so USC might not be an elite team

Eric Ramon

unread,

Dec 30, 2015, 11:40:48 PM12/30/15

to

I heard some "expert analyst" on the radio talking about a team (forget which one) and he was saying he didn't think it was good enough to hang with the Alabamas, the Ohio States the USCs...

and I thought "wow, this guy hasn't seen any football since 2008."

Anyway, Wisconsin is currently up 10-0 and will probably win by a lot. The Trojans would then finish at 8-6. I think Pat Haden might have jumped the gun with his Helton hire.

darkst...@gmail.com

unread,

Dec 31, 2015, 1:47:16 AM12/31/15

to

23-21 Wisconsin now, 2 1/2 minutes to go, USC about to get the ball.

Mike

Eric Ramon

unread,

Dec 31, 2015, 2:16:21 AM12/31/15

to

On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 10:47:16 PM UTC-8, darkst...@gmail.com wrote:
> 23-21 Wisconsin now, 2 1/2 minutes to go, USC about to get the ball.
>
> Mike

it turned out to be a pretty close one. Good for Wisky and their fans like Cheezy.

The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior

unread,

Dec 31, 2015, 6:53:13 AM12/31/15

to

Indeed! That was a fun game and I'm going to pay for it today.

Reallllly loved our D last night - and our O did what it could given what we had. Poor Clemens...what a horrid year for him. Happy that Good Stave played last night - great way for him to finish his career. For us, it's a nice win and a game we could have easily given away - and didn't.

That 99 kid for USC - holy crap was he large. He'll be cashing some nice NFL paychecks quite soon.

That last play for USC tho - wtf - throwing a 7 yard out to the sidelines when you need ten yards?

I'm not going to comment on the blown sidelines call on McEvoy's td run...

The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior

unread,

Dec 31, 2015, 9:04:23 AM12/31/15

to

One team note - the season leaders in passing, rushing, receiving, sacks and TFLs....each one was a walk on.

Futbol Phan

unread,

Dec 31, 2015, 12:37:44 PM12/31/15

to

On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 5:53:13 AM UTC-6, The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior wrote:

Well I will. The official who made the call was maybe five yards behind McEvoy, seemingly with a clear view of everything up the sideline. And he still blew it.

What I would like to see is officials who are trained to make a call that can be reviewed, rather than to make a non-reviewable call. If that official had swallowed his whistle and allowed the play to stand, it could always be reviewed after the TD and overturned if in fact he had stepped out of bounds. But once that whistle blows, it's a done deal.

The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior

unread,

Dec 31, 2015, 12:43:48 PM12/31/15

to

Exactly - that's a play where you throw your hat - not blow the whistle

xyzzy

unread,

Dec 31, 2015, 12:55:23 PM12/31/15

to

Is it? When a player who isn't the ball carrier goes out of bounds the play isn't dead. It is when the player carrying the ball goes out of bounds.

It's too bad it happened that way but throwing his hat instead of blowing the whistle isn't following the rules.

The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior

unread,

Dec 31, 2015, 1:03:14 PM12/31/15

to

On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 11:55:23 AM UTC-6, xyzzy wrote:
> Is it? When a player who isn't the ball carrier goes out of bounds the play isn't dead. It is when the player carrying the ball goes out of bounds.
>
> It's too bad it happened that way but throwing his hat instead of blowing the whistle isn't following the rules.

If you're in doubt, you play on and you throw the hat - specifically b/c the whistle stops the play

xyzzy

unread,

Dec 31, 2015, 1:19:52 PM12/31/15

to

Is that what the rules say?

The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior

unread,

Dec 31, 2015, 1:25:55 PM12/31/15

to

On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 12:19:52 PM UTC-6, xyzzy wrote:
> Is that what the rules say?

It's what they're supposedly taught - esp now that there's replay

xyzzy

unread,

Dec 31, 2015, 1:59:27 PM12/31/15

to

What happens to fouls that occur after the hat is tossed, if replay shows the guy out of bounds?

The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior

unread,

Dec 31, 2015, 2:02:37 PM12/31/15

to

On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 12:59:27 PM UTC-6, xyzzy wrote:
> What happens to fouls that occur after the hat is tossed, if replay shows the guy out of bounds?

IIRC, it depends - if it's a block in the back or the like, no penalty - but for a personal foul - that'd be a dead ball

wolfie

unread,

Dec 31, 2015, 3:51:35 PM12/31/15

to

"The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior" wrote

> that's a play where you throw your hat - not blow the whistle

Since the rules don't allow that, no, you don't. The rules simply
don't allow for an official to rely on instant replay for the right
call. (And that's what you're saying 'throwing the hat' would
mean - let instant replay sort it out.)

If you see the player step out-of-bounds, you call the play dead.
If you're in doubt - you don't do anything.

Michael Press

unread,

Dec 31, 2015, 5:14:53 PM12/31/15

to

In article <ad91a1fd-5dbb-4f66...@googlegroups.com>,

xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is it? When a player who isn't the ball carrier goes out of bounds the play isn't dead. It is when the player carrying the ball goes out of bounds.
>
> It's too bad it happened that way but throwing his hat instead of blowing the whistle isn't following the rules.

What rules? When an eligible receiver goes out of bounds the official
throws his hat to mark the spot. That does not stop play.

--
Michael Press

Futbol Phan

unread,

Dec 31, 2015, 5:33:00 PM12/31/15

to

Ok, but on the play in question he clearly did not see him step out of bounds, because he didn't. So, there should have been doubt and the ref shouldn't have done anything.

wolfie

unread,

Dec 31, 2015, 6:06:48 PM12/31/15

to

"Futbol Phan" wrote

> .. on the play in question he clearly did not see

> him step out of bounds, because he didn't. So,
> there should have been doubt and the ref shouldn't
> have done anything.

Agreed.

michael anderson

unread,

Jan 1, 2016, 3:22:53 PM1/1/16

to

I have to agree with xy here....it's the job of an official to make the right call as he sees it then. not swallow the whistle even if he thinks a guy didnt fumble or did step out of bounds....I've seen that happen too often where a whistle is swallowed on an obvious ground caused fumble, for example, and then it's a damn 5 minute delay(plus a play going on that continues without purpose). And on a few occasions the replay angle was blocked off so it wasn't 'conclusive', so in effect a bad call stood....when if the official had just gone with what he likely thought, it would have been a much more appropriate outcome.

Of course otoh you get situations like wisconsin-usc last night, where a call was missed and the play was blown dead and unreviewable. but thats life and Im ok with that. Those situations are imo better in the long run than the slippery slope of officials saying "I think his knee was down, but fuck it lets call it a fumble and let them play and then review it". Thats a recipe for disaster(and missed calls even with replay) imo.

I hate replay anyways....I like that it is used for key plays, but replay overall is kind of a drag that slows the game down. IMO replay should never be used more than twice a game to review key turnovers(ints where the ball may hit the ground and fumbles). I hate replay being used like it is now.