The CardBoard
I hope Duck fans see this... - 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: I hope Duck fans see this... (/thread-22364.html)

Pages: 1 2

I hope Duck fans see this... - OutsiderFan - 10-03-2021

While Oregon is a physical team, they are also dirty.  They were hit with two targeting penalties, and the tackle on Tremayne was disgusting. You don't go low on guys when they are being held up high.  That should have been a penalty - it is when an OL does it - but at least Stanford did score a TD on that drive. I was watching the game on TV and feared Tremayne was going to be badly hurt as soon as whoever it was made the dirty tackle. Then I saw his foot twisted at a grotesque angle.

It was nice to see the Ducks flagged and punished for their lack of discipline and unsportsmanlike play in that game. Their dirty play directly led to them losing, which made their loss that much more satisfying. Did McKee fake being injured - I mean he acted concussed - so refs would call the targeting penalty? Was shocked to see him return.

Finally, though I didn't think the roughing the last passer call was legit, it was still a product of undisciplined play.

RE: I hope Duck fans see this... - French Rage - 10-03-2021

This is very unfair.

We all know Duck fans can't read.

RE: I hope Duck fans see this... - CTcard - 10-03-2021

(10-03-2021, 05:08 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  Finally, though I didn't think the roughing the last passer call was legit, it was still a product of undisciplined play.

If you mean the call on the tying TD drive, it was cut and dried. Any contact to the neck or head of a QB while throwing is roughing the passer. It doesn't have to be late.

RE: I hope Duck fans see this... - oldalum - 10-03-2021

(10-03-2021, 05:08 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:   Did McKee fake being injured - I mean he acted concussed - so refs would call the targeting penalty?
No. In the press conference he said:

"I took a shot to the ribs. Kind of got the wind knocked out of me a little bit, couldn’t breathe for a little bit so I was on the floor. Once I got off, kind of walking around a little bit, thought I was totally fine, doctors checked me ribs out, cleared me, and I’m feeling great right now."

RE: I hope Duck fans see this... - winflop - 10-03-2021

(10-03-2021, 08:14 AM)oldalum Wrote:  
(10-03-2021, 05:08 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:   Did McKee fake being injured - I mean he acted concussed - so refs would call the targeting penalty?
No. In the press conference he said:

"I took a shot to the ribs. Kind of got the wind knocked out of me a little bit, couldn’t breathe for a little bit so I was on the floor. Once I got off, kind of walking around a little bit, thought I was totally fine, doctors checked me ribs out, cleared me, and I’m feeling great right now."

Warrior, but if he wants to get to Andrew Luck level warrior, he needs to tell them "nice hit" afterwards

lex24 - lex24 - 10-03-2021

(10-03-2021, 05:33 AM)French Rage Wrote:  This is very unfair.

We all know Duck fans can't read.

Lol

RE: I hope Duck fans see this... - martyup - 10-03-2021

(10-03-2021, 08:24 AM)winflop Wrote:  
(10-03-2021, 08:14 AM)oldalum Wrote:  
(10-03-2021, 05:08 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:   Did McKee fake being injured - I mean he acted concussed - so refs would call the targeting penalty?
No. In the press conference he said:

"I took a shot to the ribs. Kind of got the wind knocked out of me a little bit, couldn’t breathe for a little bit so I was on the floor. Once I got off, kind of walking around a little bit, thought I was totally fine, doctors checked me ribs out, cleared me, and I’m feeling great right now."

Warrior, but if he wants to get to Andrew Luck level warrior, he needs to tell them "nice hit" afterwards

He also needs to "Cattouse" a cal defender.

RE: I hope Duck fans see this... - CompSci87 - 10-03-2021

Not to mention simulating the snap count to cause false starts. In watching on TV I noticed Shaw was going ballistic to the refs right at the first false start.

RE: I hope Duck fans see this... - JohnR34231 - 10-03-2021

(10-03-2021, 09:09 AM)CompSci87 Wrote:  Not to mention simulating the snap count to cause false starts. In watching on TV I noticed Shaw was going ballistic to the refs right at the first false start.

IIRC, they did the same thing in the 2015 game. One of the reasons our offense stalled in the second half and may have contributed to us losing the game.

RE: I hope Duck fans see this... - BostonCard - 10-03-2021

The high/low against Tremayne was gruesome but not a penalty.  The rules are different for offensive linemen blocking than they are for defensive players trying to tackle, and as long as none of them were targeting (they weren’t) or committing another penalty like tripping, it’s legal.

The hit by Thibodeaux against McKee was clearly targeting.  We are lucky that the reason he got hurt was the legal hit yo the ribs, rather than the illegal one to the head.  But whether a player is injured or not has nothing to do with whether targeting is called or not.  In Thibodeaux’ case, it was targeting because he hit the McKee in the head or neck with the crown of his helmet and, critically, because Thibodeaux “launched” by jumping into McKee.  You could argue that the launch was to try to bat the ball down, but it doesn’t matter; with the three elements present, it is targeting, full stop.

He was a hell of a player last night,and it was a tough break for him to be disqualified, but the NCAA should continue to impose somewhat draconian penalties until players learn to tackle more safely.

BC

RE: I hope Duck fans see this... - OutsiderFan - 10-03-2021

(10-03-2021, 07:48 AM)CTcard Wrote:  
(10-03-2021, 05:08 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  Finally, though I didn't think the roughing the last passer call was legit, it was still a product of undisciplined play.

If you mean the call on the tying TD drive, it was cut and dried. Any contact to the neck or head of a QB while throwing is roughing the passer. It doesn't have to be late.

It may be a penalty by the letter of the law, but when I saw the replay no part of me thought it was worth a penalty.  The tackle on Tremayne was far, far more penalty-worthy IMO. And I didn't think the hold on #63 that wiped out a big gain was worth a penalty either,  so I'm not playing favorites here. Penalties should be called when they are flagrant violations of the rules or create an unfair advantage on a given play.

And I almost forgot the blindside hit Oregon's Redd laid on on Gilman.  That was another dirty play I forgot to point out in the initial thread.

RE: I hope Duck fans see this... - BostonCard - 10-03-2021

As gruesome as it was, the tackle on Tremayne wasn’t a penalty, and I don’t even think it was deliberately dirty.  Players often will try to tackle low; in this particular case, he was also being pushed from high.  The real unfortunate thing is that his foot caught on the grass; has it not been planted, but that had nothing to do with the tackle.

And as CT noted, the roughing the passer was unambiguously a penalty.

BC

RE: I hope Duck fans see this... - Red80 - 10-03-2021

Someone in the section next to us was blowing a whistle while McKee was calling signals at the LOS. UO fans are sleaziest bunch of front-running fans that I've ever seen/heard.

RE: I hope Duck fans see this... - BostonCard - 10-03-2021

One last add, the Duck fans might have had a reasonable gripe about the PI call (or was it defensive holding), on the last timed play in regulation.  Not so much because it shouldn’t have been a penalty (it was), but because there were at least two other instances with as much or more contact that went uncalled.  Obviously it is frustrating when you think refs are going to let you ply through a lot of contact and then they don’t.  But we as Stanford fans could just as much gripe that the refs were letting the Ducks get away with a deliberate strategy of not allowing our receivers to get up for the ball, so my sympathy is limited.

On holding, it’s just a fact of life that a lot of holding isn’t seen and doesn’t get called.  I saw a pretty bad hold on the first Duck touchdown, and someone on the live thread noted that KBk was being held on the last Duck touchdown (I didn’t see the hold, but I believe it).  As much as I sigh, it is called so inconsistently that I think ultimately it’s just hard for refs to see it consistently.

Stanford fans can also gripe about some calls.  An early whistle declaring Peat’s forward progress stopped, even though he was still moving his legs and a second effort resulted in an apparent touchdown wound up costing us four points.  A bad spot on McKee’s sneak on fourth down wound up costing us a first down (the review said the play stands, which I think was right because there was no definitive evidence, though it really did look like McKee got to the line to gain, and most controversially, the fumble against Oregon that was overturned on video review, even though there was no clear video evidence to overturn it; here was a case where the Duck was probably down, but through a fair number of camera angles there was no clear view of when the ball came out and thus the call on the field should have stood).

So, on the balance, I don’t think the refs cost the Ducks the game.

BC

RE: I hope Duck fans see this... - Goose - 10-03-2021

(10-03-2021, 11:47 AM)BostonCard Wrote:  So, on the balance, I don’t think the refs cost the Ducks the game.


BC
Totally agree. The Duck pass defenders were pushing the envelope on every play. Many times they got away with it, but not always. OTOH, the third down play featured "obvious" OPI from the Stanford receiver simply  discarding the defender. However, the defender had been holding him. None of that got called. It is hard to see what is going on in real time. There are more players than officials and they can't see everything. Often you can get away with a grab or a push. But not always.

RE: I hope Duck fans see this... - Genuine Realist - 10-03-2021

(10-03-2021, 11:47 AM)BostonCard Wrote:  One last add, the Duck fans might have had a reasonable gripe about the PI call (or was it defensive holding), on the last timed play in regulation.  Not so much because it shouldn’t have been a penalty (it was), but because there were at least two other instances with as much or more contact that went uncalled.  Obviously it is frustrating when you think refs are going to let you ply through a lot of contact and then they don’t.  But we as Stanford fans could just as much gripe that the refs were letting the Ducks get away with a deliberate strategy of not allowing our receivers to get up for the ball, so my sympathy is limited.

On holding, it’s just a fact of life that a lot of holding isn’t seen and doesn’t get called.  I saw a pretty bad hold on the first Duck touchdown, and someone on the live thread noted that KBk was being held on the last Duck touchdown (I didn’t see the hold, but I believe it).  As much as I sigh, it is called so inconsistently that I think ultimately it’s just hard for refs to see it consistently.

Stanford fans can also gripe about some calls.  An early whistle declaring Peat’s forward progress stopped, even though he was still moving his legs and a second effort resulted in an apparent touchdown wound up costing us four points.  A bad spot on McKee’s sneak on fourth down wound up costing us a first down (the review said the play stands, which I think was right because there was no definitive evidence, though it really did look like McKee got to the line to gain, and most controversially, the fumble against Oregon that was overturned on video review, even though there was no clear video evidence to overturn it; here was a case where the Duck was probably down, but through a fair number of camera angles there was no clear view of when the ball came out and thus the call on the field should have stood).

So, on the balance, I don’t think the refs cost the Ducks the game.

BC

Been a while. I actually haven't watched a game in years. But McKee has caught my eye, and the team as a whole is interesting and personable.

On the last drive, a targeting call and a roughing call (both completely correct) within four plays give Stanford thirty yards and (as it happens) the game. Coincidence?

I don't think so. I think you have a defensive coordinator or head coach on the sidelines telling his guys that the only player who can beat them is McKee (again correct), so the object is to knock him out of the game, which is pretty poor, but the defensive philosophy of a lot of coaches.

I don't like the Oregon team, and I particularly don't like the Oregon coaching staff.

RE: I hope Duck fans see this... - CTcard - 10-03-2021

(10-03-2021, 11:47 AM)BostonCard Wrote:  ... the fumble against Oregon that was overturned on video review, even though there was no clear video evidence to overturn it; here was a case where the Duck was probably down, but through a fair number of camera angles there was no clear view of when the ball came out and thus the call on the field should have stood).

My best guess after watching the many replays many times, is that it was probably a fumble - though like the refs I couldn't see anything to be sure.


(10-03-2021, 12:01 PM)Goose Wrote:  OTOH, the third down play featured "obvious" OPI from the Stanford receiver simply  discarding the defender. However, the defender had been holding him. 

Not quite sure which play you are referring to here. Third down was an overthrow on a crossing pattern at the back of the end zone without much interaction between DB and WR. Did you mean the second down post-up attempt to Humphreys in the right corner?
Or are you talking about an earlier third down play?

RE: I hope Duck fans see this... - lex24 - 10-03-2021

Always great to ruin Oregon’s chance to play  in NCS.

RE: I hope Duck fans see this... - BostonCard - 10-03-2021

(10-03-2021, 02:12 PM)CTcard Wrote:  
(10-03-2021, 11:47 AM)BostonCard Wrote:  ... the fumble against Oregon that was overturned on video review, even though there was no clear video evidence to overturn it; here was a case where the Duck was probably down, but through a fair number of camera angles there was no clear view of when the ball came out and thus the call on the field should have stood).



My best guess after watching the many replays many times, is that it was probably a fumble - though like the refs I couldn't see anything to be sure.


What is weird is that the ruling on the field was of a fumble, so no matter what "it looked like", there needed to be irrefutable video evidence.  I'm not sure what the guys in the replay booth saw that they felt was irrefutable, but certainly on my screen it didn't look like there was anything anywhere near certain, and the ABC guys showed a ton of angles trying to see it.  There was just no clear view of when the ball came out.  The last you see of the ball secure, he was clearly not down yet, and the first time you clearly see the ball out, he is down.  But there was no way (at least from the replays I saw) to establish when he lost control versus when a part of the player touched the ground.

The ruling on the field should have stood.

BC

RE: I hope Duck fans see this... - BruceH - 10-03-2021

There was one angle where I thought I could see the ball coming out. Wasn't clear (could have been an elbow) and the broadcast didn't repeat it or analyze it, but maybe the review booth caught it and it was dispositive.