Stanford broke SC - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Stanford broke SC (/thread-12677.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Stanford broke SC (/thread-12677.html)
Stanford broke SC - washingtonismoney - 09-19-2016
https://twitter.com/BruceFeldmanCFB/status/778042042928672768
https://twitter.com/BruceFeldmanCFB/status/778044087538638849
Re: Stanford broke SC - stupac2 - 09-19-2016
I'm fine if they're playing the better guy after we beat them, might make our win look better as the year goes on.
Re: Stanford broke SC - BostonCard - 09-19-2016
What's the fix to a coaching staff that lines up 8 players for a PAT?
https://twitter.com/shotgunspr/status/777972884857769985
BC
Re: Stanford broke SC - ThePassionOfTheChryst - 09-19-2016
Or committing six false starts in a not-so-hostile environment?
Re: Stanford broke SC - CompSci87 - 09-19-2016
(09-19-2016, 09:17 PM)ThePOC link Wrote:Or committing six false starts in a not-so-hostile environment?
I read somewhere that $¢ players claimed Stanford was mimicking the snap count. That was good for two fumbled snaps (one with each of two different centers) when Oregon did it to Stanford last year. So I suppose it's possible. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me 6 times, I'm from USC...?
Re: Stanford broke SC - FarmBoy - 09-20-2016
What does that mean to mimic the snap count? Is someone on the defense saying "hut hut hut"? Aren't the cnap counts relatively complex and specific to teams?
Re: Stanford broke SC - CTcard - 09-20-2016
(09-19-2016, 10:35 PM)CompSci87 link Wrote:[quote author=ThePOC link=topic=15717.msg172010#msg172010 date=1474345032]
Or committing six false starts in a not-so-hostile environment?
I read somewhere that $¢ players claimed Stanford was mimicking the snap count. That was good for two fumbled snaps (one with each of two different centers) when Oregon did it to Stanford last year. So I suppose it's possible. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me 6 times, I'm from Under Stanford Control (again)...?
[/quote]
I didn't realize that there was a claim Oregon was doing that.
It's strictly illegal, but rarely (never?) do I see it called.
Re: Stanford broke SC - washingtonismoney - 09-20-2016
(09-20-2016, 05:35 AM)CTcard link Wrote:It's strictly illegal, but rarely (never?) do I see it called.
I can't recall which game, but I saw it called earlier this year.
Re: Stanford broke SC - fullmetal - 09-20-2016
That's what I heard last year, no pun intended. It's an uncommonly called penalty because, let's face it, it sounds whiny for the offense to bring it up. But holy moly--two fumbles. That changed the course of the season for us.
Re: Stanford broke SC - Leftcoast - 09-20-2016
I've seen it penalized before but it is a difficult and subjective call for officials. There are lots of legitimate reasons for a defense to be barking out plays and adjustments pre snap so an official must gauge intent. It must not have been too blatant Saturday or we WOULD have seen laundry on the field by the sixth false start call.
The idea that Stanford is mimicking snap counts is out there - I just saw an otherwise dull interview with UCLA center Sott Quessenberry where he was asked about it.
Re: Stanford broke SC - CTcard - 09-20-2016
(09-20-2016, 06:58 AM)leftcoast link Wrote:I've seen it penalized before but it is a difficult and subjective call for officials. There are lots of legitimate reasons for a defense to be barking out plays and adjustments pre snap so an official must gauge intent.
According to the rule, it doesn't matter if there are legitimate reasons for a defense to be barking.
Rule 7.1.5.5
"Defensive Team Requirements
...
No player shall use words or signals that disconcert opponents when they are preparing to put the ball in play. No player may call defensive signals that simulate the sound or cadence of (or otherwise interfere with) offensive starting signals."
Intent is not mentioned.
Re: Stanford broke SC - stupac2 - 09-20-2016
This definitely gets called sometimes, I've seen a few times this year already, though I can't remember in what games (IIRC one was in the NFL and was for clapping, which is more obvious). I also definitely remember someone saying the fumbles against Oregon were because they were doing this, though I can't remember who brought it up. This is the first I'm hearing about us doing it.
Re: Stanford broke SC - JeffInCorvallis - 09-20-2016
(09-19-2016, 08:59 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:What's the fix to a coaching staff that lines up 8 players for a PAT?
https://twitter.com/shotgunspr/status/777972884857769985
BC
Not to pick too many nits here on what was generally a fine outing and a solid win, but if the other guys only show up with 8 somebody should be authorized to audible at the line of scrimmage into a 2pt. conversion attempt.
Re: Stanford broke SC - dabigv13 - 09-20-2016
(09-20-2016, 11:19 AM)JeffInCorvallis link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=15717.msg172009#msg172009 date=1474343971]
What's the fix to a coaching staff that lines up 8 players for a PAT?
https://twitter.com/shotgunspr/status/777972884857769985
BC
Not to pick too many nits here on what was generally a fine outing and a solid win, but if the other guys only show up with 8 somebody should be authorized to audible at the line of scrimmage into a 2pt. conversion attempt.
[/quote]
Yup
Re: Stanford broke SC - stupac2 - 09-20-2016
(09-20-2016, 11:19 AM)JeffInCorvallis link Wrote:Not to pick too many nits here on what was generally a fine outing and a solid win, but if the other guys only show up with 8 somebody should be authorized to audible at the line of scrimmage into a 2pt. conversion attempt.
The people on the field might not be the best at that, plus who on earth would expect a team to line up missing three guys?
Re: Stanford broke SC - CTcard - 09-20-2016
(09-20-2016, 11:19 AM)JeffInCorvallis link Wrote:Not to pick too many nits here on what was generally a fine outing and a solid win, but if the other guys only show up with 8 somebody should be authorized to audible at the line of scrimmage into a 2pt. conversion attempt.
Hmmm.
It's not exactly a situation I would imagine they would cover explicitly during preparation.
On the other hand, it sure looks like Dallas Lloyd could have run that in off-tackle left.
Re: Stanford broke SC - dabigv13 - 09-20-2016
They may not cover an 8 man defense explicitly, but plenty of college teams will assess the defending presnap alignment and go to a 2 point play if they have an advantage.
Re: Stanford broke SC - BostonCard - 09-20-2016
I definitely thought of it. Perhaps that is something the coaches can tell Lloyd. "If it ever happens again..."
Certainly a better thing to have on your "to do" list, than having to set a policy that after any touchdown you hand the ball to the ref to prevent putting it down before crossing the goal line (http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2016/09/18/sonny-dykes-california-dropping-ball-vic-enwere-joe-mixon-ray-ray-mccloud/90648182/).
BC
Re: Stanford broke SC - washingtonismoney - 09-20-2016
(09-20-2016, 12:51 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:I definitely thought of it. Perhaps that is something the coaches can tell Lloyd. "If it ever happens again..."
Yeah, thought the same. Some teams allow for automatic checks to fake punts or onside kicks. (This sometimes leads to comedy -- I remember a Clemson punter automatically checking to a fake punt on, like, 4th and 20. He gained 15 yards.) But the overall principle is sound.
Re: Stanford broke SC - Hank 91 - 09-20-2016
(09-20-2016, 11:19 AM)JeffInCorvallis link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=15717.msg172009#msg172009 date=1474343971]
What's the fix to a coaching staff that lines up 8 players for a PAT?
https://twitter.com/shotgunspr/status/777972884857769985
BC
Not to pick too many nits here on what was generally a fine outing and a solid win, but if the other guys only show up with 8 somebody should be authorized to audible at the line of scrimmage into a 2pt. conversion attempt.
[/quote]
I was thinking the same thing. Isn't that essentially what Oregon does on every single PAT? If the numbers are in their favor, go for two. It doesn't get much more in your favor than 8 vs. 11.