- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 10/20/14 at 12:33 pm to TechDawg2007
quote:
It really was a bad call
No, it wasn't. The fact that the refs would have never called it in South Bend does not make it a bad call.
Posted on 10/20/14 at 12:34 pm to Zamoro10
quote:
That call saved the nation from having to witness an over-rated Notre Dame team sneaking into the playoff just because they are media darling Notre Dame and then getting blitzkreiged by Bama again (or someone else) in the most boring game ever.
They will still make the playoff if they do not lose another game.
Posted on 10/20/14 at 12:53 pm to swamie
quote:
Herbie made me laugh when he said the defender was throwing his hands up because he was blocked out from the play. When he looked like he was arguing with his team about a blown assignment.
Geez I didn't see that but that's terrible. It's painfully obvious what happened on that play and Herbie should be ashamed if he thought that or was just trying to cover up.
Posted on 10/20/14 at 1:02 pm to Augustus
First time I've seen the call in controversy. I think it was a great play design, but poorly executed. The ND guys didn't event try to sell it as a route. They clearly were blocking. You have to make it look like you "unintentionally" ran into the defender. They ran and set up to block.
Posted on 10/20/14 at 1:03 pm to nicholastiger
quote:
That would have been a good no call similar to OSU Miami national title game.
that delayed flag was literally theft
Posted on 10/20/14 at 1:09 pm to Alt26
quote:
I think it was a great play design, but poorly executed. The ND guys didn't event try to sell it as a route. They clearly were blocking. You have to make it look like you "unintentionally" ran into the defender. They ran and set up to block.
....or just break off the route at the LOS. As long as the pass is behind the LOS, they can block downfield all they want. He would still walk into the EZ for a score.
Posted on 10/20/14 at 1:11 pm to Augustus
It was the correct call. I'm glad to see the officials wanted a true winner in that game.
Posted on 10/20/14 at 1:12 pm to swamie
quote:
When he looked like he was arguing with his team about a blown assignment.
Even if he was arguing with him, he didn't know that Darby got blocked out of position by a WR. You can clearly see when Darby sees Robinson and tries to make a play only to receive a downfield block. It is obvious Darby was covering that area and the unblocked DB at the back of the endzone was to take the blocking WR.
It was the right call. And sour grapes are my favorite.
Posted on 10/20/14 at 1:17 pm to Carson123987
quote:And when the Bama fan says the refs must've been paid off.
I like where the auburn fan talks about a "bought and paid-for season"
Posted on 10/20/14 at 1:18 pm to Alt26
quote:
First time I've seen the call in controversy. I think it was a great play design, but poorly executed. The ND guys didn't event try to sell it as a route. They clearly were blocking. You have to make it look like you "unintentionally" ran into the defender. They ran and set up to block.
Same here. I just saw it for the first time and thought they were blocking.
Posted on 10/20/14 at 1:21 pm to Archie Bengal Bunker
Do you agree that Darby blew the coverage? Why did he jump inside of the ND WR #7?
He should have had outside leverage on #7. But he didn't. He was trying to cut off the slant.
He got lucky they called it, because that's a TD even if Darby never engages with the WR.
Here's the best angle:
LINK
He should have had outside leverage on #7. But he didn't. He was trying to cut off the slant.
He got lucky they called it, because that's a TD even if Darby never engages with the WR.
Here's the best angle:
LINK
This post was edited on 10/20/14 at 1:27 pm
Posted on 10/20/14 at 1:42 pm to bayoujd
quote:
Do you agree that Darby blew the coverage? Why did he jump inside of the ND WR #7?
He should have had outside leverage on #7. But he didn't. He was trying to cut off the slant.
He got lucky they called it, because that's a TD even if Darby never engages with the WR.
It looks that way but its hard to tell. He won this play before the ball was snapped though. Notre Dame respected him enough that they took their chances of getting away with blocking him rather than hoping they could beat him in coverage. So it really doesn't matter. There was no luck about it. Notre Dame did exactly what they tried to do.
Posted on 10/20/14 at 1:43 pm to bayoujd
First, I dispute that a blown coverage negates the call in this case. Even if the coverage was blown, Darby still would have had a chance to make a play on the ball if he isn't being blocked.
Second, he takes one step with the blocking receiver and then reverses direction only to be blocked by a guy with both hands out. From the side angle (op angle), it looks as though Darby's eyes are following Robinson.
Second, he takes one step with the blocking receiver and then reverses direction only to be blocked by a guy with both hands out. From the side angle (op angle), it looks as though Darby's eyes are following Robinson.
Posted on 10/20/14 at 1:55 pm to Archie Bengal Bunker
quote:
Even if the coverage was blown, Darby still would have had a chance to make a play on the ball if he isn't being blocked.
Considering Darby is garbage, I highly doubt it
Also, right call was made, but Darby was in no way interested in guarding Robinson there. Dude was lost, just like he had been all game (which was why Ramsey was giving him an ear full after the play)
This post was edited on 10/20/14 at 2:00 pm
Posted on 10/20/14 at 2:02 pm to rocket31
quote:
(which was why Ramsey was giving him an ear full after the play)
Would people stop saying this as if it supports the point of him being beat? The fact that a Florida State defender was so surprised that his teammate blew an assignment so bad is evidence that the teammate was likely prevented from making that play.
If there was no reaction, you could say "oh they must have just been out-schemed." Florida States defender knew that his teammate should have been defending that and was in disbelief as to why he wash't.
Posted on 10/20/14 at 2:08 pm to TheSexecutioner
(no message)
This post was edited on 10/20/14 at 2:16 pm
Posted on 10/20/14 at 2:10 pm to TheSexecutioner
Dude, it's pretty obvious Darby's going to break up the slant to Fuller. I'm not even saying it's not a penalty, but he was definitely not trying to cover Robinson and whether Fuller did "block" him or not wouldn't have made a difference; that was going to be a touchdown.
Posted on 10/20/14 at 2:12 pm to TheSexecutioner
If Golson threw the ball to #7 instead of #88, is it defensive holding / pass interference on Darby for being all over #7? I'm certain it would have been. So it seems contradictory that #7 would have been called for offensive PI if the ball is not thrown to him, yet most likely would have been the beneficiary of defensive holding or PI if the ball had been thrown to him. 
Posted on 10/20/14 at 2:18 pm to Buckeye Fan 19
quote:
Dude, it's pretty obvious Darby's going to break up the slant to Fuller. I'm not even saying it's not a penalty, but he was definitely not trying to cover Robinson and whether Fuller did "block" him or not wouldn't have made a difference; that was going to be a touchdown.
Indeed, sure, its a flag.
But if youre going to argue Darby was attempting to defend Robinson you need your head examined.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News