The CardBoard
Stanford-WSU Game Thread - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Stanford-WSU Game Thread (/thread-7996.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Re: Stanford-WSU Game Thread - martyup - 10-10-2014

Terrible officiating.  Terrible.  Horrendous.  Pathetic. Why?

Re: Stanford-WSU Game Thread - Nan3cy - 10-10-2014

Wazzu was 4 for 5 on 4th down????


Re: Stanford-WSU Game Thread - fullmetal - 10-10-2014

Mike Leach's wizardry at work.  If he ever gets an OL and a defense...

Re: Stanford-WSU Game Thread - stupac2 - 10-10-2014

(10-10-2014, 10:33 PM)Nan3cy link Wrote:Wazzu was 4 for 5 on 4th down????

Their receivers can catch and Halliday can make the quick throw. It's really hard to stop a quick swing/screen from getting a yard, and I think all 4 conversions were 4th and short (and 3 of those were picked up that way, the other was a run, IIRC).

Re: Stanford-WSU Game Thread - CompSci87 - 10-10-2014

(10-10-2014, 10:29 PM)martyup link Wrote:Terrible officiating.  Terrible.  Horrendous.  Pathetic. Why?

Work slowdown to protest their boss being forced out?  ???

Re: Stanford-WSU Game Thread - fullmetal - 10-11-2014

(10-10-2014, 10:48 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=Nan3cy link=topic=10851.msg101783#msg101783 date=1413005586]Wazzu was 4 for 5 on 4th down????

Their receivers can catch and Halliday can make the quick throw. It's really hard to stop a quick swing/screen from getting a yard, and I think all 4 conversions were 4th and short (and 3 of those were picked up that way, the other was a run, IIRC).
[/quote]

Our defense isn't very good at stopping slant passes, is it?  I seem to remember those burning us vs. U$C.  Did WSU try anything of the sort today?  If not, Leach didn't do his homework...

Re: Stanford-WSU Game Thread - Ratmandoo - 10-11-2014

(10-10-2014, 10:16 PM)ferrari link Wrote:  And the illegal movement call on Cajuste was just bizarre and so unnecessary.  It seemed every flag required a lengthy conference among officials.  Trying to figure out the call?  The penalty?  The rule?  Just weird.  There needs to be penalties when refs are this incompetent.

Can anyone explain if this call on Cajuste was even correct? They called an illegal shift which is when two players go in motion after the offense is set. On the replay it just looks like Cajuste takes a step backward before the snap but no one else moved. So that shouldn't be an illegal shift and since he wasn't moving forward it shouldn't be illegal motion (plus that's not what was called). Our offense has enough trouble scoring. It really blows that we lose touchdown or incorrect calls (or do I not understand illegal shift?)

Re: Stanford-WSU Game Thread - martyup - 10-11-2014

90 yards in penalties.  WTF?

Re: Stanford-WSU Game Thread - OutsiderFan - 10-11-2014

(10-11-2014, 12:19 AM)Ratmandoo link Wrote:[quote author=ferrari link=topic=10851.msg101774#msg101774 date=1413004579]
  And the illegal movement call on Cajuste was just bizarre and so unnecessary.  It seemed every flag required a lengthy conference among officials.  Trying to figure out the call?  The penalty?  The rule?  Just weird.  There needs to be penalties when refs are this incompetent.

Can anyone explain if this call on Cajuste was even correct? They called an illegal shift which is when two players go in motion after the offense is set. On the replay it just looks like Cajuste takes a step backward before the snap but no one else moved. So that shouldn't be an illegal shift and since he wasn't moving forward it shouldn't be illegal motion (plus that's not what was called). Our offense has enough trouble scoring. It really blows that we lose touchdown or incorrect calls (or do I not understand illegal shift?)
[/quote]

Players can only be in motion parallel to the LOS.  If going backward or forward at snap, it's illegal motion.  And only one guy can be in motion when the ball is snapped.  If two guys are moving at same time when ball is snapped it's an illegal shift, just a variant of illegal motion.

Cajuste was not moving backward when the ball was snapped.  He set himself a millisecond before the ball was snapped, probably because he knew the snap count.  The official made the wrong call.

Cal was boned on the exact same thing against U$C several years ago, and the call impacted the game outcome much more.

Re: Stanford-WSU Game Thread - stupac2 - 10-11-2014

A quick googling found this: http://romgilbert.us/2011%20NCAA%20Illegal%20Shift%20False%20Start.pdf

According to that Cajuste's motion was in no way, shape, or form illegal shift, since that requires two men to be moving at once. I don't know if that's right or not, but if it is getting something that basic wrong is so egregious that that entire crew should be fired.

Re: Stanford-WSU Game Thread - washingtonismoney - 10-11-2014

Speaking of touchdowns vaporizing... did anyone think Skov broke the plane on his extension? I think there might have been a chance he did.

Re: Stanford-WSU Game Thread - martyup - 10-11-2014

(10-11-2014, 08:36 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Speaking of touchdowns vaporizing... did anyone think Skov broke the plane on his extension? I think there might have been a chance he did.

I didn't see a camera shot that would have allowed the officials to call it a TD.  I was surprised that it wasn't reviewed.  It seems like there should be a camera dedicated to each goal line.  Too many times I've seen close calls on the goal line with no good camera view to help make the correct call.  It would help on punts too.

Re: Stanford-WSU Game Thread - 81alum - 10-11-2014

I wondered from the stands if there was a review of the goal-line fumble.  I could not make out the fumble and have no idea what happened.  It does seem as if we have suffered repeatedly from momentum calls being called too soon (Notre Dame 2012) or too late (Notre Dame 2014) and I wondered how this one compared.

Re: Stanford-WSU Game Thread - scorecard - 10-11-2014

(10-11-2014, 07:57 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:A quick googling found this: http://romgilbert.us/2011%20NCAA%20Illegal%20Shift%20False%20Start.pdf

According to that Cajuste's motion was in no way, shape, or form illegal shift, since that requires two men to be moving at once. I don't know if that's right or not, but if it is getting something that basic wrong is so egregious that that entire crew should be fired.

It seems to me that stupac2 is correct here.  Cajuste simply stepped backward off the line, but he was the only one who moved, and he was still for a split second before the snap (probably not a full second, not that it matters).  Here's another link that also spells it out in easy to read language:

http://www.teamspeedkills.com/2010/8/9/1613833/know-your-annoying-penalties

This took 7 points off the board from Montgomery's TD, and was subsequently followed a down later by the 4th down should-have-been-PI that brought Shaw onto the field to complain after the WSU DB climbed over Rector's back (which may have been fortunate as he then got destroyed by his own safety).

Re: Stanford-WSU Game Thread - OutsiderFan - 10-11-2014

Why, why, why, why, why, why.... is it not standard practice to have dedicated cameras on goal lines?  It is mind bending that you can ever say "the camera angle wasn't good enough" on the goal line at high levels of football.  I too thought Skov might have crossed the goal line, but absent a camera on the goal line, there is "no conclusive evidence."  That should never be the case on scoring plays.

If cameras can be used for track, horse and car racing to judge finishes, why the heck not for football goal lines to judge TDs?




Re: Stanford-WSU Game Thread - stupac2 - 10-11-2014

(10-11-2014, 10:35 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Why, why, why, why, why, why.... is it not standard practice to have dedicated cameras on goal lines?  It is mind bending that you can ever say "the camera angle wasn't good enough" on the goal line at high levels of football.  I too thought Skov might have crossed the goal line, but absent a camera on the goal line, there is "no conclusive evidence."  That should never be the case on scoring plays.

If cameras can be used for track, horse and car racing to judge finishes, why the heck not for football goal lines to judge TDs?

Also mystifying is no camera under goalposts for those close kicks. Or the fact that they seem to still be using 24 fps cameras, maybe there's some technical reason for that, but it seems like that should be surmountable at this point.

Re: Stanford-WSU Game Thread - stupac2 - 10-11-2014

This just occurred to me, I don't think I've seen anyone address it, but from the stands it looked like Hogan was doing a great job of checking his 2nd and even 3rd reads on some plays. Am I crazy or was he really looking through his progressions in a way he just didn't last week?

Re: Stanford-WSU Game Thread - Hurlburt88 - 10-11-2014

I thought he went through progressions sometimes, but only sometimes.  much of the time he still focused on one receiver--often that receiver was able to get open so no harm resulted. 

Re: Stanford-WSU Game Thread - CornFed - 10-11-2014

The one on which he clearly looked off defenders was the TD to Hooper.  Faked a pass to the right flat and set up the center screen.