Re-watched the Notre Dame game

[CousCuse]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I'm not giving them a pass on making a mistake. They absolutely did by blowing the whistle too early. They just didn't do it intentionally to give Notre Dame the advantage, as you suggest.

Of course they didn't.

 

[CU44SE]

The spike play was just like in basketball when someone goes up for a block and they blow the whistle in anticipation of a foul when their is actually no foul. Anticipation calls are very frustrating. Just because its supposed to be a spike, make sure it is a spike. Couple years ago Manning ran a fake spike pass which was successful but was nullified because the ref blew his whistle on the fake spike part of the play.

 

[dollarbill44]

I think that was by design trying to keep nd's offense off the field

Isn't that the job of the defense (to keep NDs offense off the field)? IMO, the offense's job should be to score points. At the rate ND was turning the ball over, we should have played faster on O.

 

[CousCuse]

The spike play was just like in basketball when someone goes up for a block and they blow the whistle in anticipation of a foul when their is actually no foul. Anticipation calls are very frustrating. Just because its supposed to be a spike, make sure it is a spike. Couple years ago Manning ran a fake spike pass which was successful but was nullified because the ref blew his whistle on the fake spike part of the play.

It depends how many seconds are on the clock, doesn't it? In this case there was 20 seconds , no reason to blow the whistle so fast. If there was less than 5 seconds , I could see your point. Don't know about the Manning play.

 

[CU44SE]

It depends how many seconds are on the clock, doesn't it? In this case there was 20 seconds , no reason to blow the whistle so fast. If there was less than 5 seconds , I could see your point. Don't know about the Manning play.

Huh? I essentially said refs should never anticipate a play, you disagree with this? I don't care if there is 5 seconds or 20 seconds on the clock, refs should never anticipate a call and should watch the play, play out. That is unprofessional and lazy!! You know what they say about assuming something? In this day and age anything can be reviewed and corrected. For example, if they let the play play out and SU scores they can review the play to see if and when the ball was snapped and spiked. The clock would be reset to when the ball actually hit the ground if too much time runs out.

 

[Deano]

You know, I've been saying the same thing but rewatching the game I'm not so sure.

Teams function differently under pressure and with confidence. ND was already shook being on the big stage, if the halftime play doesn't get botched it's 14-10 at half. If the refs call the pass interference on Estime our first drive after half it's 14-10 with us having a first down deep in ND territory and going for the lead. You think ND doesn't tighten up down 17-14 vs being up 14-3 with free reign of the place? Does Golson complete 25 straight passes if the refs are calling holds on their screens? He got smacked around during that game and you could see in his face he wasn't loving it. He had that Geno Smith @ the Carrier Dome face going a bit. How about the non PI call at the goal line on that Ishmael didn't get? The announcers even called that out. There were a lot of big plays that the refs took off the board for us.

That's cause they had ND minus the points

 

[CousCuse]

Huh? I essentially said refs should never anticipate a play, you disagree with this? I don't care if there is 5 seconds or 20 seconds on the clock, refs should never anticipate a call and should watch the play, play out. That is unprofessional and lazy!! You know what they say about assuming something? In this day and age anything can be reviewed and corrected. For example, if they let the play play out and SU scores they can review the play to see if and when the ball was snapped and spiked. The clock would be reset to when the ball actually hit the ground if too much time runs out.

The basketball call has to be called at the exact moment of the foul or it would appear the ref was ruling on what he thought he remembered seeing and not what he was seeing in real time. So, he has to anticipate the instant of foul. The football penalty has no temporal imperative. A sequence of events must happen for the ref to blow the whistle; 1. The ball must be snapped cleanly to the QB 2. The QB must posses the bowl totally 3. the QB must make a downward throwing motion so the ball strikes the ground ,at all times the QB must display complete control of the ball during this motion. Then , and only then can a whistle for stoppage of time be blown.

 

[SWC75]

Funnier thing is that ND is not an up tempo team and they were faster than our "UP-TEMPO" turbo offense with their traditional play calling style from Kelly.

No giant boards, no pictures, no crazy looking back at the sideline, not much other dumb Sh*& that we do and they still ran a faster offense and caught our defense off guard.

From my "Winning Plays" post:

Rate of play: Notre Dame got off 80 plays from scrimmage in 33:17 minutes of possession time. Syracuse got off 68 plays in 26:43. Notre Dame got off a play in an average of 24.96 seconds and got 2.40 plays per minute. With Syracuse it was 2.54 and 23.57. We were operating at a faster pace but got off a dozen few plays because we were less efficient than Notre Dame.

 

[SWC75]

Why can't you go back and correct when a whistle was blown and shouldn't have been and give reasonable continuation of a play?

I don't like the refs having to figure out what would have happened if the whistle hadn't blown. Maybe Whigham was fast enough to beat everybody to the end zone but what if a lineman got the ball? What is the assumption then? The point is, when the whistle blows, everyone is supposed to stop playing and most of them do. How can you be sure what would have happened if they didn't? How would you feel if Notre Dame scored on that play knowing that most of our players stopped when the whistle blew?

 

[Millhouse]

From my "Winning Plays" post:

Rate of play: Notre Dame got off 80 plays from scrimmage in 33:17 minutes of possession time. Syracuse got off 68 plays in 26:43. Notre Dame got off a play in an average of 24.96 seconds and got 2.40 plays per minute. With Syracuse it was 2.54 and 23.57. We were operating at a faster pace but got off a dozen few plays because we were less efficient than Notre Dame.

that might be skewed by being ahead by so much and milking clock. for it to be so close, you gotta assume that ND was faster for most of the game

 

[sufandu]

that might be skewed by being ahead by so much and milking clock. for it to be so close, you gotta assume that ND was faster for most of the game

And at one point ND noticeably sped up compared to how they started the game. For a team that's not considered up tempo, they had no problem being that way when they chose to.

 

[UelSU]

It was more lost because we tried to guard 3 WRs to one side with a corner 7 yards off, a safety 12 yards off and a blitzing outside LB. 3 WRs on 2 DBs wins every time.

We can't bring our safety up to cover the slot because our corners can't cover one on one. All those bubble screens by ND, the slot receiver was uncovered. It was a 7 yard gain before the safety could even get close to make a tackle, and our linebacker can't get out fast enough. Easy pitch and catch.

 

[CousCuse]

We can't bring our safety up to cover the slot because our corners can't cover one on one. All those bubble screens by ND, the slot receiver was uncovered. It was a 7 yard gain before the safety could even get close to make a tackle, and our linebacker can't get out fast enough. Easy pitch and catch.

The defense was brilliant and worked perfectly. It made ND work the ball slowly down the field on many plays , increasing the opportunities for turnovers , which we got 5 of , one a pick 6. If they had called PI on that play with Ishmeal , it would have been 1st and goal and if we get a TD there the score would have been 28-22 midway thru the fourth quarter. Could we have asked for more than that from the team?

 

[sufandu]

The defense was brilliant and worked perfectly.

:rolling:

 

[Millhouse]

The defense was brilliant and worked perfectly. It made ND work the ball slowly down the field on many plays , increasing the opportunities for turnovers , which we got 5 of , one a pick 6. If they had called PI on that play with Ishmeal , it would have been 1st and goal and if we get a TD there the score would have been 28-22 midway thru the fourth quarter. Could we have asked for more than that from the team?

giving up 523 yards is not perfect

 

[UelSU]

The defense was brilliant and worked perfectly. It made ND work the ball slowly down the field on many plays , increasing the opportunities for turnovers , which we got 5 of , one a pick 6. If they had called PI on that play with Ishmeal , it would have been 1st and goal and if we get a TD there the score would have been 28-22 midway thru the fourth quarter. Could we have asked for more than that from the team?

I'm happy with how the defense played also, but our corners struggle in one on one press coverage, so they need safety help, which leads to WR screens working against us for teams that use them. We might not get 5 turnover the rest of the season, let alone that many in one game. What would the score have been without those turnovers? ND was not struggling moving the ball against us IMO. We gave up 362 yards passing and 4 touchdowns. Our offense is not helping our defense, I think everyone agrees with that, but ND threw that WR screen over and over and we couldn't stop it. That's all I'm saying.

 

[CousCuse]

:rolling:

I will make it simple for you , the defense worked the way the coaching staff designed it.

 

[sufandu]

I will make it simple for you , the defense worked the way the coaching staff designed it.

If the coaching staff can design a fumbled attempted spike or force the opposing player to not tuck the ball away, they need to call those plays more often. Notre Dame handed us most of those turnovers, it wasn't our defense forcing them. No defense is designed to give up 523 yards of total offense at 6.5 yards per play, an 82% completion percentage, a 64% 3rd down conversion rate, or 29 first downs. The statement that the "brilliant" defense "worked perfectly" is laughable, hence my previous reply. Thanks for making it simple for me though.

 

[CbusCuse]

I'm happy with how the defense played also, but our corners struggle in one on one press coverage, so they need safety help, which leads to WR screens working against us for teams that use them. We might not get 5 turnover the rest of the season, let alone that many in one game. What would the score have been without those turnovers? ND was not struggling moving the ball against us IMO. We gave up 362 yards passing and 4 touchdowns. Our offense is not helping our defense, I think everyone agrees with that, but ND threw that WR screen over and over and we couldn't stop it. That's all I'm saying.

I'm not in complete agreement with this. Yes our corners struggle with one on one coverage. That is difficult for any corner for an extended period of time. But we blitz a ton so our corners need to play it a fair amount. You need to hope that they can cover long enough for the blitz to get there. If the other team has three receivers to one side and we have two corners and a safety the safety should come up and guard one of the receivers not play 20 yards deep. Maybe not on 1st or 2nd down but definitely in some third down situations or we will never get off the field. We either do that or the other team is going to do what Notre Dame did every play and that is WR screen to an open man that picks up 7+ yards for a first down. Our corners may not be good 1 on 1 but we will be much more successful than playing 0 on 1. Either that or we should not be blitzing 90% of the snaps.

 

[orangezen]

what hasnt been mentioned on the play was the kick of the ball after the drop by our lineman .. does that nullify the advancement of the ball

 

[tep624]

The error was blowing the whistle on the botched spike play. The call the refs made after the review was, by the book, the right call.

 

[CousCuse]

If the coaching staff can design a fumbled attempted spike or force the opposing player to not tuck the ball away, they need to call those plays more often. Notre Dame handed us most of those turnovers, it wasn't our defense forcing them. No defense is designed to give up 523 yards of total offense at 6.5 yards per play, an 82% completion percentage, a 64% 3rd down conversion rate, or 29 first downs. The statement that the "brilliant" defense "worked perfectly" is laughable, hence my previous reply. Thanks for making it simple for me though.

Glad I could be of service to you. Here is another simplified concept for you. Notre Dame is a National Championship level team who picks from the cream of the crop the players they want.

 

[UelSU]

I'm not in complete agreement with this. Yes our corners struggle with one on one coverage. That is difficult for any corner for an extended period of time. But we blitz a ton so our corners need to play it a fair amount. You need to hope that they can cover long enough for the blitz to get there. If the other team has three receivers to one side and we have two corners and a safety the safety should come up and guard one of the receivers not play 20 yards deep. Maybe not on 1st or 2nd down but definitely in some third down situations or we will never get off the field. We either do that or the other team is going to do what Notre Dame did every play and that is WR screen to an open man that picks up 7+ yards for a first down. Our corners may not be good 1 on 1 but we will be much more successful than playing 0 on 1. Either that or we should not be blitzing 90% of the snaps.

I'm just speculating from watching the games I've seen. Many times we leave the opposing slot receiver "uncovered", except by a safety 12 yards off the ball, and the corner up in press coverage, or at least it appears to be press..it might be a zone. Regardless, only reason I can see as to why we would do this is that we are worried about getting beat deep. If you move a backer over, its a mismatch. If you bring the safety up, then you are one on one outside with no safety help. If its supposed to be zone, then I don't understand that alignment. So what does ND do? They read the safety off the slot, the receiver lined up wide locks up our corner. They pitch it out to the slot and he get 5 to 7 yards easy. Too easy in my opinion, but maybe that's all we can do. Our corners got scorched against ND. How many pass interference penalties did we get with Wigham holding on for dear life? I personally could live with less blitzes and straight up defense here and there.

 

[sufandu]

Glad I could be of service to you. Here is another simplified concept for you. Notre Dame is a National Championship level team who picks from the cream of the crop the players they want.

I don't see how that pertains to your assertion that our defensive plan was "brilliant" and "worked perfectly."

 

[Orange4]

Both games that we lost we were a play or two away from it being a different game and changing momentum. Unfortunately, it takes just one player to have a miscue to gain or ruin momentum and for us there have been a couple dumb plays that just take the air out of our team. If we can fix these problems and fix them fast we will end with a very good season. These players just need to work extra hard, take extra reps every practice. We are not far away from competeing with the Notre Dames in my opinion, if we played like we did the first quarter the whole game and our offense got going, Saturday would have been one hell of a game.