[Rally]

OK.  I have to admit to being somewhat lacking in technical knowledge.  I noticed the other day, the wording of one of my posts was changed.  I wrote ND and somehow it was changed to "university of former dead girlfriends."  Now, in my post above the words proceeding Clemson have been garbled.  When I hit "modify" my original wording shows.

Oh dear.  Sit down.  This may take awhile.  The proctors will be along momentarily.

[Rally]

OK.  I have to admit to being somewhat lacking in technical knowledge.  I noticed the other day, the wording of one of my posts was changed.  I wrote ND and somehow it was changed to "university of former dead girlfriends."  Now, in my post above the words proceeding Clemson have been garbled.  When I hit "modify" my original wording shows.

Oh dear.  Sit down.  This may take awhile.  The proctors will be along momentarily.

[BostonCard]

The calls that I thought hurt Notre Dame...

The clock operator ticking off the final two seconds after the field goal.  Although the chances of a returning a squib kick for a TD are ridiculously slim, we saw what happened between Miami and Duke.  Aesthetically, I much rather win as time expires than with a whistle that the kick returner is down, and I don't know that my heart could have taken the anxiety of the kickoff.

I had a horrible view of it (sitting behind the end zone), but I was surprised that we were awarded a first down on the third and five on our first drive.  I think whoever it was had a reasonable case for asking for the spot to be reviewed.  Of course, they give coaches challenge flags exactly for those times when the refs don't ask for a review, and Kelly didn't elect to use Notre Dame's.

Live (grant it, watching from the far end zone), I thought for sure Kizer was in.  On review, I was not so sure.  The replay said the call stood, which meant not quite enough evidence to overturn the original call, but that doesn't mean the call was confirmed.  Hard to tell.  In the end, the call wound up hurting ND, but you never know; though unlikely, it was entirely possible that Notre Dame fails to score from the 1 ft line, if the refs overturned the TD, and then people are upset that the call was overturned.  I will say one thing, live, the Norte Dame sections right beside and below me erupted into cheering when the ref announced the result of the review, so it is hard to argue that the call necessarily hurt ND unless you know what happens subsequently.  It could have been worse, a whistle from the crowd could have made the Notre Dame players quit on the play, or the refs might have missed a star linebacker taking a swing at the ballcarrier on a "failed" goal line play where the running back was probably in on second effort.

The contact on the pass interference was definitely there.  Some refs might chose to allow that amount of contact, others might call it, so it is hard to argue it was a blown call.

One thing is that I noticed many fewer instances of uncalled holding on Notre Dame's part on Saturday.  In past years, I noticed a lot of holding (and relatively little of it called, and yes, our offensive line gets away with an occasional hold too); but this year, ND seemed to clean up its line play.  The refs missed one, on a big run by Kizer, but it's impossible for them to catch all instances of holding.

BC

[BostonCard]

The calls that I thought hurt Notre Dame...

The clock operator ticking off the final two seconds after the field goal.  Although the chances of a returning a squib kick for a TD are ridiculously slim, we saw what happened between Miami and Duke.  Aesthetically, I much rather win as time expires than with a whistle that the kick returner is down, and I don't know that my heart could have taken the anxiety of the kickoff.

I had a horrible view of it (sitting behind the end zone), but I was surprised that we were awarded a first down on the third and five on our first drive.  I think whoever it was had a reasonable case for asking for the spot to be reviewed.  Of course, they give coaches challenge flags exactly for those times when the refs don't ask for a review, and Kelly didn't elect to use Notre Dame's.

Live (grant it, watching from the far end zone), I thought for sure Kizer was in.  On review, I was not so sure.  The replay said the call stood, which meant not quite enough evidence to overturn the original call, but that doesn't mean the call was confirmed.  Hard to tell.  In the end, the call wound up hurting ND, but you never know; though unlikely, it was entirely possible that Notre Dame fails to score from the 1 ft line, if the refs overturned the TD, and then people are upset that the call was overturned.  I will say one thing, live, the Norte Dame sections right beside and below me erupted into cheering when the ref announced the result of the review, so it is hard to argue that the call necessarily hurt ND unless you know what happens subsequently.  It could have been worse, a whistle from the crowd could have made the Notre Dame players quit on the play, or the refs might have missed a star linebacker taking a swing at the ballcarrier on a "failed" goal line play where the running back was probably in on second effort.

The contact on the pass interference was definitely there.  Some refs might chose to allow that amount of contact, others might call it, so it is hard to argue it was a blown call.

One thing is that I noticed many fewer instances of uncalled holding on Notre Dame's part on Saturday.  In past years, I noticed a lot of holding (and relatively little of it called, and yes, our offensive line gets away with an occasional hold too); but this year, ND seemed to clean up its line play.  The refs missed one, on a big run by Kizer, but it's impossible for them to catch all instances of holding.

BC

[Spiny_Norman]

OK.  I have to admit to being somewhat lacking in technical knowledge.  I noticed the other day, the wording of one of my posts was changed.  I wrote ND and somehow it was changed to "university of former dead girlfriends."  Now, in my post above the words proceeding Clemson have been garbled.  When I hit "modify" my original wording shows.

See http://thecardboard.org/faq/ under the last section "The CardBoard history and lore"

[Spiny_Norman]

OK.  I have to admit to being somewhat lacking in technical knowledge.  I noticed the other day, the wording of one of my posts was changed.  I wrote ND and somehow it was changed to "university of former dead girlfriends."  Now, in my post above the words proceeding Clemson have been garbled.  When I hit "modify" my original wording shows.

See http://thecardboard.org/faq/ under the last section "The CardBoard history and lore"

[BostonCard]

OK.  I have to admit to being somewhat lacking in technical knowledge.  I noticed the other day, the wording of one of my posts was changed.  I wrote ND and somehow it was changed to "university of former dead girlfriends."  Now, in my post above the words proceeding Clemson have been garbled.  When I hit "modify" my original wording shows.

Consider it a term of endearment and a tribute to Manti Te'o and the late Lennay Kekua, may she rest in peace.  And I believe the software changes it to "University of Dead Fake Girlfriends", though I've always maintained it should be the "University of Fake Dead Girlfriends", since a fake girlfriend cannot die, but a dead girlfriend can be fake.

For what it is worth, you guys are in good company, since our rivals across the Bay are corrected to Low APR U (due to their "scholar" athletes' less than perfect academic progress), and their mascot is converted to '59ers, as a tribute to the last time they wonplayed in the Rose Bowl.  Meanwhile the other California team you guys play is changed to "Under Stanford Control" because, well, what's your deal? and other victories, and their mascot is corrected to "Literature's Most Famous Losers" as a reminder that the Greeks won that war.

BC

[BostonCard]

OK.  I have to admit to being somewhat lacking in technical knowledge.  I noticed the other day, the wording of one of my posts was changed.  I wrote ND and somehow it was changed to "university of former dead girlfriends."  Now, in my post above the words proceeding Clemson have been garbled.  When I hit "modify" my original wording shows.

Consider it a term of endearment and a tribute to Manti Te'o and the late Lennay Kekua, may she rest in peace.  And I believe the software changes it to "University of Dead Fake Girlfriends", though I've always maintained it should be the "University of Fake Dead Girlfriends", since a fake girlfriend cannot die, but a dead girlfriend can be fake.

For what it is worth, you guys are in good company, since our rivals across the Bay are corrected to Low APR U (due to their "scholar" athletes' less than perfect academic progress), and their mascot is converted to '59ers, as a tribute to the last time they wonplayed in the Rose Bowl.  Meanwhile the other California team you guys play is changed to "Under Stanford Control" because, well, what's your deal? and other victories, and their mascot is corrected to "Literature's Most Famous Losers" as a reminder that the Greeks won that war.

BC

[CTcard]

One thing is that I noticed many fewer instances of uncalled holding on the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends's part on Saturday.  In past years, I noticed a lot of holding (and relatively little of it called, and yes, our offensive line gets away with an occasional hold too); but this year, ND seemed to clean up its line play.  The refs missed one, on a big run by Kizer, but it's impossible for them to catch all instances of holding.

There were zero holding calls in the entire game, which in general is rather surprising. I was watching the game with my nephew who was outraged over non-holding calls on und, but I only saw maybe two that I thought were fairly bad (but was too emotionally wrapped up in the game to be carefully observant).

In fact, the refs didn't call much of anything overall. Only seven accepted penalties the whole game - one on us. Either a very cleanly played games, or the ACC officials found our flags difficult to dislodge from their pockets.

[CTcard]

One thing is that I noticed many fewer instances of uncalled holding on the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends's part on Saturday.  In past years, I noticed a lot of holding (and relatively little of it called, and yes, our offensive line gets away with an occasional hold too); but this year, ND seemed to clean up its line play.  The refs missed one, on a big run by Kizer, but it's impossible for them to catch all instances of holding.

There were zero holding calls in the entire game, which in general is rather surprising. I was watching the game with my nephew who was outraged over non-holding calls on und, but I only saw maybe two that I thought were fairly bad (but was too emotionally wrapped up in the game to be carefully observant).

In fact, the refs didn't call much of anything overall. Only seven accepted penalties the whole game - one on us. Either a very cleanly played games, or the ACC officials found our flags difficult to dislodge from their pockets.

[fullmetal]

I saw at least one instance of an ND OL hold that should have been called.  Our DL isn't deep, but they're not without talent.

[fullmetal]

I saw at least one instance of an ND OL hold that should have been called.  Our DL isn't deep, but they're not without talent.

[CowboyIndian]

....and their mascot is converted to '59ers, as a tribute to the last time they won the Rose Bowl.

Ahem..1959 was the last time they got to PLAY in the Rose Bowl. The last time they won was, I believe, 21 years prior.

[CowboyIndian]

....and their mascot is converted to '59ers, as a tribute to the last time they won the Rose Bowl.

Ahem..1959 was the last time they got to PLAY in the Rose Bowl. The last time they won was, I believe, 21 years prior.

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=13731.msg144886#msg144886 date=1448927336]
One thing is that I noticed many fewer instances of uncalled holding on the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends's part on Saturday.  In past years, I noticed a lot of holding (and relatively little of it called, and yes, our offensive line gets away with an occasional hold too); but this year, ND seemed to clean up its line play.  The refs missed one, on a big run by Kizer, but it's impossible for them to catch all instances of holding.

There were zero holding calls in the entire game, which in general is rather surprising. I was watching the game with my nephew who was outraged over non-holding calls on und, but I only saw maybe two that I thought were fairly bad (but was too emotionally wrapped up in the game to be carefully observant).

In fact, the refs didn't call much of anything overall. Only seven accepted penalties the whole game - one on us. Either a very cleanly played games, or the ACC officials found our flags difficult to dislodge from their pockets.
[/quote]

I thought it was a pretty clean game.  I thought UDFG held less than they usually do (I think in part because they didn't need to, we were having so much trouble with the run). Yes, refs missed at least one clear holding, and probably more, but I didn't see much holding on most plays.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=13731.msg144886#msg144886 date=1448927336]
One thing is that I noticed many fewer instances of uncalled holding on the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends's part on Saturday.  In past years, I noticed a lot of holding (and relatively little of it called, and yes, our offensive line gets away with an occasional hold too); but this year, ND seemed to clean up its line play.  The refs missed one, on a big run by Kizer, but it's impossible for them to catch all instances of holding.

There were zero holding calls in the entire game, which in general is rather surprising. I was watching the game with my nephew who was outraged over non-holding calls on und, but I only saw maybe two that I thought were fairly bad (but was too emotionally wrapped up in the game to be carefully observant).

In fact, the refs didn't call much of anything overall. Only seven accepted penalties the whole game - one on us. Either a very cleanly played games, or the ACC officials found our flags difficult to dislodge from their pockets.
[/quote]

I thought it was a pretty clean game.  I thought UDFG held less than they usually do (I think in part because they didn't need to, we were having so much trouble with the run). Yes, refs missed at least one clear holding, and probably more, but I didn't see much holding on most plays.

BC

[NDIrish]

looking through some of the plays...

Definitely think they should have had a chance to return the kickoff, unlikely yes, but should have been given the opportunity with 2 sec. left.  maybe there is a penalty and they get a shot at a hail mary... maybe maybe maybe.... doesn't matter now, but sucked at the time.

Also, saw last night that on stanfords last td to hooper, he was lined up illegally, he was covered by i think its no. 64 on the line, COULD have been why he was so wide opened, plus should have been a flag. I tired to attach a picture, not sure if it will work or not.

With both of these, plus all the other calls i mentioned, are just why i feel it was a poorly officiated game.  And its not so much throwing my hands up saying the refs cost ND the game, its just more of a statement that they did a poor job, and when these poor calls were made they ended up hurting ND more than they did Stanford.

So you have the time issue, illegal receiver catches a td, at least 2 calls that should have been at least reviewed, a very questionable PI, a dlineman clearly lined up offsides and a number of times o lineman were moving... all these not called or at least reviewed.

I saw a couple holdings that could have been called and think sheldon day should have been called offsides with contact, BUT once re watching it the TE there did not seem to react to much like he was touch?  Maybe its just me, you kind of see him point a little, but it was hard to see from the angle, but im sure he did touch him.


Ultimately its on ND, gotta score TDs, not field goals and play better defense.  Both teams came to play which was great to see.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[NDIrish]

looking through some of the plays...

Definitely think they should have had a chance to return the kickoff, unlikely yes, but should have been given the opportunity with 2 sec. left.  maybe there is a penalty and they get a shot at a hail mary... maybe maybe maybe.... doesn't matter now, but sucked at the time.

Also, saw last night that on stanfords last td to hooper, he was lined up illegally, he was covered by i think its no. 64 on the line, COULD have been why he was so wide opened, plus should have been a flag. I tired to attach a picture, not sure if it will work or not.

With both of these, plus all the other calls i mentioned, are just why i feel it was a poorly officiated game.  And its not so much throwing my hands up saying the refs cost ND the game, its just more of a statement that they did a poor job, and when these poor calls were made they ended up hurting ND more than they did Stanford.

So you have the time issue, illegal receiver catches a td, at least 2 calls that should have been at least reviewed, a very questionable PI, a dlineman clearly lined up offsides and a number of times o lineman were moving... all these not called or at least reviewed.

I saw a couple holdings that could have been called and think sheldon day should have been called offsides with contact, BUT once re watching it the TE there did not seem to react to much like he was touch?  Maybe its just me, you kind of see him point a little, but it was hard to see from the angle, but im sure he did touch him.


Ultimately its on ND, gotta score TDs, not field goals and play better defense.  Both teams came to play which was great to see.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[pefloresjr]

On the Hooper touchdown to start the 4th, I think he is eligible.  He is "covered up" by what looks like a lineman, but it is one of our extra linemen who wears a receiver eligible number.  So both of the Stanford players on the right are eligible receivers along with the split out receiver on the left.  We use the extra eligible linemen all the time so Notre Dame coaches would be familiar with the formation.  I agree there probably should have been two seconds left on the clock after the winning kick but I have also seen lots of games where the refs let it run out.  These were ACC refs (ND's crew) and they could have required the kick off but it is up to them.  Kelly didn't seem to care at all and we know he isn't shy about telling the refs when he thinks they screwed up. 

It is absolutely the norm for fans to see all the calls that could or should have been called their way but as you said, it didn't come close to determining the outcome of the game.  We think we got hosed when we were at ND too.  The weekend call that was one of the worst I've ever seen was the roughing the passer call against the Forty Niners on Sunday.  Never mind, I don't want to start down that path!

Cheers,
Pete F. 

[pefloresjr]

On the Hooper touchdown to start the 4th, I think he is eligible.  He is "covered up" by what looks like a lineman, but it is one of our extra linemen who wears a receiver eligible number.  So both of the Stanford players on the right are eligible receivers along with the split out receiver on the left.  We use the extra eligible linemen all the time so Notre Dame coaches would be familiar with the formation.  I agree there probably should have been two seconds left on the clock after the winning kick but I have also seen lots of games where the refs let it run out.  These were ACC refs (ND's crew) and they could have required the kick off but it is up to them.  Kelly didn't seem to care at all and we know he isn't shy about telling the refs when he thinks they screwed up. 

It is absolutely the norm for fans to see all the calls that could or should have been called their way but as you said, it didn't come close to determining the outcome of the game.  We think we got hosed when we were at ND too.  The weekend call that was one of the worst I've ever seen was the roughing the passer call against the Forty Niners on Sunday.  Never mind, I don't want to start down that path!

Cheers,
Pete F. 

[GoodGrief]

Jeez, NDIrish please knock it off. I would like to maintain my hatred of all things ND, and your thoughtfulness and reasonableness make it harder (but fortunately, not impossible).

[GoodGrief]

Jeez, NDIrish please knock it off. I would like to maintain my hatred of all things ND, and your thoughtfulness and reasonableness make it harder (but fortunately, not impossible).

[NDIrish]

Jeez, NDIrish please knock it off. I would like to maintain my hatred of all things ND, and your thoughtfulness and reasonableness make it harder (but fortunately, not impossible).

Lol, appreciate that.  I love the team but dislike a large portion of the fans.  There are a lot of good ones out there, but most are way over the top, they think ND is the best ever, or freak out and yell and scream every time something isn't perfect.  Dont get me wrong, i am a brobdingnagian fan, but try and stay within the realms of reality (as much as any decent fan can!)

[NDIrish]

Jeez, NDIrish please knock it off. I would like to maintain my hatred of all things ND, and your thoughtfulness and reasonableness make it harder (but fortunately, not impossible).

Lol, appreciate that.  I love the team but dislike a large portion of the fans.  There are a lot of good ones out there, but most are way over the top, they think ND is the best ever, or freak out and yell and scream every time something isn't perfect.  Dont get me wrong, i am a brobdingnagian fan, but try and stay within the realms of reality (as much as any decent fan can!)

[CTcard]

On the Hooper touchdown to start the 4th, I think he is eligible.  He is "covered up" by what looks like a lineman, but it is one of our extra linemen who wears a receiver eligible number.  So both of the Stanford players on the right are eligible receivers along with the split out receiver on the left.  We use the extra eligible linemen all the time so the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends coaches would be familiar with the formation. 

Well, the question is whether the extra lineman is far enough back from the line of scrimmage to avoid being a "lineman". It's certainly close.
If not, it is an illegal formation.

[CTcard]

On the Hooper touchdown to start the 4th, I think he is eligible.  He is "covered up" by what looks like a lineman, but it is one of our extra linemen who wears a receiver eligible number.  So both of the Stanford players on the right are eligible receivers along with the split out receiver on the left.  We use the extra eligible linemen all the time so the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends coaches would be familiar with the formation. 

Well, the question is whether the extra lineman is far enough back from the line of scrimmage to avoid being a "lineman". It's certainly close.
If not, it is an illegal formation.

[BostonCard]

I think NDIrish has a legitimate claim there.  Hooper (assuming that's who it is) should be a yard behind the end lineman, and it sure doesn't look like he is. Maybe it is parallax from the angle of the camera, but more than likely, it seems the refs just missed the call.

BC

[BostonCard]

I think NDIrish has a legitimate claim there.  Hooper (assuming that's who it is) should be a yard behind the end lineman, and it sure doesn't look like he is. Maybe it is parallax from the angle of the camera, but more than likely, it seems the refs just missed the call.

BC

[CTcard]

I think NDIrish has a legitimate claim there.  Hooper (assuming that's who it is) should be a yard behind the end lineman, and it sure doesn't look like he is. Maybe it is parallax from the angle of the camera, but more than likely, it seems the refs just missed the call.

BC

I am probably going to get this wrong (somewhat embarrassingly) but is the rule not ...

There are five interior linmen who must wear numbers ... 50-79 (?) and are not eligible to catch a pass.
The ends of the line can catch a pass.
There are also 4 "backs" who can catch a pass. These must be lined up at least a yard behind the line of scrimmage.

If the arrow is correct, the intent would seem to be that the extra lineman is a "back", and Hooper is the end, on the line, who would be eligible.


... or did I screw up the formation rule?

[CTcard]

I think NDIrish has a legitimate claim there.  Hooper (assuming that's who it is) should be a yard behind the end lineman, and it sure doesn't look like he is. Maybe it is parallax from the angle of the camera, but more than likely, it seems the refs just missed the call.

BC

I am probably going to get this wrong (somewhat embarrassingly) but is the rule not ...

There are five interior linmen who must wear numbers ... 50-79 (?) and are not eligible to catch a pass.
The ends of the line can catch a pass.
There are also 4 "backs" who can catch a pass. These must be lined up at least a yard behind the line of scrimmage.

If the arrow is correct, the intent would seem to be that the extra lineman is a "back", and Hooper is the end, on the line, who would be eligible.


... or did I screw up the formation rule?

[BostonCard]

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

[BostonCard]

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

[stupac2]

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.

[stupac2]

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.

[Rally]

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

Let it go, BC.  The game is in the books.

[Rally]

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

Let it go, BC.  The game is in the books.

[BostonCard]

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

[BostonCard]

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

[mmboys07]

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.

[mmboys07]

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.