The CardBoard
Stanford - ND discussion - 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 - ND discussion (/thread-10765.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Re: Stanford - ND discussion - standfan - 12-01-2015

(12-01-2015, 10:46 PM)mmboys07 link Wrote:By the way,  it is a myth the refs were NDs because they were from the ACC.  Stanford was called for one penalty the whole game.  Great, being a ND homer I generally take the position opposing teams, of equal ability must play perfect games to beat ND.  Stanford certainly did that on offense Saturday night.  Don't forget ND got screwed at Florida State last year for the infamous pick play at the end of the game*.  So yes, the refs didn't see and so on.
OK.  Let's suppose ND had played as well on offense as Stanford did Saturday night; 1 penalty, no turnovers and scored touchdowns on all its red zone trips and the series fumbled at the 23.  ND wins 55-38

*Since the called pick play; I have seen it a million times in college and pro games since then and have never seen it called.  In fact, most often those calling the games on TV describe the "rub" or "pick" as if it is a normal pattern.

That analysis ignores the fact that Shaw dials back the offense to score just enough to win. Stanford easily would have scored 10-17 more points if it needed to do so and deprived ND of even more TOP in the process. The two short possessions in the fourth quarter were classic Shaw, in the lead, conservative play calling. ND didn't force Stanford to do so as Shaw saw it although Stanford fans definitely think his being too conservative almost cost us.

Re: Stanford - ND discussion - NDIrish - 12-02-2015

(12-01-2015, 04:47 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:All I know is that unless you've actually played or coached football legal formations aren't obvious and refs seem to always catch them. I doubt it was actually illegal. I'm not sure I've ever seen an illegal formation called out as illegal and then be missed by the refs. Could be that no one's looking, but broadcasters usually know ahead of time and call it out.

I think where it got lost is that he came off the line into the middle which was just a pile of people and slipped out to the other side of the field, so no one really knew where he came from.

Re: Stanford - ND discussion - NDIrish - 12-02-2015

(12-01-2015, 04:56 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Actually, to be clear, the formation is legal.  The rules say at least 5 linemen and 2 ends must be at the line of scrimmage and are ineligible.  But you can have more than 5, I think, though not many teams would voluntarily make potential receivers ineligible by putting them up on the line.  So, the formation was legal.  Now, if the arrow was on Hooper, and he was at the line of scrimmage, he was an ineligible receiver.  If, however, Hooper was on the end, then he was a legal receiver.

BC

The arrow points to him.

If you want to see, go to the 1:46:10 mark

http://noonkick.com/2015-6-notre-dame-at-9-stanford/

i dont think the outcome of that play is changed if that guy is a yard back, but if a penalty is called who knows what happens next...

Re: Stanford - ND discussion - NDIrish - 12-02-2015

(12-01-2015, 10:46 PM)mmboys07 link Wrote:By the way,  it is a myth the refs were NDs because they were from the ACC.  Stanford was called for one penalty the whole game.  Great, being a ND homer I generally take the position opposing teams, of equal ability must play perfect games to beat ND.  Stanford certainly did that on offense Saturday night.  Don't forget ND got screwed at Florida State last year for the infamous pick play at the end of the game*.  So yes, the refs didn't see and so on.
OK.  Let's suppose ND had played as well on offense as Stanford did Saturday night; 1 penalty, no turnovers and scored touchdowns on all its red zone trips and the series fumbled at the 23.  ND wins 55-38

*Since the called pick play; I have seen it a million times in college and pro games since then and have never seen it called.  In fact, most often those calling the games on TV describe the "rub" or "pick" as if it is a normal pattern.

lets suppose ND had played as well....

ND played a great game, ND couldn't score in the redzone because stanford is better in the redzone than we are.  Our strength is spreading out a team and you lose that ability in the redzone, dont take anything away from either team by saying ND didn't play well.  They played great, they just need to get better and/or smarter in those areas.  Its not like we have been dominate in that area and then suddenly couldn't do it last night. 

I dont think the ref's favored one team or another, i just don't think they were the best crew out there.  Like i have said, calls were missed for both teams, but those missed calls just hurt ND more. 

Re: Stanford - ND discussion - NDIrish - 12-02-2015

(12-01-2015, 11:47 PM)standfan link Wrote:[quote author=mmboys07 link=topic=13731.msg145192#msg145192 date=1449035213]
By the way,  it is a myth the refs were NDs because they were from the ACC.  Stanford was called for one penalty the whole game.  Great, being a ND homer I generally take the position opposing teams, of equal ability must play perfect games to beat ND.  Stanford certainly did that on offense Saturday night.  Don't forget ND got screwed at Florida State last year for the infamous pick play at the end of the game*.  So yes, the refs didn't see and so on.
OK.  Let's suppose ND had played as well on offense as Stanford did Saturday night; 1 penalty, no turnovers and scored touchdowns on all its red zone trips and the series fumbled at the 23.  ND wins 55-38

*Since the called pick play; I have seen it a million times in college and pro games since then and have never seen it called.  In fact, most often those calling the games on TV describe the "rub" or "pick" as if it is a normal pattern.

That analysis ignores the fact that Shaw dials back the offense to score just enough to win. Stanford easily would have scored 10-17 more points if it needed to do so and deprived ND of even more TOP in the process. The two short possessions in the fourth quarter were classic Shaw, in the lead, conservative play calling. ND didn't force Stanford to do so as Shaw saw it although Stanford fans definitely think his being too conservative almost cost us.
[/quote]

that analysis also ignores the fact that the outcome of one play changes the play called after it and both teams reaction to that play.

Re: Stanford - ND discussion - terry - 12-02-2015

(12-01-2015, 04:46 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:You are correct.  I think the issue is the two ends who can catch passes must be at the line of scrimmage, and the four backs who can catch a pass must be a yard behind the line of scrimmage.  All eleven players are in the frame, so we can be sure there are no wide outs on the right side.  I can't read the numbers because of the resolution, but if the arrow is on Hooper, it sure doesn't look like he is lined up a yard behind the end to his right on that play.  Let me see if I can find a better highlight.

BC

It looks like Hooper is lined up on the line of scrimmage, as the last man on the right, as a TE. The player to his right (Bright?) is lined up a step off the line of scrimmage as a wingback. That means they both are eligible -- Hooper as the last man on the line, Bright as a back. The only issue is whether Bright is far enough off the line of scrimmage to be in the backfield. It seems to me that he's a step back, which is all that's required. The head linesman would have had an unobstructed view.

Re: Stanford - ND discussion - CTcard - 12-02-2015

(12-02-2015, 11:15 AM)terry link Wrote:It looks like Hooper is lined up on the line of scrimmage, as the last man on the right, as a TE. The player to his right (Bright?) is lined up a step off the line of scrimmage as a wingback. That means they both are eligible -- Hooper as the last man on the line, Bright as a back. The only issue is whether Bright is far enough off the line of scrimmage to be in the backfield. It seems to me that he's a step back, which is all that's required. The head linesman would have had an unobstructed view.

That is basically what I was trying to say.
It seems BC might have got himself twisted into thinking the ends are not eligible, or something like that.

The question is whether Bright was far enough back to be a properly positioned back.

The rulebook states,
Rule 2.27.4.d.1
Quote:A back is any Team A player who is not a lineman and whose head or shoulder does not break the plane of the line drawn through the waistline of the nearest Team A lineman

Bright is at least rather close to being in front of the inartfully stated "plane of the line drawn through the waistline of the nearest Team A lineman" - Hooper in this case.
In my experience, the refs tend to allow some leeway on that precise definition.

Re: Stanford - ND discussion - BostonCard - 12-02-2015

(12-02-2015, 11:15 AM)terry link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=13731.msg145072#msg145072 date=1449013571]
You are correct.  I think the issue is the two ends who can catch passes must be at the line of scrimmage, and the four backs who can catch a pass must be a yard behind the line of scrimmage.  All eleven players are in the frame, so we can be sure there are no wide outs on the right side.  I can't read the numbers because of the resolution, but if the arrow is on Hooper, it sure doesn't look like he is lined up a yard behind the end to his right on that play.  Let me see if I can find a better highlight.

BC

It looks like Hooper is lined up on the line of scrimmage, as the last man on the right, as a TE. The player to his right (Bright?) is lined up a step off the line of scrimmage as a wingback. That means they both are eligible -- Hooper as the last man on the line, Bright as a back. The only issue is whether Bright is far enough off the line of scrimmage to be in the backfield. It seems to me that he's a step back, which is all that's required. The head linesman would have had an unobstructed view.
[/quote]

Having looked at the play in the video that NDIrish posted, the arrow in the picture is on Hooper.  The alignment from left to right is, I think: Stallworth (at the bottom of the frame), Murphy, Garnett, Shuler, Caspers, Tucker, Hooper, and Bright.  Depending on whether Bright is on or off the line, the linemen would be Stallworth (end), Murphy, Garnett, Shuler, Caspers, Tucker, and Hooper (end), and the backs would be Bright, Hogan, Harrell, and McCaffrey.

Hooper is legally an eligible receiver if he is either a back (he isn't) or an end at the line of scrimmage, and that crucially depends on whether Bright is a lineman or a back in the alignment.

Here's the rule on who can be a back:

Quote:A back is any Team A player who is not a lineman and whose head or shoulder does not break the plane of the line drawn through the waistline of the nearest Team A lineman.

So, ultimately the question is whether Bright's head and shoulders "break the plane of the line drawn through the waistline of" Hooper (who is the nearest lineman).  In the picture provided, it sure looks like Bright's head, if not head and shoulders, breaks the plane, but that may be an artifact of parallax, since the camera is behind the line of scrimmage.

Quote:c When the ball is snapped, the following Team A players are eligible:
1 Each lineman who is on the end of his scrimmage line and who is wearing a number other than 50 through 79.
2 Each back wearing a number other than 50 through 79


If Hooper was indeed the end, he is eligible, and the eligible receivers would have been Stallworth, Hooper, Hogan, Harrell, and McCaffrey.  Interestingly, Bright, despite ostensibly being a back, would not have been an eligible receiver, since he is #64.

The call ultimately rests on the question of where bright's head and shoulders were with respect to Hoopers waist.

BC

Re: Stanford - ND discussion - Rally - 12-02-2015

(12-02-2015, 04:26 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:[quote author=terry link=topic=13731.msg145258#msg145258 date=1449080156]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=13731.msg145072#msg145072 date=1449013571]
You are correct.  I think the issue is the two ends who can catch passes must be at the line of scrimmage, and the four backs who can catch a pass must be a yard behind the line of scrimmage.  All eleven players are in the frame, so we can be sure there are no wide outs on the right side.  I can't read the numbers because of the resolution, but if the arrow is on Hooper, it sure doesn't look like he is lined up a yard behind the end to his right on that play.  Let me see if I can find a better highlight.

BC

It looks like Hooper is lined up on the line of scrimmage, as the last man on the right, as a TE. The player to his right (Bright?) is lined up a step off the line of scrimmage as a wingback. That means they both are eligible -- Hooper as the last man on the line, Bright as a back. The only issue is whether Bright is far enough off the line of scrimmage to be in the backfield. It seems to me that he's a step back, which is all that's required. The head linesman would have had an unobstructed view.
[/quote]

Having looked at the play in the video that NDIrish posted, the arrow in the picture is on Hooper.  The alignment from left to right is, I think: Stallworth (at the bottom of the frame), Murphy, Garnett, Shuler, Caspers, Tucker, Hooper, and Bright.  Depending on whether Bright is on or off the line, the linemen would be Stallworth (end), Murphy, Garnett, Shuler, Caspers, Tucker, and Hooper (end), and the backs would be Bright, Hogan, Harrell, and McCaffrey.

Hooper is legally an eligible receiver if he is either a back (he isn't) or an end at the line of scrimmage, and that crucially depends on whether Bright is a lineman or a back in the alignment.

Here's the rule on who can be a back:

Quote:A back is any Team A player who is not a lineman and whose head or shoulder does not break the plane of the line drawn through the waistline of the nearest Team A lineman.

So, ultimately the question is whether Bright's head and shoulders "break the plane of the line drawn through the waistline of" Hooper (who is the nearest lineman).  In the picture provided, it sure looks like Bright's head, if not head and shoulders, breaks the plane, but that may be an artifact of parallax, since the camera is behind the line of scrimmage.

Quote:c When the ball is snapped, the following Team A players are eligible:
1 Each lineman who is on the end of his scrimmage line and who is wearing a number other than 50 through 79.
2 Each back wearing a number other than 50 through 79


If Hooper was indeed the end, he is eligible, and the eligible receivers would have been Stallworth, Hooper, Hogan, Harrell, and McCaffrey.  Interestingly, Bright, despite ostensibly being a back, would not have been an eligible receiver, since he is #64.

The call ultimately rests on the question of where bright's head and shoulders were with respect to Hoopers waist.

BC
[/quote]

Hooper is short-waisted.  My wife assures me, but you could (and probably will :) look it up.

Re: Stanford - ND discussion - mmboys07 - 12-02-2015

I am not intending to take anything away from Stanford's play.  It is just a fact ND has been horrible in the red zone for a number of years now, regardless of the quality of opposition.  Let's suppose that Stanford is particularly strong on defense in the red zone.  Fair enough.  But that should mean they keep ND out of the end zone in perhaps 2 out of the 4 times.  Maybe, 3 out of 4.  But, when a college football team is only 1 out of 8 in the last 2 games, that team is just not playing well in the red zone.  Think about it; 2 losses by 4 points all because a very good football team can't play fundamental football inside the 20 yard line.  Stanford played a near perfect offensive game and beat ND by 2 points.  All ND had to do was score one more touchdown out of the four chances; they win the game.  Simply incredible.

Re: Stanford - ND discussion - OutsiderFan - 12-03-2015

(12-02-2015, 09:03 PM)mmboys07 link Wrote:I am not intending to take anything away from Stanford's play.  It is just a fact ND has been horrible in the red zone for a number of years now, regardless of the quality of opposition.  Let's suppose that Stanford is particularly strong on defense in the red zone.  Fair enough.  But that should mean they keep ND out of the end zone in perhaps 2 out of the 4 times.  Maybe, 3 out of 4.  But, when a college football team is only 1 out of 8 in the last 2 games, that team is just not playing well in the red zone.  Think about it; 2 losses by 4 points all because a very good football team can't play fundamental football inside the 20 yard line.  Stanford played a near perfect offensive game and beat ND by 2 points.  All ND had to do was score one more touchdown out of the four chances; they win the game.  Simply incredible.

Stanford also did a great job against ND on 3rd down, holding them to 3/9.  There tends to be a strong correlation between 3rd down efficiency and Red Zone efficiency.  David Shaw calls it situational football.  ND won the big play game, but Stanford dominated in situational football, 5-5 in Red Zone TDs, and 8/12 on 3rd down.  Win on 3rd down and in Red Zone, and you usually win the game.  And if you have no turnovers, it's virtually impossible to lose.  Stanford played Oregon a lot like ND.  The difference was Stanford turned the ball over against Oregon and didn't against ND.  Rather than seeing how close ND was to winning, consider how fortunate they were to be in a game they were so dominated on 3rd downs and in the Red Zone.