Notre Dame Football 2014

[Il BuonO]

This is why I don't like Kelly. The Irish get a blocked punt and have momentum but have a 3rd and 5. Kelly elects for an option but the defense keys on Golson knowing ND doesn't have a good option at RB.

They stuffed it for no gain. I'd rather give Golson the ability to make a play with his feet and throw if someone is open.

Now in Stanford territory but Kelly's play calling leaves a lot to be desired.

[incubus]

This is why I don't like Kelly. The Irish get a blocked punt and have momentum but have a 3rd and 5. Kelly elects for an option but the defense keys on Golson knowing ND doesn't have a good option at RB.

They stuffed it for no gain. I'd rather give Golson the ability to make a play with his feet and throw if someone is open.

Now in Stanford territory but Kelly's play calling leaves a lot to be desired.

We are at the game. It is miserable, we're totally soaked and cold to the core. We were sitting field level, as we are here for Alumni Band reunion weekend. I know the teams were both having a terrible time with the weather conditions. But yeah the offensive play calling really sucked at times today. Running the ball right down the middle even when they are stacked there...

So many dropped and underthrown balls as a result of the bad conditions.

Hell of an ending this place went nuts. 5-0!

[incubus]

The final second "Offensive pass interference" against ND I think was the worst call I have ever seen in any sporting event.

That was a we want Fla St to win, call whatever necessary to make sure they do play.

ND is really 7-0, Fla St is 6-1. F'ing ref!

[Il BuonO]

The final second "Offensive pass interference" against ND I think was the worst call I have ever seen in any sporting event.

That was a we want Fla St to win, call whatever necessary to make sure they do play.

ND is really 7-0, Fla St is 6-1. F'ing ref!

It pays to have the refs taken care of when in contention for the national title.

[waroriole]

That was an embarassing and suspicious call. FSU is the luckiest team ever. Lucky for them, their schedule is a joke.

[OFFNY]

The final second "Offensive pass interference" against ND I think was the worst call I have ever seen in any sporting event.

That was a we want Fla St to win, call whatever necessary to make sure they do play.

ND is really 7-0, Fla St is 6-1. F'ing ref!

I thought that that was about as clear-cut of an offensive pass interference call as it could have been.

The Notre Dame slot receiver immediately started to throw a block on the defensive back, and he continually blocked him after the ball was snapped, while the QB took three steps to the side, and after the QB threw the ball.

[incubus]

I thought that that was about as clear-cut of an offensive pass interference call as it could have been.

The Notre Dame slot receiver immediately started to throw a block on the defensive back, and he continually blocked him after the ball was snapped, while the QB took three steps to the side, and after the QB threw the ball.

Watch the video again. The defender engagages first, and grabs and holds onto jersey, look at the direction that the ND guy is going with his hands (which are below the Fla St defender's) the defender does not even let go until the ball is in the air a few feet from Corey Robinson (#88.) and its too late for him to do anything about it. It was a blown coverage by Fla St, look at #26 in the end zone covering no one, the defenders on the line covered to wrong people and got away with it on a play that should've resulted in a no call (as the best arguement you can make is that both receiver and DB are engaging, not just the ND reciever.)

[incubus]

Rob Long on 105.7 said it best: "it was either the wrong call or thr wrong time to call it."

[OFFNY]

Watch the video again. The defender engagages first, and grabs and holds onto jersey, look at the direction that the ND guy is going with his hands (which are below the Fla St defender's) the defender does not even let go until the ball is in the air a few feet from Corey Robinson (#88.) and its too late for him to do anything about it. It was a blown coverage by Fla St, look at #26 in the end zone covering no one, the defenders on the line covered to wrong people and got away with it on a play that should've resulted in a no call (as the best arguement you can make is that both receiver and DB are engaging, not just the ND reciever.)

I watched it numerous times.

The defender isn't grabbing the receiver, he is trying to get around him as he is being blocked. After the initial contact, (which is legal, off of the line of scrimmage), the receiver isn't even giving the pretense of running a pattern, he is continually blocking the defender from the time that the ball is snapped, right until the pass is completed.

In fact, a second Notre Dame receiver is blocking another F.S.U. defender as well, although not as egregiously and as long as the slot receiver did. It was a clear-out, and it's only a "blown" coverage because of the clear-out, which prevented the defenders from getting anywhere near the outside portion of the field.

[incubus]

I watched it numerous times.

The defender isn't grabbing the receiver, he is trying to get around him as he is being blocked. After the initial contact, (which is legal, off of the line of scrimmage), the receiver isn't even giving the pretense of running a pattern, he is continually blocking the defender from the time that the ball is snapped, right until the pass is completed.

In fact, a second Notre Dame receiver is blocking another F.S.U. defender as well, although not as egregiously and as long as the slot receiver did. It was a clear-out, and it's only a "blown" coverage because of the clear-out, which prevented the defenders from getting anywhere near the outside portion of the field.

Sorry Patrick, I cannot agree with you. The Florida state DB has his hands on the jersey arms of the ND receiver which prevents the receiver from even getting. His arms up to make an attempt to catch the ball if thrown to him, for that reason alone it should be a no call, the 2 penalties would cancel each other out. The only reason the Fla St DB is moving back is because he refused to disengage with the person he is covering. The receiver is moving in the direction of his route, and would have been regardless of the DB. Look at the way the play is set up, 3 receivers to the right, the inside receiver (Robinson) goes from the inside position to the outside, while the other two run routes in to the center. Its a cross route, Robinson's coverage stayed inside and missed his coverage, just like what is intended.

Once Fla St realized what was happening, the DB's engaged and hoped for a penalty call, it was their only option. The fact that so many people are debating this, shows that it isn't clear-cut which is why Rob Long said: "It was either the wrong call or thr wrong time to call it." You can't let it go on both sides all game and then only call it on the last play of the game. Call it all game or don't, but be consistent.

This guy zooms in and you can see the DB's hold:

[Il BuonO]

Yeah, I don't know what you could be looking at to call that offensive PI. The FSU player is clearly holding him. The ND player is actually turning in the opposite direction but couldn't get away because he's being held.

Absolutely terrible call.

[incubus]

On another note, if the DB was being held, why not just throw his hands up to show it to the ref? His hands were on top, he had the ability to easily do this. Or better yet, do what an outside DB going for the QB does frequently, swing your arms up over the receiver/blocker's head to one side, push off his inside shoulder and get around him? Because he was doing exactly what he wanted to do, engage, hold, and block the receiver from running his route. It should've been a no call, period. Two engaged players both debatably fouling each other is a no call.

[OFFNY]

Sorry Patrick, I cannot agree with you. The Florida state DB has his hands on the jersey arms of the ND receiver which prevents the receiver from even getting. His arms up to make an attempt to catch the ball if thrown to him, for that reason alone it should be a no call, the 2 penalties would cancel each other out. The only reason the Fla St DB is moving back is because he refused to disengage with the person he is covering. The receiver is moving in the direction of his route, and would have been regardless of the DB. Look at the way the play is set up, 3 receivers to the right, the inside receiver (Robinson) goes from the inside position to the outside, while the other two run routes in to the center. Its a cross route, Robinson's coverage stayed inside and missed his coverage, just like what is intended.

Once Fla St realized what was happening, the DB's engaged and hoped for a penalty call, it was their only option. The fact that so many people are debating this, shows that it isn't clear-cut which is why Rob Long said: "It was either the wrong call or thr wrong time to call it." You can't let it go on both sides all game and then only call it on the last play of the game. Call it all game or don't, but be consistent.

This guy zooms in and you can see the DB's hold:

I don't see anything different on that "zoom in" video than what I saw in any other video of the play.

The defender is trying to get around the receiver, who is blocking him from the initial contact through the end of the play. I see him trying to get around the block, not pulling the receiver into him.

I hear an obviously biased narrator stating with anguish how the F.S.U. defender is grabbing the receiver, how the defender is "a friggin' liar" because he complained about being blocked, how Kirk Herbstreit is a liar, and should get fired, etc.

[Number5]

Sorry Patrick, I cannot agree with you. The Florida state DB has his hands on the jersey arms of the ND receiver which prevents the receiver from even getting. His arms up to make an attempt to catch the ball if thrown to him, for that reason alone it should be a no call, the 2 penalties would cancel each other out. The only reason the Fla St DB is moving back is because he refused to disengage with the person he is covering. The receiver is moving in the direction of his route, and would have been regardless of the DB. Look at the way the play is set up, 3 receivers to the right, the inside receiver (Robinson) goes from the inside position to the outside, while the other two run routes in to the center. Its a cross route, Robinson's coverage stayed inside and missed his coverage, just like what is intended.

Once Fla St realized what was happening, the DB's engaged and hoped for a penalty call, it was their only option. The fact that so many people are debating this, shows that it isn't clear-cut which is why Rob Long said: "It was either the wrong call or thr wrong time to call it." You can't let it go on both sides all game and then only call it on the last play of the game. Call it all game or don't, but be consistent.

This guy zooms in and you can see the DB's hold:

You have brought up several points that I cannot agree with.

First, offsetting penalties do not result in a no-call. The penalties offset, and the down is replayed - at all levels of football. I don't agree that there were offsetting penalties in this case, but if the referees were to agree with you, there would still be no touchdown.

Second, defensive players are coached to engage and ward off direct blocking with their hands. That is not defensive holding. If it were, there would be zero plays at any level of the sport without defensive holding.

Third, your and Mr. Long's claims that pick plays were being run and not called all game sound odd to me. Can you show films of these many pick plays that occurred and went uncalled? It is easy to claim "that hasn't been called all game," but the reality is, that it hasn't been occurring all game. I have heard that statement from coaches on plays such as illegal receiver downfield, when both the slot man and the wide man are on the line of scrimmage and both go downfield. If a covered man is downfield when a pass is thrown, he is ineligible, and downfield illegally. I throw the flag, and a coach tries to say it hasn't been called all game, why call it now? I tell him "No dice coach, you know one of them has to be off the line for them both to be eligible, and until now your formations have been proper." Having the extra man on the line is not a penalty, and his going downfield is not a penalty - until a pass is thrown. In your case, you would need to show definitive proof that both teams had been running pick plays all game, without penalty, in order to have a point, which neither you nor Mr. Long have made any effort to do. Trust me, if a pick play had been run earlier in the game, the coaches would have been screaming about it and the officials would have been looking for it. In any case, even if a penalty went uncalled previously, it is still a penalty. Should offensive holding be disallowed as a penalty for the entire game if someone gets away with it on the first play?

This particular play is a text-book pick play, and offensive pass interference is the correct call. Notre Dame should have made sure that the receiver stayed behind the line of scrimmage until after he caught the ball. In that event, the blocking would be OK and the play would have been legal. Or if the blocking receiver had made any effort to appear to be running a pass pattern, it probably would have been OK. Just run your pattern and try to "accidentally" stay in the DB's way. In this case, it was clearly a clear-out block, aka pick play.

The guy who did the homemade video there doesn't understand the second point above, that defensive players are permitted to ward off blocks with their hands. The blocking receiver was making no effort to run a pass pattern, and his only efforts were to stay engaged with the defensive player. That is not defensive holding.

Sorry, I wanted Notre Dame to win, too, but this play was called properly, IMO.

[incubus]

You have brought up several points that I cannot agree with.

First, offsetting penalties do not result in a no-call. The penalties offset, and the down is replayed - at all levels of football. I don't agree that there were offsetting penalties in this case, but if the referees were to agree with you, there would still be no touchdown.

Second, defensive players are coached to engage and ward off direct blocking with their hands. That is not defensive holding. If it were, there would be zero plays at any level of the sport without defensive holding.

Third, your and Mr. Long's claims that pick plays were being run and not called all game sound odd to me. Can you show films of these many pick plays that occurred and went uncalled? It is easy to claim "that hasn't been called all game," but the reality is, that it hasn't been occurring all game. I have heard that statement from coaches on plays such as illegal receiver downfield, when both the slot man and the wide man are on the line of scrimmage and both go downfield. If a covered man is downfield when a pass is thrown, he is ineligible, and downfield illegally. I throw the flag, and a coach tries to say it hasn't been called all game, why call it now? I tell him "No dice coach, you know one of them has to be off the line for them both to be eligible, and until now your formations have been proper." Having the extra man on the line is not a penalty, and his going downfield is not a penalty - until a pass is thrown. In your case, you would need to show definitive proof that both teams had been running pick plays all game, without penalty, in order to have a point, which neither you nor Mr. Long have made any effort to do. Trust me, if a pick play had been run earlier in the game, the coaches would have been screaming about it and the officials would have been looking for it. In any case, even if a penalty went uncalled previously, it is still a penalty. Should offensive holding be disallowed as a penalty for the entire game if someone gets away with it on the first play?

This particular play is a text-book pick play, and offensive pass interference is the correct call. Notre Dame should have made sure that the receiver stayed behind the line of scrimmage until after he caught the ball. In that event, the blocking would be OK and the play would have been legal. Or if the blocking receiver had made any effort to appear to be running a pass pattern, it probably would have been OK. Just run your pattern and try to "accidentally" stay in the DB's way. In this case, it was clearly a clear-out block, aka pick play.

The guy who did the homemade video there doesn't understand the second point above, that defensive players are permitted to ward off blocks with their hands. The blocking receiver was making no effort to run a pass pattern, and his only efforts were to stay engaged with the defensive player. That is not defensive holding.

Sorry, I wanted Notre Dame to win, too, but this play was called properly, IMO.

The flaw in your argument is, the DB engages first. How can you "ward off" a block when you initiated it? If the ND player had grabbed the DB first, then I wouldn't even try to make an argument out of it. But the fact of the matter is, the DB grabbed the receiver and didn't let him go until it was far too late. Again if the DB knew it was a foul, why not try to disengage & put his hands up or go around him? He didn't try, its a 2 way street.

Also, I never said I agreed with the person in the youtube video I linked. I linked it because it was the first one I found that was zoomed in. I don't agree with the guy, he's being a bit zealous and dramatic. It shouldn't be a defensive holding if you don't call both & Hirbstreet shouldn't be fired.