If he fumbled at the 2 and the ball was placed at the 1, that is a forward fumble and there is some rule about the clock must run so many seconds off (which I believe is enforced to prevent players from intentionally fumbling forward to get the ball out of bounds or in the hopes of a teammate recovering in the end zone). But from my perspective of the replays, it did not appear to go forward, more backwards or level. I still think it was closer to the 2-3 than inside the 1.
So who here wants Notre Dame to win Saturday?
- Thread starter mathiaslg
- Start date
whoever wrote that article has no clue what he is talking about. he is incorrect on several points. I know he is not saying anything negative about USC, but he is wrong in what he is talking about.
FLASHWOK said:
We've been through this before... a penalty cannot be called when the clock shows :00, whether correct or not correct. A penalty can only be called after the PA informs the crowd and players to get off the field of play and they do not.
MrMarcello said:
he fumbled at the half yard line, the ball flew by the refs right leg, diagonally whose right leg was about 1 yard off the goalline. but you are right, he difinitely did not fumble it forward, because the linebacker put his helmet right through the ball jarring it loose, and the LB was rushing diagnolly towards Leinart.
MrMarcello said:
a penalty cannot be called at :00 huh?
so how is it that a half cannot end on a defensive penalty, say pass intereference.
penalties can be called whenever they are warranted. players can be ejected flagged or ejected after the clock expires, personal fouls can be called as well.
the official signalled for the clock to be stopped. Th officials word to stop the clock is RULE OF LAW on the field. Timekeeper should be looking nowhere else.
that said, all though the clock read zero based on erroneous time keeping, there were in facts 7 seconds left, since the referee signalled it.
official time has stopped at :07...Notre Dame players and coaches and fans on the field.
no question.
FLASHWOK said:
Stop twisting things around to back up your already disproven argument.
A penalty CAN be called with :00 time on the clock. But in the case you continually moan about, a penalty can only be called AFTER the PA informs the crowd to leave the field and the crowd does not. The refs are not going to penalize the home team without WARNING. The warning is given to the home team and is then relayed to the PA so the crowd is aware. If the crowd does not comply in a reasonable period of time, the refs can flag the home team for unsportsmanlike conduct.
Comprende?
Furthermore, the clock read :00, not :07. If it read :07, the fans wouldn't have stormed the field. Get a clue.
MrMarcello said:
I see, so fans have never begun storming the field before 0:00? you should get a clue marcello. the fans began storming prior to the :00, and it doesn't matter what the clock read. the clock was wrong. play had been signalled dead, ND players on the field knew it as wwell, the game was still on.
FLASHWOK said:
The final play would have been reviewable under certain circumstances, but it would not be overturned on the basis of failing to call a penalty on Bush for aiding the runner.
The sideline ref was definitely confused because he didn't see the ball go out of bounds. I think he's actually marking the spot where the runner's forward progress stops. That's why he let the clock run. It would make no sense for him to stop the clock if he didn't see the ball go flying past him. I could only download part of the file and didn't get the last plays, but I might be able to get our IT guys to get it later.
You are right about ignoring the timeout request. Nobody was going to call a coaching box violation. Same with the ND players and coach on the field with the scoreboard clock showing 0:00. The penalty you are calling for is excessive celebration. It's purpose is not to penalize players for going onto the field after the game. Thankfully the officials sometimes use common sense. To call for a penalty there is a losing argument. My brother and a couple of friends are college officials and I would be embarrassed to even ask them that.
MrMarcello said:
When a runner or the ball gets hit head on, it usually goes backwards. I know you can't always tell from TV because of the angles, but it surely looked like it was going back when it went out of bounds.
kennyj said:
were you able to download the shorter one kenny?
FLASHWOK said:
Yep, the video from the guy in the stands is brilliant. Especially the first one. I´m 77% done with the full game. Thanks.
A UT/USC Rose Bowl should make for some fun discussions between you and Marcello.
FLASHWOK said:
No luck so far. I'm at work and have to be little careful. I only get six out of the 14 minutes on the large file, so I cut off at the incomplete pass. I have our IT guy looking for another clip. I do need another look at it. It was pretty cool watching it again.
Jens said:A UT/USC Rose Bowl should make for some fun discussions between you and Marcello.
It will probably be USC and Virginia Tech.
kennyj said:
Well, supposedly one of the BCS analysts stated that if Texas runs the table, he doesn't think VaTech will overtake them despite wins over FSU and Miami. What gives Texas a big boost is if they defeat Texas Tech, who's somehow ranked 7th in the BCS standings.
kennyj said:
The BCS could be in big trouble if Alabama or Georgia run the table and the SEC team is overlooked AGAIN. I would expect the SEC to make some trouble in that case as they overlooked Auburn too last year.
The first BCS doesn´t look good for either ´Bama nor Georgia.
There's actually some sort of arguement over this?
Fantastic game - both teams showed heart and SUC showed why they have a <grrrrr> great program and coaching staff. It took major sack to go for the win - but champions come through when it matters most. There were no calls that could have gone the other way or should have been disputed. ND doesn't know how to finish - and it cost them. Glad to see the BCS putting them about the spot they should be.
Just another reason to laugh at the polls - ridiculous.
Bruin cap doffed to the Trojies for their fine effort, Domers - we'll see you in South Bend on Oct. 21, '06.
Dec 3rd, FLASHie...Dec 3rd
Fantastic game - both teams showed heart and SUC showed why they have a <grrrrr> great program and coaching staff. It took major sack to go for the win - but champions come through when it matters most. There were no calls that could have gone the other way or should have been disputed. ND doesn't know how to finish - and it cost them. Glad to see the BCS putting them about the spot they should be.
Just another reason to laugh at the polls - ridiculous.
Bruin cap doffed to the Trojies for their fine effort, Domers - we'll see you in South Bend on Oct. 21, '06.
Dec 3rd, FLASHie...Dec 3rd
Jens, I would love to see 4 teams finish unbeaten and further force the imminent D-1 playoff system. We could easily see either Texas or VaTech left out and playing an unbeaten Alabama or Georgia.
Jens said:Yep, the video from the guy in the stands is brilliant. Especially the first one. I´m 77% done with the full game. Thanks.
A UT/USC Rose Bowl should make for some fun discussions between you and Marcello.
I'm hoping for UT...much rather play them than Va Tech based on the season so far...but based on how VA Tech plays against Miami and then if they face FSU that should determine who goes if they are both undefeated
kennyj said:
I'll try to upload the short one to yousendit for you.
FLASHWOK said:
I hope UT gets there... then I can't wait to hear FLASH bitch and moan about USC's loss.
TheDevil'sOwn said:
December 3rd is looking better and better...be insane if they both are undefeated coming into it!!!!!
MrMarcello said:
Found this on a CU board. Was posted before the weekend, so the scenario is out of the window, but still ... it´d have been the BCS´ total nightmare.
Which leads me to the question, how could a playoff system be introduced? The Big 10, Pac 10 would have to acquire 2 teams and the Big East 4. Can´t see that happening without ND giving up their Independent Status.
MrMarcello said:
play somebody with an offense first before you start squawking
Jens said:
I still stick to my guns...the top 4 go into a playoff and that's it.
for example.
Sugar - #1 vs. #4
Orange - #2 vs. #3
Rose- Championship
Fiesta - hosts #5 vs. #6
it will rotate years for who hosts the championship, the semis and the #5 vs. #6 game which will be sort of an odd man out.
FLASHWOK said:
play somebody with an offense first before you start squawking
Says the poster who talked about how shit Notre Dame was and only had 4 wins against poor opposition and would lose by 22 to USC.
Offense...opponent...let's see...
Shut down Colorado to 17 points (7 "garbage," off TO inside 5 late in 4th) and 237 yards, they had averaged 30 PPG and 427 YPG prior to.
Shut down Missouri to 20 points (7 on the final drive) and 330 yards (72 garbage on the final drive), they had averaged 43.7 PPG and 553 YPG prior to.
OU has been terrible this season, but just you see with Notre Dame, a rival can step up against all odds. OU was primed for an upset (according to some) but Texas dominated them. And for all the talk about OU's lack of offense, they had averaged over 27 PPG prior to. And OU still has a good defense, but not great. But in rivalries, you can toss everything out the window, as USC will probably discover later against UCLA.
And despite OSU not having an elite offense (they didn't have en elite offense when they beat Miami in 2002 either, they just had a good RB and efficient QB), their defense is standout yet Texas put 23 past them, and won on the road. Despite gifting OSU the ball inside Texas half 3 times and only surrendering 9 points. Doesn't matter what team you play, you give up the ball that much in your half, you can lose. Texas won...and that's all that matters.
Tech coming up... Tech is averaging 53.7 PPG and 573 YPG, of which 472 is in the air. This will be a good test for Texas...and might go some way in getting a small bit of credit from such critics as yourself. Which I doubt.
FLASHWOK said:
It's still a joke if you only have 4. A team like FSU or Miami could lose out to VaTech and be shut out of the top 4 but arguably could be better than the SEC champion or Big XII or Big Ten or PAC 10 champion in any given year. A playoff system has to have at least 8 teams. I prefer 16 or 24, but I'll take any form of a playoff system just to get rid of the stupid BCS. And I'd really like to see polls eliminated. They're useless and only serve to confuse and create arguments.
MrMarcello said:
you're right...Texas has a long way to go to get my respect based on this year. This is the weakest Big 12 in eons. even a texas homer like you has to admit it.
as for USC's opponents, just for the record, our strength of schedule is #16 at the moment...your SOS is at #46. says it all really. You still have not faced a balanced high octane offense.
team................rush o.....pass o....total o
Hawaii..............#115.........#2........#22
Arkansas...........#6...........#110......#45
Oregon..............#57.........#5.........#13
Arizona State.....#55..........#3.........#5
Arizona.............#111........#63........#96
Notre Dame........#34.........#9.........#12
kennyj said:
here's the short one kenny
http://s62.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=3OO5H8HXEIUWX0GGCZ4BLB4XTC
let me know if you want me to try to upload the big one to yousendit as well
MrMarcello said:
I agree for larger expanded playoffs in a sport such as hoops, but college football is special.
if college football had a Top 16 playoff, everything in the regular season would be essentially rendered meaningless. in that extra two games against lesser teams, in such a heavily contact sport, injuries could wreck everything and that just isn't fair IMO since the season is so short in terms of games.
I'd rather have the Top 4, because let's face it, in college football, there really is a separation of the top tier that is different from basketball.
why should USC at 12-0 and Texas at 12-0 With say Va Tech at 12-0 and say Alabama at 11-1, having proved they are at the top for the year, have to fight an extra two games against teams that may be 7-4 or 8-3 ranked 16th or so?
I Think a 16th ranked team in college hoops deserves a shot at the tournament, I don't think a 16th ranked 3 loss team in college football deserves that same chance.
4 for me is enough, because it will still preserve the bowl system AND satisfy the playoff proponents.
I love the bowl system and I support a playoff, so IMO the top 4 in a playoff encompassing the traditional big 4 bowls seems the logical compromise.
I'd rather tell a #5 ranked team, "sorry you don't get to be in" then tell an undefeated #3 team (like Auburn in 04, or a #1 ranked team, USC in 03) "sorry you don't get to play in the national championship.
in college football IMO there are rarely more than 3 teams yearly that have a legit claim to a stake at the national championship
FLASHWOK said:
So you snooze on Missouri even though they are ranked #14 and no mention of Tech coming up. If you say ND, then I counter with Missouri. Look at the desparity in rush and pass for ND. But you dismiss Missouri. And is this ranking for current standings? Because both Missouri and Colorado were ranked considerably higher BEFORE playing Texas. I don't care what the offense is ranked a game or two after playing Texas. What matters is where they ranked before the game and how Texas shut them down. Notre Dame put up over 400 yards against USC...I'd like to see if they could do that against Texas (possible, or they could be shut down).
Hopefully Texas can go undefeated, win the Big XII title game, get the #2 bid, and beat USC. Would love to see your presence on this board after all the shit you talk. And still downplay Texas due to schedule or lack of playing "great" offenses (obvious to everyone that it has to be a top name school or in the PAC 10 to be a great offense in your view
). I suppose USC really had a "tough" schedule in 2003, but did you complain about them being ranked in the top 3 and getting a share of the national title? I bet you lobbied all season how USC deserved a shot, despite the lesser than great schedule and 1 loss against a weaker opponent. USC's 12 opponents were a combined 72-75 (71-64 adjusted) in 2003 regular season. We could go venture to 2004, when the opponents had a combined 68-65 (68-53 adjusted) record. **Adjusted is dropping the Wins/Losses from games against USC. 2005 played opponents combined record today:
USC 18-19 (18-13 adjusted)
Texas foes: 16-20 (16-14 adjusted)
I do give the edge to USC on having played a better schedule and will have a tougher schedule overall.
Remaining opponents combined record as of today:
USC: 24-13
Texas: 20-10
MrMarcello said:
Missouri is the highest ranked offense you have faced...USC has faced three offenses that were tougher and ranked higher
Texas Tech has played 3 games against Division 1AA opponents. In their games against normal big12 opposition they have hardly done anything that impressive.
I also did not mention Tech because they are on your future shcedule, and had you noticed, I displayed only games that USC had played thus far. and I mentioned the statistics of the 2 Texas opponents you named. If I want to embarrass you further, I'll go ahead and name the other 4 and their respective rankings
team................rush o.....pass o....total
Louis-Laf..........#13.........#103........#57
Ohio State.........#38........#82.........#71
RIce ................#22........#117........#101
Missouri.............#11........#42.........#14
Oklahoma..........#56........#106........#104
Colorado............#61.......#36..........#46
too put it nicely, Texas has only faced 1 team ranked above #45 in the nation in offense. says it all really.
just so you know, Marcello, there are 116 teams in 1A.
And is this ranking for current standings?
Because both Missouri and Colorado were ranked considerably higher BEFORE playing Texas. I don't care what the offense is ranked a game or two after playing Texas.
oh I see, so shall I than count up Oregon, ND and ASU and Hawaii's offensive numbers to bring them up to accurate standards? Since we held them all considerably under their average youll get the same effect.the standings are perfectly fair, and they are compared for USC and TExas after satrudays games. don't try and read anything else into it...just cause you can't stand the facts. it's their in black and white
What matters is where they ranked before the game and how Texas shut them down. Notre Dame put up over 400 yards against USC...I'd like to see if they could do that against Texas (possible, or they could be shut down).
Hopefully Texas can go undefeated, win the Big XII title game, get the #2 bid, and beat USC. Would love to see your presence on this board after all the shit you talk.
we'll see. Texas hasn't won anything in god knows how long. I'd fancy our chances against you guys any day of the week. you're half the team Oklahoma was last year. you haven't played anyone like USC, and that's a fact. I'll still be on this board the day after we play you.
And still downplay Texas due to schedule or lack of playing "great" offenses (obvious to everyone that it has to be a top name school or in the PAC 10 to be a great offense in your view
nonsens, there are other great offenses around, they just aren't in the big 12 this year. you seem to be the only person in the nation who cannot fathom that this is one of the worst years ever for the Big 12. your bias on this topic far exceeds mine.
I suppose USC really had a "tough" schedule in 2003, but did you complain about them being ranked in the top 3 and getting a share of the national title?
USC was ranked #1 by both polls. USC had four quality wins than beat the #4 team in the nation in the Rose Bowl. I'll take wins over 5 ranked opponents.
I bet you lobbied all season how USC deserved a shot, despite the lesser than great schedule and 1 loss against a weaker opponent.
USC's loss came by 3 points in OT in the 4th game of the season. Florida's loss was in midseason, and they were crushed, 26-7. Oklahoma's loss was right in the big 12 championship, a crushing 35-7 defeat. you can tease me all you want, but you are in the minority on that one...I'd say the AP and coaches poll which voted USC #1 are a lot more correct then you are. Take it up with them, not just me.
USC's 12 opponents were a combined 72-75 (71-64 adjusted) in 2003 regular season. We could go venture to 2004, when the opponents had a combined 68-65 (68-53 adjusted) record. **Adjusted is dropping the Wins/Losses from games against USC.
2005 played opponents combined record today:
USC 18-19 (18-13 adjusted)
Texas foes: 16-20 (16-14 adjusted)
I do give the edge to USC on having played a better schedule and will have a tougher schedule overall.
how kind of you
Remaining opponents combined record as of today:
USC: 24-13
Texas: 20-10
yeah, will you be removing Texas Tech's 3 games against D1AA opponents from that mix?
shall we compare defenses next?
are you going to complain about their inflated numbers after facing the great Texas team?
before you suggest that, I'll just go ahead and remind you that USC has inflated opponents defenses numbers by about oh 613 yards per game. your opponents will only have them inflated by 494 yards per game...buy you probably wouldn't have pointed that out if I posted the defensive rankings.
and for the record, please check my re-edited rankings for Hawaii...their offense is ranked #22, not #122 as I stated accidentally.
FLASHWOK said:
What? 5 ranked opponents? According to the schedule below, USC only played 1 (one, uno, un) ranked opponent in 2003 regular season, and that was at home against Washington State (#14). Cal wasn't ranked until the Monday after defeating USC.
USC 2003
LSU should have been your opponent if not for the stupid bowl system that still had Big Ten vs PAC-10 in the Rose Bowl. Getting Michigan was an easier task than LSU or OU.
USC knocked off 2 ranked opponents in 2004. This season, USC has beaten 3. Texas has knocked off 2 and has a top 10 foe this weekend.
FLASHWOK said:
I think that's a good idea. It's better than what we have and I don't see a problem adding one more game.
MrMarcello said:
that's really sad marcello...if you are going to criticize SC, at least get yuor facts straight.
in 2004 we beat 4 ranked opponents not 2 as you stated (Va Tech,(ACC champs FYI) Cal, Arizona State, and #2 Oklahoma (big 12 champs FYI, you remember them don't you?)
in 2003 we beat 3 ranked opponents - not one as you have suggested
Auburn #6 Washington State #6 Michigan #4
if you'd like to take your shots at me go ahead, but at least use accurate statistics.
and am i to assume you had nothing to add when confronting the rest of post #151 about the true facts I posted about who texas has played this year?
oh, and the "Top Ten Team" you are playing, has played 3 division 1AA opponents, sorry, that's pathetic any way you cut it.
kennyj said:
I posted the short video for you kenny, did you get it?
it's in post 148
Whatever Flash. The schedule clearly shows only 1 ranked opponent USC played and beat during the 2003 regular season and 2 in 2004. A team might have been ranked later in the season after USC played them or before USC played them, but when USC played the games, only 1 team was ranked (and that is the criteria NCAA uses to record records against ranked opponents). Yes, the bowl opponent (Michigan) was ranked, but I was referring to regular season.
Clutching at straws. Rather pathetic. I put the facts for you to see and you still argue.
I don't agree that Tech is deserving of #10, but they have been voted there and a Texas win will be credited against a Top 10 team. Whether you like it or not.
Clutching at straws. Rather pathetic. I put the facts for you to see and you still argue.
I don't agree that Tech is deserving of #10, but they have been voted there and a Texas win will be credited against a Top 10 team. Whether you like it or not.
FLASHWOK said:
I got it and it's much appreciated. You are right that the ref stopped the clock and I think he did see the ball fly out of bounds. The ball flew back, but it's hard to see where it went out of bounds. On one angle it looked much further back than on the other angle. So that's really hard to say.
All in all, I'd agree with Coach Weis that the officials did a pretty good job.
MrMarcello said:
true...against a "TOP 10" team that has beat 3-division 1AA opponents.
2003 Bowl Results
PAC10....4-2
BIG12.....2-6
2004 Bowl Results
PAC10....3-2
BIG12....3-3
USC National Strength Of Schedule
2003 - 12th
2004 - 25th
2005 - 1st BSC Poll, USC 16th, Texas 46th
Check the link asswipe. Please notice the #1 next to USC but no rank next to Auburn. Also notice the Top 25 scoreboard for that week's games. #6 was Ohio State on August 30, 2003.
#1 USC 23, Auburn 0
Here's the box-score. Notice no rank before Auburn? Is it clear yet?
#1 USC (1-0) 10 0 6 7 23 FINAL
AUB (0-1) 0 0 0 0 0
August 30, 2003 - Jordan-Hare Stadium
Here is Washington State game...
#14 WSU (7-2) 0 10 0 6 16 FINAL
#1 USC (8-1) 3 12 14 14 43
November 1, 2003 - Los Angeles Coliseum
This is ESPN. It's the Coaches Poll. So it's not the AP Poll. That might be the discrepancy here. But please tell me how the AP would vote Auburn #6 and the Coaches would not have Auburn in the Top 25. And USC #8 versus #1.
#1 USC 23, Auburn 0
Here's the box-score. Notice no rank before Auburn? Is it clear yet?
#1 USC (1-0) 10 0 6 7 23 FINAL
AUB (0-1) 0 0 0 0 0
August 30, 2003 - Jordan-Hare Stadium
Here is Washington State game...
#14 WSU (7-2) 0 10 0 6 16 FINAL
#1 USC (8-1) 3 12 14 14 43
November 1, 2003 - Los Angeles Coliseum
This is ESPN. It's the Coaches Poll. So it's not the AP Poll. That might be the discrepancy here. But please tell me how the AP would vote Auburn #6 and the Coaches would not have Auburn in the Top 25. And USC #8 versus #1.
kennyj said:
all the ND players and USC players said the whistles clearly blew as well, whic explains why all the players on the field reacted the way they did.
the key in the video is to watch the linebackers helmet, hit the ball in Leinarts hands, then look at the guy on the sidelines....the guy with the dark blue shirt and blue jeans, holding the microphone stand...it hits the bottom part of hhis boom mic . so that's the key... the ball was about a foot from teh goal line when hit and flies to hit that guy. when he is hit, he is standing between the 1 and 2 yard line, closer, to the one, about 8-10 feet from the sideline.
so I am obviously no mathmetician (it would be nice to have an overhead view
it's like the kennedy assasination.)but Leinart is 4 feet from the sideline or so, ball is about a foot, foot and half from the goal line when knocked out, and flies 4feet to the sideline, than another 8-10 feet to hit the guy whose mic is held in the middle of his body which is a bit closer to the 1 yard line than to the 2 yard line.
I'm sure someone here can figure out the math of it.
it equates to...ball flies out diagnolly from 1 foot line, travels a total of 12-14 feet, hitting an object standing about at 4 feet from the goal line.
at what distance from the goalline is the ball after having flown 4 feet (directly over the sideline.)
of course this is totally hypothetical but it's as close as I can figure.
I think given the circumstances the ref got as close to correct as possible.