmet to helmet call against KU, they called Mills down when he was just rolling over the pile and had a chance at a touchdown once. Brant and Vic almost were able to return an INT and blocked punt in. And no doubt we played conservative with the FGs when way ahead instead of going for it. That game was just as likely to be blown wide open than it was to be the refs fault it wasn't closer.

They DEFINITELY missed that targeting on KY. Even the replay in the stadium was clearly a helmet to helmet hit on our guy already on the ground. BAD BAD no-call