Jump to content

Things I Think I Saw: AU vs LSU....


JMR

Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, WarTiger said:

This has been mentioned in several threads, but the 10 second run off rule only applies if the foul causes the clock to stop immediately.  It has to be a deadball foul (false start for instance) to stop the clock immediately.  An illegal shift is a live ball foul and isn't part of the criteria for a 10 second run off.

I understand the distinction between the two rules.  However, do you know why they would make that difference?

Seems to me that NO offensive penalty should actually BENEFIT the offense (in this case clock-management as a "gift").  These are grown men making these rules and they should be able to make decisions that make sense.  Is this an oversight on the rulesmakers' part or are they just being too technical about things?

Yes, I realize that it's just my opinion... but I'm asking for yours, as a rules expert please.

Edited by AUsince72
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites





Coach, outstanding narrative in my opinion - I wish sports reporters were at least half as informed and wrote at least half as well as that. (Stage a coup and replace Finebaum...please). We have some young phenoms that may plug right in when Carl & Monty are gone but you also do well highlighting some of the real headscratchers in this player pool, like Chandler and Byron.

AU needs to take care of business against La - Monroe and not necessarily assume we'll be using 3rd & 4th string guys, blowing Woody's redshirt, etc. Not to extrapolate too much but La - Monroe barely lost to Ga Southern, a team that punked Miss State's new nemesis South Alabama. In any event La - Monroe is not Arky State. For better or worse, I will not be shocked if GusRhett say this weekend "we're going to run between tackles until we get it right - even if it means punting a dozen times". Ya'll know what I mean there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, AUsince72 said:

I understand the distinction between the two rules.  However, do you know why they would make that difference?

Seems to me that NO offensive penalty should actually BENEFIT the offense (in this case clock-management as a "gift").  These are grown men making these rules and they should be able to make decisions that make sense.  Is this an oversight on the rulesmakers' part or are they just being too technical about things?

Yes, I realize that it's just my opinion... but I'm asking for yours, as a rules expert please.

Personally, I hate the 10 second run off rule entirely.  I don't believe it belongs in the game at all.    The intent of the rule is to prevent the offense from doing something intentionally that stops the clock.  Before this rule was in place, the offense could rush to the line of scrimmage, line up, commit a penalty that would stop the clock and get the play clock reset while the game clock isn't running and have the benefit of running another play.  Those are instances where the clock is really more important that even field position a lot of the times.    I still hate the rule and wish the college rules committee would think for themselves instead of adopting nfl rules.  It's a primary reason I haven't watched the nfl in 15 years.  I hate the stupid rules they use (like this one and a few others). 

They interpret the penalties that don't cause the clock to stop differently than the ones that do (when we get to less than a minute).  The rule is in place to actually take away an advantage for the offense not give them one.     Even prior to the 10 second run off rule, we still had and still have the rule that provides an untimed down should a play happen for instance a scoring play and there's a penalty on the offense and it happens to be the last play of the game.  If it decides the game, then the offense has to accept the penalty, nullify the score, and thus there has to be one untimed down as a result of that. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, WarTiger said:

Personally, I hate the 10 second run off rule entirely.  I don't believe it belongs in the game at all.    The intent of the rule is to prevent the offense from doing something intentionally that stops the clock.  Before this rule was in place, the offense could rush to the line of scrimmage, line up, commit a penalty that would stop the clock and get the play clock reset while the game clock isn't running and have the benefit of running another play.  Those are instances where the clock is really more important that even field position a lot of the times.    I still hate the rule and wish the college rules committee would think for themselves instead of adopting nfl rules.  It's a primary reason I haven't watched the nfl in 15 years.  I hate the stupid rules they use (like this one and a few others). 

They interpret the penalties that don't cause the clock to stop differently than the ones that do (when we get to less than a minute).  The rule is in place to actually take away an advantage for the offense not give them one.     Even prior to the 10 second run off rule, we still had and still have the rule that provides an untimed down should a play happen for instance a scoring play and there's a penalty on the offense and it happens to be the last play of the game.  If it decides the game, then the offense has to accept the penalty, nullify the score, and thus there has to be one untimed down as a result of that. 

Interesting.  Thank you for the info and your thoughts.

I do 100% agree that the NCAA should separate itself from the NFL and, like you, I haven't enjoyed NFL football for years... Of course, when my team was the Falcons (who builds a dome in Atlanta? C'mon man!) it's pretty easy to ignore them.

War Eagle!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, im4au said:

Enjoyed the write-up - thank you.  Do you think some of our red zone problems are due to the lack of a dominant fullback as lead blocker?

Absolutely. That isn't the only problem, but it is definitely on the list. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎9‎/‎26‎/‎2016 at 2:30 PM, JMR said:

With Louisiana Monroe coming up, it’s time now for Auburn to focus on Auburn. What needs to be changed? What’s working, what’s not, and what needs to be kept or discarded.? What are we doing that helps our opponents anticipate our play? Lots to be done, and this is a good time to start tweaking.

EXACTLY...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/26/2016 at 3:27 PM, AUsince72 said:

That whole ending was a mess and about 2 or 3 "judgements" were going against AU in those last 2 plays: no 10 sec run-off (should a been, I think), WR's AGAIN not set on the last snap, etc.

Luckily for the AU family they DID get the most important call right. :00!

War Eagle!

Glad that you noticed their WRs (and it wasn't just me). My voice is still a little hoarse after the expletive-laced tirade I let go with about those receivers not being set as the ball was snapped on that last play.

Like you said though, they DID make the right call in the end.

WDE 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This - 

I thought the officiating crew was unusually weak. They missed numerous holding calls, called Auburn defensive linemen twice for offsides when they were back out of the neutral zone before the snap, and allowed LSU to run plays without wide receivers being set before the snap. I don’t like to complain about officials in a loss, but in a win, they’re fair game IMO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Michael X said:

Glad that you noticed their WRs (and it wasn't just me). My voice is still a little hoarse after the expletive-laced tirade I let go with about those receivers not being set as the ball was snapped on that last play.

Like you said though, they DID make the right call in the end.

WDE 

Please note the replay official made the correct call. The refs on the field...someone should be out of a job!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Richard78 said:

Since we have no dominant fullback, is it time to do what some teams do and put a huge lineman out there to plow the road? If so, who do you you think it would be?

I don't know if it's "time" or not....truthfully, the things we ask our H-back to do are mostly more difficult than what a typical "fullback" has to do. But if we were to go to that (using a big lineman), I'd say Braden Smith is the closest we have to being athletic enough to be effective in that role. It would be fun to see Darius James there, at 330 or whatever he is now, but I'm not sure that would work.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JMR said:

I don't know if it's "time" or not....truthfully, the things we ask our H-back to do are mostly more difficult than what a typical "fullback" has to do. But if we were to go to that (using a big lineman), I'd say Braden Smith is the closest we have to being athletic enough to be effective in that role. It would be fun to see Darius James there, at 330 or whatever he is now, but I'm not sure that would work.

Didn't Braden play some TE in '14? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

Didn't Braden play some TE in '14? 

Yeah, he was the "apprentice" offensive lineman they bring in when they go unbalanced. Darius James was that guy last week, and Robert Leff last season.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JMR said:

Yeah, he was the "apprentice" offensive lineman they bring in when they go unbalanced. Darius James was that guy last week, and Robert Leff last season.

Ahh, that's right. Thx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...