[BostonCard]

https://twitter.com/StanfordFball/status...3144935427

Garnett serving a monster stack.

BC

[BostonCard]

https://twitter.com/StanfordFball/status...3144935427

Garnett serving a monster stack.

BC

[Spiny_Norman]

Pay attention also to the block by #82 Chris Harrell, the backup FB.  I thought he did a great job for Marx.

[Spiny_Norman]

Pay attention also to the block by #82 Chris Harrell, the backup FB.  I thought he did a great job for Marx.

[CompSci87]

BTW, is there a story behind Harrell wearing 82, an end's number? Is he a converted tight end?

[CompSci87]

BTW, is there a story behind Harrell wearing 82, an end's number? Is he a converted tight end?

[CTcard]

Pay attention also to the block by #82 Chris Harrell, the backup FB.  I thought he did a great job for Marx.

Speaking of unsung players blowing somebody up on a block, check out the destruction that Justin Reid puts on the Cal kicker on McCaffrey's big return.

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=14190928

[CTcard]

Pay attention also to the block by #82 Chris Harrell, the backup FB.  I thought he did a great job for Marx.

Speaking of unsung players blowing somebody up on a block, check out the destruction that Justin Reid puts on the Cal kicker on McCaffrey's big return.

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=14190928

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Spiny_Norman link=topic=13719.msg143114#msg143114 date=1448250769]
Pay attention also to the block by #82 Chris Harrell, the backup FB.  I thought he did a great job for Marx.

Speaking of unsung players blowing somebody up on a block, check out the destruction that Justin Reid puts on the Low APR U kicker on McCaffrey's big return.

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=14190928
[/quote]

Yeah, interestingly, Wilner (and a Cal fan, I think) had a back and forth on how much of a hold that play was...

https://twitter.com/wilnerhotline/status...9319110656

I'm pretty sure it was a legit block.  Reid's hands were kept inside, not out, and Reid was between the would be tackler (i think it was the kicker) and McCaffrey, so he was pushing, not pulling.  I think the poor Cal kicker was helpless against Reid, so you might have argued hold, but I don't see what would have constituted holding.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Spiny_Norman link=topic=13719.msg143114#msg143114 date=1448250769]
Pay attention also to the block by #82 Chris Harrell, the backup FB.  I thought he did a great job for Marx.

Speaking of unsung players blowing somebody up on a block, check out the destruction that Justin Reid puts on the Low APR U kicker on McCaffrey's big return.

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=14190928
[/quote]

Yeah, interestingly, Wilner (and a Cal fan, I think) had a back and forth on how much of a hold that play was...

https://twitter.com/wilnerhotline/status...9319110656

I'm pretty sure it was a legit block.  Reid's hands were kept inside, not out, and Reid was between the would be tackler (i think it was the kicker) and McCaffrey, so he was pushing, not pulling.  I think the poor Cal kicker was helpless against Reid, so you might have argued hold, but I don't see what would have constituted holding.

BC

[jacketree]

I've watched it a few times. At first I thought it was blatant holding since he turned. But not so sure the wacky, waving, inflatable tube man routine wasn't at least partly self-induced.

Thought Stanford got the benefit of the doubt from the officials all night. Calfan wife was positive about that.

[jacketree]

I've watched it a few times. At first I thought it was blatant holding since he turned. But not so sure the wacky, waving, inflatable tube man routine wasn't at least partly self-induced.

Thought Stanford got the benefit of the doubt from the officials all night. Calfan wife was positive about that.

[BostonCard]

But not so sure the wacky, waving, inflatable tube man routine wasn't at least partly self-induced.

I just figured it was the kicker, flailing while getting blocked.  I'm fairly certain that they don't teach kickers how to shed blocks, and they certainly don't at Cal.

Speaking of holding, though, I think the Stanford defensive front might have a few things to say about holds not called [though that's pretty much every OL for every team; uncalled holds are part and parcel with battles in the trenches], and Hooper might have had a case for a PI, though if I recall, both you and I thought it was close enough that a non-call was reasonable.

BC

[BostonCard]

But not so sure the wacky, waving, inflatable tube man routine wasn't at least partly self-induced.

I just figured it was the kicker, flailing while getting blocked.  I'm fairly certain that they don't teach kickers how to shed blocks, and they certainly don't at Cal.

Speaking of holding, though, I think the Stanford defensive front might have a few things to say about holds not called [though that's pretty much every OL for every team; uncalled holds are part and parcel with battles in the trenches], and Hooper might have had a case for a PI, though if I recall, both you and I thought it was close enough that a non-call was reasonable.

BC

[dabigv13]

Wilner is such a turd. I remarked on that play during the game and only a fool would consider that holding. It was a kicker flailing around hilariously and ineptly. Our guy had his hands inside, and was just plain manhandling the guy.

(jacketree nice Family Guy reference)

[dabigv13]

Wilner is such a turd. I remarked on that play during the game and only a fool would consider that holding. It was a kicker flailing around hilariously and ineptly. Our guy had his hands inside, and was just plain manhandling the guy.

(jacketree nice Family Guy reference)

[CTcard]

I'm pretty sure it was a legit block.  Reid's hands were kept inside, not out, and Reid was between the would be tackler (i think it was the kicker) and McCaffrey, so he was pushing, not pulling.  I think the poor Low APR U kicker was helpless against Reid, so you might have argued hold, but I don't see what would have constituted holding.

I went back and looked. Maybe holding.

Didn't look to me that Reid grabbed anything or tackled the guy, but his left arm (trailing side) did get hooked around the kicker. That's a little hard to see, and I wouldn't be surprised if the ref missed it (and mostly noticed the flailing). Nominally that is holding (I think), but the rule book says,

The hand(s) shall be:
...
(b)
Inside the frame of the opponent’s body (Exception: When the opponent turns his back to the blocker) (A.R. 9-3-3-VI and VII)

Well, the opponent turned his side to the blocker as they ran upfield, which led to the arm getting outside, but never quite his back.

[CTcard]

I'm pretty sure it was a legit block.  Reid's hands were kept inside, not out, and Reid was between the would be tackler (i think it was the kicker) and McCaffrey, so he was pushing, not pulling.  I think the poor Low APR U kicker was helpless against Reid, so you might have argued hold, but I don't see what would have constituted holding.

I went back and looked. Maybe holding.

Didn't look to me that Reid grabbed anything or tackled the guy, but his left arm (trailing side) did get hooked around the kicker. That's a little hard to see, and I wouldn't be surprised if the ref missed it (and mostly noticed the flailing). Nominally that is holding (I think), but the rule book says,

The hand(s) shall be:
...
(b)
Inside the frame of the opponent’s body (Exception: When the opponent turns his back to the blocker) (A.R. 9-3-3-VI and VII)

Well, the opponent turned his side to the blocker as they ran upfield, which led to the arm getting outside, but never quite his back.

[CompSci87]

Sanders had a nice block on that play. Made his man do a somersault, then continued upfield looking for another target.

[CompSci87]

Sanders had a nice block on that play. Made his man do a somersault, then continued upfield looking for another target.

[Hurlburt88]

I thought the block on the kicker was very very good . . . did not see anything that 80% of refs would call a hold. 

[Hurlburt88]

I thought the block on the kicker was very very good . . . did not see anything that 80% of refs would call a hold. 

[slide]

interesting that Reid already had a pancake (#21) before he started to block the kicker.

[slide]

interesting that Reid already had a pancake (#21) before he started to block the kicker.

[OutsiderFan]

To me, there are two types of "clear" penalties. One, when you see it as blatant when implying your interpretation of the rules.  Two, the kind you see that you aren't sure is a penalty, but that you are convinced will be called a penalty based on what you've seen called before.

The kicker "hold" was more the latter than the former, IMO.  My thinking on it is that there is no way in hell the refs didn't see it, and given it was going on for so long, you have to conclude it really wasn't a penalty, because if it was, they don't miss any opportunity to throw flags in the Pac-12.  The PI on Martinez was a terrible call.  The late hit on Granado was B.S. I rest my case.

[OutsiderFan]

To me, there are two types of "clear" penalties. One, when you see it as blatant when implying your interpretation of the rules.  Two, the kind you see that you aren't sure is a penalty, but that you are convinced will be called a penalty based on what you've seen called before.

The kicker "hold" was more the latter than the former, IMO.  My thinking on it is that there is no way in hell the refs didn't see it, and given it was going on for so long, you have to conclude it really wasn't a penalty, because if it was, they don't miss any opportunity to throw flags in the Pac-12.  The PI on Martinez was a terrible call.  The late hit on Granado was B.S. I rest my case.

[OutsiderFan]

Garvin, the refs could accomplish the same thing by calling the player over and giving him a warning.  Just like if you're pulled over for speeding and you get a warning instead of a ticket.  Maybe he already had a warning, but that was a critical point in the game.  IMO, officials have to use some discretion because they could call penalties on virtually every play if they really wanted. 

[OutsiderFan]

Garvin, the refs could accomplish the same thing by calling the player over and giving him a warning.  Just like if you're pulled over for speeding and you get a warning instead of a ticket.  Maybe he already had a warning, but that was a critical point in the game.  IMO, officials have to use some discretion because they could call penalties on virtually every play if they really wanted. 

[Mick]

Garvin, the refs could accomplish the same thing by calling the player over and giving him a warning.  Just like if you're pulled over for speeding and you get a warning instead of a ticket.  Maybe he already had a warning, but that was a critical point in the game.  IMO, officials have to use some discretion because they could call penalties on virtually every play if they really wanted.

I've never had a warning, but I've probably had a dozen tickets of one kind or another.  Perhaps I'm not the forgiveable type...

[Mick]

Garvin, the refs could accomplish the same thing by calling the player over and giving him a warning.  Just like if you're pulled over for speeding and you get a warning instead of a ticket.  Maybe he already had a warning, but that was a critical point in the game.  IMO, officials have to use some discretion because they could call penalties on virtually every play if they really wanted.

I've never had a warning, but I've probably had a dozen tickets of one kind or another.  Perhaps I'm not the forgiveable type...

[SeattleTree]

Garvin, the refs could accomplish the same thing by calling the player over and giving him a warning.  Just like if you're pulled over for speeding and you get a warning instead of a ticket.  Maybe he already had a warning, but that was a critical point in the game.  IMO, officials have to use some discretion because they could call penalties on virtually every play if they really wanted.

What did you think of the late hit out of bounds/PF penalty called during the Oregon game? 

[SeattleTree]

Garvin, the refs could accomplish the same thing by calling the player over and giving him a warning.  Just like if you're pulled over for speeding and you get a warning instead of a ticket.  Maybe he already had a warning, but that was a critical point in the game.  IMO, officials have to use some discretion because they could call penalties on virtually every play if they really wanted.

What did you think of the late hit out of bounds/PF penalty called during the Oregon game? 

[OutsiderFan]

The roughing call on Holder was absurd, IMO.  Wasn't that on 3rd down with Stanford leading and the next play Oregon scored a TD? 

[OutsiderFan]

The roughing call on Holder was absurd, IMO.  Wasn't that on 3rd down with Stanford leading and the next play Oregon scored a TD? 

[BostonCard]

Garvin, the refs could accomplish the same thing by calling the player over and giving him a warning.  Just like if you're pulled over for speeding and you get a warning instead of a ticket.  Maybe he already had a warning, but that was a critical point in the game.  IMO, officials have to use some discretion because they could call penalties on virtually every play if they really wanted.

Yes, the refs could have issued a warning, and many times they do.  But certainly you cannot argue that the foul was unwarranted, just as if you are speeding and the cop could have given you a warning but issues you a ticket instead, it is not because the cop wrongly give you a ticket.  The bottom line is that it was an incredibly stupid thing for the Cal player to do.  Why give the ref an opportunity to throw in the flag for no reason?

The late hit out of bounds was a similar situation.  The ref could have given Holer a warning, but by throwing the receiver to the ground, Holder gave the ref a reason to throw the flag.  Was it a touch harsh?  Maybe, but f Holder had disengaged when he got to the OOB or heard the whistle, he doesn't incur the flag.

Holder's case was a little tougher than the PF, since Holder was already engaged with the receiver and pushing him out of bounds, so even though he has a responsibility to disengage once the play is done, it is at least not completely unnecessary.  The late hit was completely boneheaded and a cheap shot.  Not only was the play dead, but the Stanford player wasn't even involved in the play.  It's one thing to hit a ball carrier after the whistle, or continue a block past the whistle, but this was neither.

BC

[BostonCard]

Garvin, the refs could accomplish the same thing by calling the player over and giving him a warning.  Just like if you're pulled over for speeding and you get a warning instead of a ticket.  Maybe he already had a warning, but that was a critical point in the game.  IMO, officials have to use some discretion because they could call penalties on virtually every play if they really wanted.

Yes, the refs could have issued a warning, and many times they do.  But certainly you cannot argue that the foul was unwarranted, just as if you are speeding and the cop could have given you a warning but issues you a ticket instead, it is not because the cop wrongly give you a ticket.  The bottom line is that it was an incredibly stupid thing for the Cal player to do.  Why give the ref an opportunity to throw in the flag for no reason?

The late hit out of bounds was a similar situation.  The ref could have given Holer a warning, but by throwing the receiver to the ground, Holder gave the ref a reason to throw the flag.  Was it a touch harsh?  Maybe, but f Holder had disengaged when he got to the OOB or heard the whistle, he doesn't incur the flag.

Holder's case was a little tougher than the PF, since Holder was already engaged with the receiver and pushing him out of bounds, so even though he has a responsibility to disengage once the play is done, it is at least not completely unnecessary.  The late hit was completely boneheaded and a cheap shot.  Not only was the play dead, but the Stanford player wasn't even involved in the play.  It's one thing to hit a ball carrier after the whistle, or continue a block past the whistle, but this was neither.

BC

[CTcard]

IMO, officials have to use some discretion because they could call penalties on virtually every play if they really wanted.

This is a true statement utterly irrelevant to the situation at hand.

Virtually every play does not have a guy knocking down an opposing player about two seconds after the play has ended. That is the sort of thing that leads to bench clearing brawls if not kept in check.
... and warnings are worth every yard they get marked off for.

I have never seen such a grauitous, late hit not called - even if the shove was rather mild.

[CTcard]

IMO, officials have to use some discretion because they could call penalties on virtually every play if they really wanted.

This is a true statement utterly irrelevant to the situation at hand.

Virtually every play does not have a guy knocking down an opposing player about two seconds after the play has ended. That is the sort of thing that leads to bench clearing brawls if not kept in check.
... and warnings are worth every yard they get marked off for.

I have never seen such a grauitous, late hit not called - even if the shove was rather mild.

[Hank 91]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=13719.msg143176#msg143176 date=1448290807]
Garvin, the refs could accomplish the same thing by calling the player over and giving him a warning.  Just like if you're pulled over for speeding and you get a warning instead of a ticket.  Maybe he already had a warning, but that was a critical point in the game.  IMO, officials have to use some discretion because they could call penalties on virtually every play if they really wanted.

I've never had a warning, but I've probably had a dozen tickets of one kind or another.  Perhaps I'm not the forgiveable type...
[/quote]

I don't know if this is relevant or not, but when I was younger, I disregarded all speed limit signs in all situations. Not surprisingly, I got several speeding tickets, but none of them changed my driving habits. You know what did? The time an officer gave me a warning instead of a ticket. After looking at my record, he took the time to talk to me and explained that with a list of infractions like I had, no officer would ever let me go without a ticket. He was letting me off with a warning, and he encouraged me to slow down. And I actually listened. Sometimes a warning makes sense.

Well, except when it's Big Game and a Cal player slams into a Stanford player who's minding his own business.

[Hank 91]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=13719.msg143176#msg143176 date=1448290807]
Garvin, the refs could accomplish the same thing by calling the player over and giving him a warning.  Just like if you're pulled over for speeding and you get a warning instead of a ticket.  Maybe he already had a warning, but that was a critical point in the game.  IMO, officials have to use some discretion because they could call penalties on virtually every play if they really wanted.

I've never had a warning, but I've probably had a dozen tickets of one kind or another.  Perhaps I'm not the forgiveable type...
[/quote]

I don't know if this is relevant or not, but when I was younger, I disregarded all speed limit signs in all situations. Not surprisingly, I got several speeding tickets, but none of them changed my driving habits. You know what did? The time an officer gave me a warning instead of a ticket. After looking at my record, he took the time to talk to me and explained that with a list of infractions like I had, no officer would ever let me go without a ticket. He was letting me off with a warning, and he encouraged me to slow down. And I actually listened. Sometimes a warning makes sense.

Well, except when it's Big Game and a Cal player slams into a Stanford player who's minding his own business.