[fullmetal]

That was ridiculous.  The PI calls were borderline, I think, with the QBs just heaving it up there and looking to get bailed out from under pressure.  The satellite feed cut out just before Stanford scored the last FG, so I didn't get to see how bad the playcalling was that prevented a touchdown.  I did see the playcalling of the overtime drive where Pep Hamilton must have forgotten what traps, counters, and real blocking looked like.  We could have run a toss or sweep and scored, I'd bet.  But no, against a massive and packed DL, straight ahead somewhere into the bodies.  (It was a TD too, that side judge must be making out like a bandit, pocketing and extra few hundred $$ from ND.)

Dunno why Nunes didn't have the ball snapped immediately before the Toilolo "non-catch out of bounds" call got reversed.  We were screaming for him to snap the ball immediately, though at least Terrell got the first down after that (I think). 

Receivers dropped at least four passes iirc in the first quarter.  Some were badly thrown balls that they couldn't adjust to...but others were just terrible hands.  That's killer.  Could have had TDs in the first quarter.  Also, I think we should have run power some more earlier to have worn down that ND DL.  Why didn't we run that OT scoring play from Arizona against ND in OT?

This one hurts.

[fullmetal]

That was ridiculous.  The PI calls were borderline, I think, with the QBs just heaving it up there and looking to get bailed out from under pressure.  The satellite feed cut out just before Stanford scored the last FG, so I didn't get to see how bad the playcalling was that prevented a touchdown.  I did see the playcalling of the overtime drive where Pep Hamilton must have forgotten what traps, counters, and real blocking looked like.  We could have run a toss or sweep and scored, I'd bet.  But no, against a massive and packed DL, straight ahead somewhere into the bodies.  (It was a TD too, that side judge must be making out like a bandit, pocketing and extra few hundred $$ from ND.)

Dunno why Nunes didn't have the ball snapped immediately before the Toilolo "non-catch out of bounds" call got reversed.  We were screaming for him to snap the ball immediately, though at least Terrell got the first down after that (I think). 

Receivers dropped at least four passes iirc in the first quarter.  Some were badly thrown balls that they couldn't adjust to...but others were just terrible hands.  That's killer.  Could have had TDs in the first quarter.  Also, I think we should have run power some more earlier to have worn down that ND DL.  Why didn't we run that OT scoring play from Arizona against ND in OT?

This one hurts.

[49er]

[quote author=49er link=topic=6661.msg49590#msg49590 date=1350171840]
Shaw needs to go. I would cut him slack as a relatively new HC but his arrogance and refusal to self-correct show there is no upside with him. All of the delay of game calls and poor offensive play calling are on him.

Hard to believe that given such poor coaching and poor QB play we were STILL in a position to win. Our players are so good they overcome it but they deserve better.

Thank you for your opinion, guy with only 1 post.
[/quote]

Gotta start somewhere. What did I say that warranted such a juvenile response?

[49er]

[quote author=49er link=topic=6661.msg49590#msg49590 date=1350171840]
Shaw needs to go. I would cut him slack as a relatively new HC but his arrogance and refusal to self-correct show there is no upside with him. All of the delay of game calls and poor offensive play calling are on him.

Hard to believe that given such poor coaching and poor QB play we were STILL in a position to win. Our players are so good they overcome it but they deserve better.

Thank you for your opinion, guy with only 1 post.
[/quote]

Gotta start somewhere. What did I say that warranted such a juvenile response?

[TreeFitty]

[quote author=TreeFitty link=topic=6661.msg49592#msg49592 date=1350171971]
[quote author=49er link=topic=6661.msg49590#msg49590 date=1350171840]
Shaw needs to go. I would cut him slack as a relatively new HC but his arrogance and refusal to self-correct show there is no upside with him. All of the delay of game calls and poor offensive play calling are on him.

Hard to believe that given such poor coaching and poor QB play we were STILL in a position to win. Our players are so good they overcome it but they deserve better.

Thank you for your opinion, guy with only 1 post.
[/quote]

Gotta start somewhere. What did I say that warranted such a juvenile response?
[/quote]

Juvenile? That must make you someone in their 90s.  Only way you can think that was juvenile.

[TreeFitty]

[quote author=TreeFitty link=topic=6661.msg49592#msg49592 date=1350171971]
[quote author=49er link=topic=6661.msg49590#msg49590 date=1350171840]
Shaw needs to go. I would cut him slack as a relatively new HC but his arrogance and refusal to self-correct show there is no upside with him. All of the delay of game calls and poor offensive play calling are on him.

Hard to believe that given such poor coaching and poor QB play we were STILL in a position to win. Our players are so good they overcome it but they deserve better.

Thank you for your opinion, guy with only 1 post.
[/quote]

Gotta start somewhere. What did I say that warranted such a juvenile response?
[/quote]

Juvenile? That must make you someone in their 90s.  Only way you can think that was juvenile.

[OutsiderFan]

I thought the difference would be Notre Dame would have a couple guys who could make key catches down the field and Stanford doesn't. 

Difference in game: 

Eifert TD catch on 3rd and 18.
Riddick catch on lob down sideline.
Catch by Jones for OT TD. 

No Stanford receiver made no such plays.  I don't think it is all on Nunes. 

[OutsiderFan]

I thought the difference would be Notre Dame would have a couple guys who could make key catches down the field and Stanford doesn't. 

Difference in game: 

Eifert TD catch on 3rd and 18.
Riddick catch on lob down sideline.
Catch by Jones for OT TD. 

No Stanford receiver made no such plays.  I don't think it is all on Nunes. 

[49er]

[quote author=49er link=topic=6661.msg49596#msg49596 date=1350172131]
[quote author=TreeFitty link=topic=6661.msg49592#msg49592 date=1350171971]
[quote author=49er link=topic=6661.msg49590#msg49590 date=1350171840]
Shaw needs to go. I would cut him slack as a relatively new HC but his arrogance and refusal to self-correct show there is no upside with him. All of the delay of game calls and poor offensive play calling are on him.

Hard to believe that given such poor coaching and poor QB play we were STILL in a position to win. Our players are so good they overcome it but they deserve better.

Thank you for your opinion, guy with only 1 post.
[/quote]

Gotta start somewhere. What did I say that warranted such a juvenile response?
[/quote]

Juvenile? That must make you someone in their 90s.  Only way you can think that was juvenile.
[/quote]


Hmm. I thought I'd go with the free discussion board to interact with fellow Stanford fans but I'll go to the paid board after all. Now I understand why the boards are as they are.

[49er]

[quote author=49er link=topic=6661.msg49596#msg49596 date=1350172131]
[quote author=TreeFitty link=topic=6661.msg49592#msg49592 date=1350171971]
[quote author=49er link=topic=6661.msg49590#msg49590 date=1350171840]
Shaw needs to go. I would cut him slack as a relatively new HC but his arrogance and refusal to self-correct show there is no upside with him. All of the delay of game calls and poor offensive play calling are on him.

Hard to believe that given such poor coaching and poor QB play we were STILL in a position to win. Our players are so good they overcome it but they deserve better.

Thank you for your opinion, guy with only 1 post.
[/quote]

Gotta start somewhere. What did I say that warranted such a juvenile response?
[/quote]

Juvenile? That must make you someone in their 90s.  Only way you can think that was juvenile.
[/quote]


Hmm. I thought I'd go with the free discussion board to interact with fellow Stanford fans but I'll go to the paid board after all. Now I understand why the boards are as they are.

[TreeFitty]

[quote author=TreeFitty link=topic=6661.msg49597#msg49597 date=1350172334]
[quote author=49er link=topic=6661.msg49596#msg49596 date=1350172131]
[quote author=TreeFitty link=topic=6661.msg49592#msg49592 date=1350171971]
[quote author=49er link=topic=6661.msg49590#msg49590 date=1350171840]
Shaw needs to go. I would cut him slack as a relatively new HC but his arrogance and refusal to self-correct show there is no upside with him. All of the delay of game calls and poor offensive play calling are on him.

Hard to believe that given such poor coaching and poor QB play we were STILL in a position to win. Our players are so good they overcome it but they deserve better.

Thank you for your opinion, guy with only 1 post.
[/quote]

Gotta start somewhere. What did I say that warranted such a juvenile response?
[/quote]

Juvenile? That must make you someone in their 90s.  Only way you can think that was juvenile.
[/quote]


Hmm. I thought I'd go with the free discussion board to interact with fellow Stanford fans but I'll go to the paid board after all. Now I understand why the boards are as they are.
[/quote]

Sorry you're getting all huffy like a child (ironic, eh) when someone simply points out that your very first post on these boards is simply calling Shaw arrogant and calling for his head, as if we should really give your analysis much weight. Oh, the vapours!! Run, run, go see who can provide you the salve you need!

[TreeFitty]

[quote author=TreeFitty link=topic=6661.msg49597#msg49597 date=1350172334]
[quote author=49er link=topic=6661.msg49596#msg49596 date=1350172131]
[quote author=TreeFitty link=topic=6661.msg49592#msg49592 date=1350171971]
[quote author=49er link=topic=6661.msg49590#msg49590 date=1350171840]
Shaw needs to go. I would cut him slack as a relatively new HC but his arrogance and refusal to self-correct show there is no upside with him. All of the delay of game calls and poor offensive play calling are on him.

Hard to believe that given such poor coaching and poor QB play we were STILL in a position to win. Our players are so good they overcome it but they deserve better.

Thank you for your opinion, guy with only 1 post.
[/quote]

Gotta start somewhere. What did I say that warranted such a juvenile response?
[/quote]

Juvenile? That must make you someone in their 90s.  Only way you can think that was juvenile.
[/quote]


Hmm. I thought I'd go with the free discussion board to interact with fellow Stanford fans but I'll go to the paid board after all. Now I understand why the boards are as they are.
[/quote]

Sorry you're getting all huffy like a child (ironic, eh) when someone simply points out that your very first post on these boards is simply calling Shaw arrogant and calling for his head, as if we should really give your analysis much weight. Oh, the vapours!! Run, run, go see who can provide you the salve you need!

[76lsjumb]

[quote author=Card Fan in OR link=topic=6661.msg49584#msg49584 date=1350171006]
Probably too emotional right now for rational comments, but, I want to see another quarterback leading our team--only if it is an "experiment."

One person not in the least responsible for the outcome was Mr. Stepfan Taylor. Great game for Stepfan. Didn't see the final stats, but he was over 100 yards--again.

We've passed the point of no return. Nunes is our QB now.
[/quote]

Unfortunately, having  Nottingham/Hogan/Picazzo/Lloyd/whoever I forgot  hand the ball off to Taylor to run up the middle a bunch of times from the 4 yard line probably wouldn't have changed things much when it counted ...  :(

The old cliche -- insanity [note: NOT asininity] is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result -- would seem to apply here.  For the last few years, of course, running that play over and over gave the same SUCCESSFUL result -- so we expected and were quite happy with the SAME result.  This year...not so much.

[76lsjumb]

[quote author=Card Fan in OR link=topic=6661.msg49584#msg49584 date=1350171006]
Probably too emotional right now for rational comments, but, I want to see another quarterback leading our team--only if it is an "experiment."

One person not in the least responsible for the outcome was Mr. Stepfan Taylor. Great game for Stepfan. Didn't see the final stats, but he was over 100 yards--again.

We've passed the point of no return. Nunes is our QB now.
[/quote]

Unfortunately, having  Nottingham/Hogan/Picazzo/Lloyd/whoever I forgot  hand the ball off to Taylor to run up the middle a bunch of times from the 4 yard line probably wouldn't have changed things much when it counted ...  :(

The old cliche -- insanity [note: NOT asininity] is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result -- would seem to apply here.  For the last few years, of course, running that play over and over gave the same SUCCESSFUL result -- so we expected and were quite happy with the SAME result.  This year...not so much.

[yvonne]

The previous two years, we had a passing game that could make defenses pay for keying on those plays. This year, not so much.

It's disappointing to lose like that, but I have some hope that next week will be different.

[yvonne]

The previous two years, we had a passing game that could make defenses pay for keying on those plays. This year, not so much.

It's disappointing to lose like that, but I have some hope that next week will be different.

[Farm93]

Sadly the game went almost exactly as I would have guessed.  Notre Dame did not score 27. Stanford did not lose by 9.5 or 10 or 12.

I was thankful to see that Notre Dame could not move the ball against the Stanford D.  The Stanford D is the best D Notre Dame has faced by a big, big, big margin.  And although the Stanford O-Line is better than any that Notre Dame has played, I did suspect that Notre Dame would ultimately be able to stop Stanford's run game.

Then I would like to think Nunes could rise to the occasion, but that would have been such a big improvement in his play.  He was facing a big hostile crowd, national TV, rain, multiple time zones of travel, semi-cold weather and more.  Nunes pretty much played to expectations IMO.

Stanford was the best team Notre Dame has faced to date, but Stanford was not quite good enough to beat Notre Dame in South Bend.  Oh well.

The good news is that there really is only one team left on Stanford's schedule that is better than Notre Dame.  So if the O can move the ball a little bit against the Pac-12 Ds all should be fine.  Not BCS-bowl fine, but Alamo, Holiday, Sun bowl fine.

Almost does not matter.  It was an OOC game against a very good team.  An upset win would have been sweet, but not essential.

Hard to move beyond this game, and yet so easy because of the opponent coming up on October 20th.

[Farm93]

Sadly the game went almost exactly as I would have guessed.  Notre Dame did not score 27. Stanford did not lose by 9.5 or 10 or 12.

I was thankful to see that Notre Dame could not move the ball against the Stanford D.  The Stanford D is the best D Notre Dame has faced by a big, big, big margin.  And although the Stanford O-Line is better than any that Notre Dame has played, I did suspect that Notre Dame would ultimately be able to stop Stanford's run game.

Then I would like to think Nunes could rise to the occasion, but that would have been such a big improvement in his play.  He was facing a big hostile crowd, national TV, rain, multiple time zones of travel, semi-cold weather and more.  Nunes pretty much played to expectations IMO.

Stanford was the best team Notre Dame has faced to date, but Stanford was not quite good enough to beat Notre Dame in South Bend.  Oh well.

The good news is that there really is only one team left on Stanford's schedule that is better than Notre Dame.  So if the O can move the ball a little bit against the Pac-12 Ds all should be fine.  Not BCS-bowl fine, but Alamo, Holiday, Sun bowl fine.

Almost does not matter.  It was an OOC game against a very good team.  An upset win would have been sweet, but not essential.

Hard to move beyond this game, and yet so easy because of the opponent coming up on October 20th.

[81alum]

This was painful to watch.  Yes we had an ineffective quarterback, but we also had unimaginative play calling and we lost several close referee calls.  All three of those contributed to this loss.

Who is our quarterbacks coach? Does Hamilton handle that?  I'm beginning to think we need more effective quarterback coaching and better playcalling.  Nunes is learning too slowly.  Too many of our plays were telegraphed and predictable.

[81alum]

This was painful to watch.  Yes we had an ineffective quarterback, but we also had unimaginative play calling and we lost several close referee calls.  All three of those contributed to this loss.

Who is our quarterbacks coach? Does Hamilton handle that?  I'm beginning to think we need more effective quarterback coaching and better playcalling.  Nunes is learning too slowly.  Too many of our plays were telegraphed and predictable.

[Cardinal96]

Why was 49er's comment hidden out of curiousity?  Yeah, he is a first time poster and calling for Shaw to go was a bit of a strong reaction.  But I think our playcalling and QB development are open to fair criticism.  I didn't sense he was a troll and was likely dejected after the game.  Like we all were. 

It is really painful to watch us when Nunes is at the helm.  It is so depressing to see our defense put in such effort to flush it down the toilet.  With an average QB we win today.

[Cardinal96]

Why was 49er's comment hidden out of curiousity?  Yeah, he is a first time poster and calling for Shaw to go was a bit of a strong reaction.  But I think our playcalling and QB development are open to fair criticism.  I didn't sense he was a troll and was likely dejected after the game.  Like we all were. 

It is really painful to watch us when Nunes is at the helm.  It is so depressing to see our defense put in such effort to flush it down the toilet.  With an average QB we win today.

[Viking_Guy]

NYC--

I think the software automatically hides comments that generate a -5 rating, on the assumption they're trolls.

And I still hope someone asks Shaw "what would it take to change quarterbacks."

VG

[Viking_Guy]

NYC--

I think the software automatically hides comments that generate a -5 rating, on the assumption they're trolls.

And I still hope someone asks Shaw "what would it take to change quarterbacks."

VG

[CompSci87]

Yvonne moved the threshold forup/down votes hiding a post from -5 to -7, and that one got all the way to -7. As discussed in another thread, that threshold is really meant as an emergency spam/porn/etc. block, but folks are using the down arrow as a "strongly disagree" button, so stuff gets blocked that shouldn't. Maybe the threshold should be -10,  or be removed.

[CompSci87]

Yvonne moved the threshold forup/down votes hiding a post from -5 to -7, and that one got all the way to -7. As discussed in another thread, that threshold is really meant as an emergency spam/porn/etc. block, but folks are using the down arrow as a "strongly disagree" button, so stuff gets blocked that shouldn't. Maybe the threshold should be -10,  or be removed.

[Cardinal96]

Yvonne moved the threshold forup/down votes hiding a post from -5 to -7, and that one got all the way to -7. As discussed in another thread, that threshold is really meant as an emergency spam/porn/etc. block, but folks are using the down arrow as a "strongly disagree" button, so stuff gets blocked that shouldn't. Maybe the threshold should be -10,  or be removed.

That was pretty tame compared to the stuff you routinely see posted on message boards of other sports programs.  I know I don't aspire to have this board become Shaggybevo for instance but personally I like to see diversity of opinion on these types of forums as long as it is not over the top.  And I don't think 49er was over the top.

[Cardinal96]

Yvonne moved the threshold forup/down votes hiding a post from -5 to -7, and that one got all the way to -7. As discussed in another thread, that threshold is really meant as an emergency spam/porn/etc. block, but folks are using the down arrow as a "strongly disagree" button, so stuff gets blocked that shouldn't. Maybe the threshold should be -10,  or be removed.

That was pretty tame compared to the stuff you routinely see posted on message boards of other sports programs.  I know I don't aspire to have this board become Shaggybevo for instance but personally I like to see diversity of opinion on these types of forums as long as it is not over the top.  And I don't think 49er was over the top.

[needle]

I thought the difference would be Northern Indiana Parochial College would have a couple guys who could make key catches down the field and Stanford doesn't. 

Difference in game: 

Eifert TD catch on 3rd and 18.
Riddick catch on lob down sideline.
Catch by Jones for OT TD. 

No Stanford receiver made no such plays.  I don't think it is all on Nunes.

The throw by Golson was very nice on the Eifert TD. And Riddick and Rees deserve credit for somehow connecting on the OT catch.

We have to give some credit to Notre Dame, though it does again feel like even a mediocre passing game would have resulted in a Stanford win.

[needle]

I thought the difference would be Northern Indiana Parochial College would have a couple guys who could make key catches down the field and Stanford doesn't. 

Difference in game: 

Eifert TD catch on 3rd and 18.
Riddick catch on lob down sideline.
Catch by Jones for OT TD. 

No Stanford receiver made no such plays.  I don't think it is all on Nunes.

The throw by Golson was very nice on the Eifert TD. And Riddick and Rees deserve credit for somehow connecting on the OT catch.

We have to give some credit to Notre Dame, though it does again feel like even a mediocre passing game would have resulted in a Stanford win.

[ChicagoCard]

On a bright side, Alex Carter looked very good. I don't remember seeing much of Reynolds, and more of Carrington than I'd expected. Something to do with Reynolds getting banged up last weekend maybe.

[ChicagoCard]

On a bright side, Alex Carter looked very good. I don't remember seeing much of Reynolds, and more of Carrington than I'd expected. Something to do with Reynolds getting banged up last weekend maybe.

[yvonne]

If you select the "Profile" link at the top of the page and then select "Look and Layout." The last option on the page asks what you want to do with posts that receive a score of -7 or lower. Set your personal settings as you prefer.

[yvonne]

If you select the "Profile" link at the top of the page and then select "Look and Layout." The last option on the page asks what you want to do with posts that receive a score of -7 or lower. Set your personal settings as you prefer.

[Roberton3]

Yvonne moved the threshold forup/down votes hiding a post from -5 to -7, and that one got all the way to -7. As discussed in another thread, that threshold is really meant as an emergency spam/porn/etc. block, but folks are using the down arrow as a "strongly disagree" button, so stuff gets blocked that shouldn't. Maybe the threshold should be -10,  or be removed.

You can control how the system handles this when you're reading the board.  Go to Profile: Account Settings, and then Modify Profile: Look and Layout.  Then at the bottom of that screen, there's a setting for "Voted posts: What to do with posts scoring -7 or less?"  If you choose "nothing" as the option there, the system will continue to display all posts, no matter how negative a score they've accumulated.

[Roberton3]

Yvonne moved the threshold forup/down votes hiding a post from -5 to -7, and that one got all the way to -7. As discussed in another thread, that threshold is really meant as an emergency spam/porn/etc. block, but folks are using the down arrow as a "strongly disagree" button, so stuff gets blocked that shouldn't. Maybe the threshold should be -10,  or be removed.

You can control how the system handles this when you're reading the board.  Go to Profile: Account Settings, and then Modify Profile: Look and Layout.  Then at the bottom of that screen, there's a setting for "Voted posts: What to do with posts scoring -7 or less?"  If you choose "nothing" as the option there, the system will continue to display all posts, no matter how negative a score they've accumulated.

[scorecard]

Scoring twice on 3 plays - agree. And

The interference call against us was a "did not play the ball" call - but our CB turned around and was closer to catching the ball than the receiver. Go figure?

The "helmet to helmet" call looked clearly in the replay that Umanan turned his head and hit with his shoulder and not the helmet.

It blows to not get a decent replay review on either 2nd down or 4th down, when Taylor was in both times.  All plays involving the goal line are supposed to be reviewed, so why didn't they look at 2nd down?  That may have even been more clear.  They sure were quick to review and reverse Toilolo's catch.  Even worse, they were apparently Pac-12 refs.  And on 3rd down, Teo looks like he stops Taylor but takes 2 swipes at Taylor's head and facemask after the play that are not called (of course, there's no way they would call it in that situation, but it would have been a justifiable call by the book).  The side judge and particularly the back judge are in perfect position for the 4th down play, but I have no idea what they are looking at.  Okay, so maybe they miss it with live action, but you have to reverse it with the replay.  There is no whistle (I have watched the play multiple times).  The side judge does run in early, but why would you do that on the very last play of the game until the man is clearly down?  I just hate that the refs mucked up the end of the game.  The game should be decided on the field.

The Amanam play was a killer because it was also 1st and 20 at the time.  Furthermore, I'm not sure Golston gets the job done in crunch time.  Rees actually gave their offense new life.  It looked worse on slow-mo but Golston was being spun around at the time, and was about at waist height or even lower.  It was probably not even a necessary hit, but with Golston's 3 earlier fumbles I can't necessary blame Amanam for trying to separate the ball. 

Toilolo's catch that was reversed was a bad call as well.  Controlling the ball to the ground is an NFL standard, not college.  His elbow was down before he lost control of the ball anyway.  Inconsequential to the end of the game since we converted.

I also saw Taylor get tackled on an obvious horse collar tackle that wasn't called either.

Oh well, as others have stated, it shouldn't have come to this, because we should have had a comfortable lead had we gotten anything out of our QB.  I believe our lines on both sides played better, but when you can't complete a pass, it comes back to bite you.  Just like UW all over again.

[scorecard]

Scoring twice on 3 plays - agree. And

The interference call against us was a "did not play the ball" call - but our CB turned around and was closer to catching the ball than the receiver. Go figure?

The "helmet to helmet" call looked clearly in the replay that Umanan turned his head and hit with his shoulder and not the helmet.

It blows to not get a decent replay review on either 2nd down or 4th down, when Taylor was in both times.  All plays involving the goal line are supposed to be reviewed, so why didn't they look at 2nd down?  That may have even been more clear.  They sure were quick to review and reverse Toilolo's catch.  Even worse, they were apparently Pac-12 refs.  And on 3rd down, Teo looks like he stops Taylor but takes 2 swipes at Taylor's head and facemask after the play that are not called (of course, there's no way they would call it in that situation, but it would have been a justifiable call by the book).  The side judge and particularly the back judge are in perfect position for the 4th down play, but I have no idea what they are looking at.  Okay, so maybe they miss it with live action, but you have to reverse it with the replay.  There is no whistle (I have watched the play multiple times).  The side judge does run in early, but why would you do that on the very last play of the game until the man is clearly down?  I just hate that the refs mucked up the end of the game.  The game should be decided on the field.

The Amanam play was a killer because it was also 1st and 20 at the time.  Furthermore, I'm not sure Golston gets the job done in crunch time.  Rees actually gave their offense new life.  It looked worse on slow-mo but Golston was being spun around at the time, and was about at waist height or even lower.  It was probably not even a necessary hit, but with Golston's 3 earlier fumbles I can't necessary blame Amanam for trying to separate the ball. 

Toilolo's catch that was reversed was a bad call as well.  Controlling the ball to the ground is an NFL standard, not college.  His elbow was down before he lost control of the ball anyway.  Inconsequential to the end of the game since we converted.

I also saw Taylor get tackled on an obvious horse collar tackle that wasn't called either.

Oh well, as others have stated, it shouldn't have come to this, because we should have had a comfortable lead had we gotten anything out of our QB.  I believe our lines on both sides played better, but when you can't complete a pass, it comes back to bite you.  Just like UW all over again.

[Extra Point]

The replay ref was from the Big East!

[Extra Point]

The replay ref was from the Big East!