See no evil - Printable Version

See no evil - 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: See no evil (/thread-18055.html)

Pages: 1 2

See no evil - qwerty49 - 09-03-2019

https://www.reddit.com/r/stanford/comments/czbuaf/no_justice_in_football/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x

Hoping y'all can see this. Ref sure didn't.

PS if someone wants to try and paste that photo directly into a post on this thread, be my guest. I've tried but can't find a way.

RE: See no evil - M T - 09-03-2019

(09-03-2019, 03:22 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: https://www.reddit.com/r/stanford/comments/czbuaf/no_justice_in_football/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x

Hoping y'all can see this. Ref sure didn't.

PS if someone wants to try and paste that photo directly into a post on this thread, be my guest. I've tried but can't find a way.

A still picture doesn't do the act justice. He raised and extended the forearm and elbow toward the jaw in the last half second or so.

RE: See no evil - qwerty49 - 09-03-2019

(09-03-2019, 03:38 PM)M T Wrote:
(09-03-2019, 03:22 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: https://www.reddit.com/r/stanford/comments/czbuaf/no_justice_in_football/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x

Hoping y'all can see this. Ref sure didn't.

PS if someone wants to try and paste that photo directly into a post on this thread, be my guest. I've tried but can't find a way.

A still picture doesn't do the act justice. He raised and extended the forearm and elbow toward the jaw in the last half second or so.

The ref needs to be terminated. And yes, even from the still, it's clear the forearm to the jaw was not "incidental."

RE: See no evil - BostonCard - 09-03-2019

[Image: pimu3soxegk31.jpg]

RE: See no evil - Goose - 09-03-2019

(09-03-2019, 03:43 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: The ref needs to be terminated. And yes, even from the still, it's clear the forearm to the jaw was not "incidental."

With extreme prejudice?

RE: See no evil - ChicagoCard - 09-03-2019

This from Fitzgerald made me suspicious. Is he leaving something out (something he might have conveyed to his defense about when Costello were to slide)...

"Fitzgerald said the team knew Costello — who did not return to the game — liked to slide, and that the defense should learn from the mistake."

From: https://dailynorthwestern.com/2019/08/31/sports/football-despite-missed-tackles-northwestern-defense-rises-to-the-occasion-in-loss/

RE: See no evil - BostonCard - 09-03-2019

I think you meant to link this article:

https://dailynorthwestern.com/2019/08/31/sports/football-despite-missed-tackles-northwestern-defense-rises-to-the-occasion-in-loss/

The one you pasted in doesn't have the quote you stated.

I thought the "Fitzgerald" you were referring to was our local reporter Tom. It makes more sense now that I realize it's the NW coach. And I am less suspicious given the follow-up quote: “That’s a play that obviously can’t happen,” Fitzgerald said. “Earnest owned it right away like I knew he would.”

Quote:On one of those possessions, Stanford started at the Cats’ 38 yard line following a Hunter Johnson interception. Mills had one big pass play to drive the team to the 12 yard line but the Cats managed to hold the Cardinal to a field goal attempt. The attempt was blocked, and once again the defense made a play to stay in the game.

Not mentioned in that passage was that the Wildcats benefitted from an uncalled PI. We should have had first and goal on the one yard line.

BC

RE: See no evil - ChicagoCard - 09-03-2019

(09-03-2019, 04:21 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I think you meant to link this article:

https://dailynorthwestern.com/2019/08/31/sports/football-despite-missed-tackles-northwestern-defense-rises-to-the-occasion-in-loss/

You're right, thanks. I fixed my post. The "wrong" article was a feature on Stanford grad Jonathan Holloway who played fball for Stanford in the mid '80s. Here it is again in case anybody wants the link: https://dailynorthwestern.com/2019/08/30/campus/qa-provost-jonathan-holloway-remembers-his-football-career-at-stanford-ahead-of-nus-game-saturday/

RE: See no evil - 76lsjumb - 09-03-2019

(09-03-2019, 03:43 PM)qwerty49 Wrote:
(09-03-2019, 03:38 PM)M T Wrote:
(09-03-2019, 03:22 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: https://www.reddit.com/r/stanford/comments/czbuaf/no_justice_in_football/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x

Hoping y'all can see this. Ref sure didn't.

PS if someone wants to try and paste that photo directly into a post on this thread, be my guest. I've tried but can't find a way.

A still picture doesn't do the act justice. He raised and extended the forearm and elbow toward the jaw in the last half second or so.

The ref needs to be terminated. And yes, even from the still, it's clear the forearm to the jaw was not "incidental."

I don't know about terminating THAT ref. I can sort of understand why HE didn't make the call... :-)

RE: See no evil - BobK - 09-03-2019

Tom Fitzgerald of the chronicle retired several weeks ago

RE: See no evil - chrisk - 09-03-2019

Rusty Simmons, last year’s Cal beat reporter covered the NU Game. Who , if anybody, will the Chronicle send to USC. They my used AP for the Cal home game with Davis.

RE: See no evil - Langdude - 09-03-2019

Can anyone explain to me why two fouls were not called on that play? The unsportsmanlike penalty is a dead ball foul, yes? And there was another foul that was during the play.

-m.

RE: See no evil - CompSci87 - 09-03-2019

(09-03-2019, 06:36 PM)Langdude Wrote: Can anyone explain to me why two fouls were not called on that play? The unsportsmanlike penalty is a dead ball foul, yes? And there was another foul that was during the play.

-m.

The other foul was defensive holding, which is 5 yards from the line of scrimmage and automatic first down. I'm pretty sure Costello gained 5 yards or more on the play, and of course the personal foul penalty also carries an automatic first down. That made the holding penalty moot, so it was declined.

RE: See no evil - Mick - 09-03-2019

(09-03-2019, 07:03 PM)CompSci87 Wrote:
(09-03-2019, 06:36 PM)Langdude Wrote: Can anyone explain to me why two fouls were not called on that play? The unsportsmanlike penalty is a dead ball foul, yes? And there was another foul that was during the play.

-m.

The other foul was defensive holding, which is 5 yards from the line of scrimmage and automatic first down. I'm pretty sure Costello gained 5 yards or more on the play, and of course the personal foul penalty also carries an automatic first down. That made the holding penalty moot, so it was declined.

I seem to recall one of the announcers claiming that both penalties should have been enforced because the hold happened during the play and the personal foul happened (technically) AFTER the play. In other words, Costello's knee had hit the ground, play was dead, 15 yards should have been added as an after-the-play foul.

Not that it mattered. Toner hit the field goal anyway

RE: See no evil - Langdude - 09-03-2019

Yes. I guess it makes sense to decline the defensive holding if Costello gained more than 5 yards... Thanks for clearing that up, CS87. It was bugging me.

-m.

RE: See no evil - ADPinWDC - 09-03-2019

B1G Refs in the booth saw the NW player "breaking his fall" onto Costello using the forearm.
They saw what they wanted to see. B1G missed the CFP the last two years.
They want a team in and that means pumping up strength of schedule for MICH, OHST.
Now NORW is worth less as a foe in conf.

RE: See no evil - CompSci87 - 09-03-2019

(09-03-2019, 07:58 PM)Mick Wrote:
(09-03-2019, 07:03 PM)CompSci87 Wrote:
(09-03-2019, 06:36 PM)Langdude Wrote: Can anyone explain to me why two fouls were not called on that play? The unsportsmanlike penalty is a dead ball foul, yes? And there was another foul that was during the play.

-m.

The other foul was defensive holding, which is 5 yards from the line of scrimmage and automatic first down. I'm pretty sure Costello gained 5 yards or more on the play, and of course the personal foul penalty also carries an automatic first down. That made the holding penalty moot, so it was declined.

I seem to recall one of the announcers claiming that both penalties should have been enforced because the hold happened during the play and the personal foul happened (technically) AFTER the play.

That's correct, but again, a defensive holding penalty is moot when the play itself gained more yardage than the penalty would have given, and the first down was made either with that gain or another penalty. If Costello had been stopped for a loss, or say a one-yard gain, both penalties would have been accepted and enforced.

Quote: In other words, Costello's knee had hit the ground, play was dead, 15 yards should have been added as an after-the-play foul.

That's exactly what happened. The personal foul was assessed from the end of the play.

RE: See no evil - CowboyIndian - 09-03-2019

(09-03-2019, 09:09 PM)ADPinWDC Wrote: B1G Refs in the booth saw the NW player "breaking his fall" onto Costello using the forearm.
They saw what they wanted to see. B1G missed the CFP the last two years.
They want a team in and that means pumping up strength of schedule for MICH, OHST.
Now NORW is worth less as a foe in conf.

Do we know they were Big 10 refs in the booth? I thought OOC games were split btw. the conferences.

RE: See no evil - BostonCard - 09-03-2019

I’m not sure Costello gained 5 yards The field goal was snapped from the 34 yard line (it was a 51 yard field goal, and the field goal length is the line of scrimmage +17 yards), which means the 15 yard penalty was assessed from the 49 yard line. But looking at this replay, the previous play starts at the Stanford 48.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/SchutteCFB/status/1167912417814147078[/tweet]

That means Costello gained 3 yards to get to the NW 49. Indeed on the replay it sure looks like he began his slide around the NW 48 or 49 yard line.

So the refs not only screwed us by not ejecting the NW player, but they also screwed us by making the field goal about 2 yards longer than it needed to be. That being said, Toner’s FG would have been good from 60 yards, so it didn’t wind up making a difference.

BC

RE: See no evil - CTcard - 09-04-2019

(09-03-2019, 07:03 PM)CompSci87 Wrote:
(09-03-2019, 06:36 PM)Langdude Wrote: Can anyone explain to me why two fouls were not called on that play? The unsportsmanlike penalty is a dead ball foul, yes? And there was another foul that was during the play.

-m.

The other foul was defensive holding, which is 5 yards from the line of scrimmage and automatic first down. I'm pretty sure Costello gained 5 yards or more on the play, and of course the personal foul penalty also carries an automatic first down. That made the holding penalty moot, so it was declined.

But defensive holding is 10 yards.

[The rulebook actually says "10 or 15 yards", but I don't know the circumstances it can be 15 and don't recall ever seeing that.]
[Also of some interest, I see that David Shaw was chair of the NCAA Rules Committee for 2019.]