FSU vs Notre Dame

[Guest jojo1515]

Amazing how you can show people something on video, even show the video angle, but they will still claim the bias officials are correct and you (with evidence) are wrong.

It was FSU blown coverage!!

You guys are funny. That's an obvious penalty. It's been ten years since I played the game, but it was illegal when I played and it's illegal now.

Yes, it is illegal for the db to jump in front of a wr in the middle of a route as it has been said that the penalty was on number 7...like a said earlier.....video evidence doesnt matter to those that wont watch it

[AUDub 11,148]

Amazing how you can show people something on video, even show the video angle, but they will still claim the bias officials are correct and you (with evidence) are wrong.

It was FSU blown coverage!!

You guys are funny. That's an obvious penalty. It's been ten years since I played the game, but it was illegal when I played and it's illegal now.

Yes, it is illegal for the db to jump in front of a wr in the middle of a route as it has been said thatvthebpenalty was on number 7...like a said earlier.....video evidence doesnt matter to those that wont watch it

I have watched it. I see number seven crack on the DB like it was a screen play. He was never looking to run a route. He ran into the guy and engaged him in a block. That's illegal. End of story. Sorry, fella. The refs and the majority of the talking heads see it my way.

I'd be screaming bloody murder if it had happened in the Iron Bowl, and I suspect most here would, too.

[Guest jojo1515]

Amazing how you can show people something on video, even show the video angle, but they will still claim the bias officials are correct and you (with evidence) are wrong.

It was FSU blown coverage!!

You guys are funny. That's an obvious penalty. It's been ten years since I played the game, but it was illegal when I played and it's illegal now.

Yes, it is illegal for the db to jump in front of a wr in the middle of a route as it has been said thatvthebpenalty was on number 7...like a said earlier.....video evidence doesnt matter to those that wont watch it

I have watched it. I see number seven crack on the DB like it was a screen play. He was never looking to run a route. He ran into the guy and engaged him in a block. That's illegal. End of story. Sorry, fella. The refs and the majority of the talking heads see it my way.

I'd be screaming bloody murder if it had happened in the Iron Bowl, and I suspect most here would, too.

Extremely apparent you are seeing what you want to see. At the 18 second mark of the video I posted, you can VERY CLEARLY see the dbs left foot planted hard in a push off motion as he was out of position. He plants his left foot and jumps in front of the receiver to prevent him from getting by him. If you actually watch the video I posted and dont see that, there is no point in the duscussion as you are 100 percent fixed on your first opinion and completely unwilling to allow any possible other explanation. The call was blown (intentional or not)

[AUDub 11,148]

Extremely apparent you are seeing what you want to see. At the 18 second mark of the video I posted, you can VERY CLEARLY see the dbs left foot planted hard in a push off motion as he was out of position. He plants his left foot and jumps in front of the receiver to prevent him from getting by him. If you actually watch the video I posted and dont see that, there is no point in the duscussion as you are 100 percent fixed on your first opinion and completely unwilling to allow any possible other explanation. The call was blown (intentional or not)

You're correct in one respect. Discussion is useless. Wartiger was right. This is tiresome. Go read the rule book and get back to me tomorrow.

It doesn't matter what the DB was doing or where he was. You can not engage him in a block on a pass in front of the line of scrimmage. Period. That's the rule.

[rae47 0]

Number 7 had no chance to break away.. He actually tried and was wrapped up..and held. The DB actually held his jersey.. He had no chance to pull away.. I keep reading 7's the penalty because he did not attempt to pull away.. He couldn't. It's a coached defensive play..hold the guy, push and hold and make it look like a block out.. Happens all the time.. Then push off for the Oscar..

[rae47 0]

The WR did not engage him.. The DB grabbed the WR.. Could not be avoided.. Refs are trained to spot this and know the difference..

[Guest jojo1515]

Extremely apparent you are seeing what you want to see. At the 18 second mark of the video I posted, you can VERY CLEARLY see the dbs left foot planted hard in a push off motion as he was out of position. He plants his left foot and jumps in front of the receiver to prevent him from getting by him. If you actually watch the video I posted and dont see that, there is no point in the duscussion as you are 100 percent fixed on your first opinion and completely unwilling to allow any possible other explanation. The call was blown (intentional or not)

You're correct in one respect. Discussion is useless. Wartiger was right. This is tiresome. Go read the rule book and get back to me tomorrow.

It doesn't matter what the DB was doing or where he was. You can not engage him in a block on a pass in front of the line of scrimmage. Period. That's the rule.

You have no clue who number seven is in the video, do you? You are arguing the wrong player. If you're not actually going to watch the video completely disproves your theory, just stop talking. It doesn't matter what the db was doing??????? It doesn't matter that the only reason there was any contact between number 7 and the db is that the the db jumped in front of him as he was running by???? It doesn't matter that he wasn't blocking him???? It doesn't matter what actually happened??? Seriously just stop if you are going to admit that what actually happened doesn't matter.

[BigSammyK 171]

Good grief - lock this already. The horse is starting to smell.

[AUDub 11,148]

Extremely apparent you are seeing what you want to see. At the 18 second mark of the video I posted, you can VERY CLEARLY see the dbs left foot planted hard in a push off motion as he was out of position. He plants his left foot and jumps in front of the receiver to prevent him from getting by him. If you actually watch the video I posted and dont see that, there is no point in the duscussion as you are 100 percent fixed on your first opinion and completely unwilling to allow any possible other explanation. The call was blown (intentional or not)

You're correct in one respect. Discussion is useless. Wartiger was right. This is tiresome. Go read the rule book and get back to me tomorrow.

It doesn't matter what the DB was doing or where he was. You can not engage him in a block on a pass in front of the line of scrimmage. Period. That's the rule.

You have no clue who number seven is in the video, do you? You are arguing the wrong player. If you're not actually going to watch the video completely disproves your theory, just stop talking. It doesn't matter what the db was doing??????? It doesn't matter that the only reason there was any contact between number 7 and the db is that the the db jumped in front of him as he was running by???? It doesn't matter that he wasn't blocking him???? It doesn't matter what actually happened??? Seriously just stop if you are going to admit that what actually happened doesn't matter.

Again, I did watch the video and what I see is an illegal block. Sorry fella, I'm done here. Have a nice day!

[CadillacCone 0]

What's sad is ND didn't have to do that. FSU was gonna blow that coverage.

[alexava 6,973]

The sad part is that I don't think either of the dibs could have covered the pass or even tried.

[AU64 10,122]

What's sad is ND didn't have to do that. FSU was gonna blow that coverage.

That could be true....but in my opinion, Kelly was going to make sure the receiver got open...it was likely the last play of the game and he rolled the dice on that play....good call I guess ....just turned out to be unfortunate (for ND) that the refs did not give in to the moment and let the violation slide.

[Guest jojo1515]

Lmao at anybody that can argue a point, be given proof they are wrong, claim they've seen the evidence while refusing to acknowledge what actual happens as pointed out by the second, and then end the discussion as if they are right no matter what. Good time to be done I guess....

[PowerOfDixieland 3,226]

That wasn't just pass interference, both receivers should have been criminally charged with mugging.

I played DT (not DB) and the concept is the same for any defensive position. If you allow the offensive opponent to get his hands locked onto your jersey, you have to go high with your hands to gain enough leverage to try and get off the block. Almost always requires grabbing the side of the shoulders at the point.

Neither receiver even tried to disguise what they were doing.

[weagl1 1,784]

That play has actually been around forever. We'd called it Ole Miss pass in my high school playbook from 1970. The guy in the slot is supposed to run an inside slant. The guy on the outside is supposed to run a curl at the end line of the end zone. The pass goes to the back looping out of the backfield who is uncovered unless the LB or DE on that side recognizes it immediately, takes off for the sideline and does not get caught in the traffic of the receivers and the DBs covering them. It is a really tough play to defend. What actually happened is that both receivers engaged the DBs covering them, which was totally unnecessary. No one on that side reacted to go after the intended receiver and the play was uncovered. If the other two receivers had just run their routes it was an easy TD. Instead they gave the appearance of picks on both DBs. Hard to say if it was intentional or not but they sure screwed up what was a great call that would have won the game for Notre Dame.

[tgr4lfe 220]

Lmao at anybody that can argue a point, be given proof they are wrong, claim they've seen the evidence while refusing to acknowledge what actual happens as pointed out by the second, and then end the discussion as if they are right no matter what. Good time to be done I guess.... You can't fix.....

Other than ND homers, you are the ONLY one seeing what you are seeing. Both of the other WRs blocked the DBs beyond the LOS while a forward pass is attempted beyond the LOS, thus it is illegal. It was a clear pick play call by Kelly, I doubt the WRs are taught to execute the play in that fashion. As CadillacCone said FSU would have never been able to cover that route had the two WRs just simply ran slant routes with no contact on the DBs.

Oh....and no, it doesn't matter what the DBs were doing, if they were ducking inside to cut off a slant, is irrelevant to the WR blocking them. An offensive player can not do that on a forward pass beyond the LOS. PERIOD

[AU-24 3,088]

Lmao at anybody that can argue a point, be given proof they are wrong, claim they've seen the evidence while refusing to acknowledge what actual happens as pointed out by the second, and then end the discussion as if they are right no matter what. Good time to be done I guess.... You can't fix.....

Other than ND homers, you are the ONLY one seeing what you are seeing. Both of the other WRs blocked the DBs beyond the LOS while a forward pass is attempted beyond the LOS, thus it is illegal. It was a clear pick play call by Kelly, I doubt the WRs are taught to execute the play in that fashion. As CadillacCone said FSU would have never been able to cover that route had the two WRs just simply ran slant routes with no contact on the DBs.

Oh....and no, it doesn't matter what the DBs were doing, if they were ducking inside to cut off a slant, is irrelevant to the WR blocking them. An offensive player can not do that on a forward pass beyond the LOS. PERIOD

What do you make of the pass interference penalty that negated Notre Dame's go-ahead touchdown late in their 31-27 loss at Florida State on Saturday?

• 
  
  43%Right call
  
• 
  
  57%Wrong call
  

(Total votes: 62,536)

[AU-24 3,088]

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11728483/brian-kelly-notre-dame-fighting-irish-upset-penalty-end-game-vs-florida-state-seminoles

Notre Dame coach Brian Kelly adamantly disagreed with an offensive pass interference penalty that wiped away a go-ahead touchdown against Florida State, saying he had even less clarity Sunday than he did in the minutes after the 31-27 loss.

"Actually I have less clarity," Kelly said during his Sunday teleconference. "I guess it was actually called on Will Fuller, not C.J. (Prosise). So [it] just adds more uncertainty as to the final play.

"But again, the play itself, in terms of what we ask our kids to do, it was pretty clear what happened on the play: Florida State blew the coverage and they got rewarded for it. It's unfortunate."

[AU-24 3,088]

Kelly said he did notice that FSU cornerback P.J. Williams took his helmet off right after Robinson's wiped-out catch, a gesture that did not draw a penalty.

"Yeah, they said that they missed the call," Kelly said. "They said they just missed it."

[AUDub 11,148]

Lmao at anybody that can argue a point, be given proof they are wrong, claim they've seen the evidence while refusing to acknowledge what actual happens as pointed out by the second, and then end the discussion as if they are right no matter what. Good time to be done I guess....

LOL. I think someone needs to define proof for you, fella.

[rae47 0]

Ahmm..the call should be defensive holding.. It does matter if the DB "grabs" and "holds" the WR the entire play. It's not that he jumped him or jumped in front of him.. He grabbed and held him.. You're not mid field here guys.. The WR was held and in spite of trying to break away could not "due to the hold" and being in the end zone.. Coming from an SEC ref.. It is tiresome.. I can see that. After this, because I'm new I'll give up on trying to get this across. But the call was bad.. And given the call was made by the furthest official from the play and the game rested on it..and it's just too close (too much room for error) it's way too hot to call..but it was called. It should not have been.. And for this very reason..the call was wrong.. Thank you and War Eagle!

[Guest jojo1515]

Lmao at anybody that can argue a point, be given proof they are wrong, claim they've seen the evidence while refusing to acknowledge what actual happens as pointed out by the second, and then end the discussion as if they are right no matter what. Good time to be done I guess....

LOL. I think someone needs to define proof for you, fella.

Or somebody needs to show you how to properly analyze a video, little buddy

[AU-24 3,088]

How bout the non-call unsportsmanlike for removing helmet on the field.

[Guest jojo1515]

It all just made sense... Big Ben= Pittsburg Steelers qb. Pittsburg panthers are in the ACC coincidence???

Probably

[EagleReedle 14]

Honestly I felt like it was a good call when I watched it the first time and think the same after rewwatching the highlights. It was a slick play call but those receivers just blocked as if they were offensive linemen. I was rooting for the Irish and that 4th and 18 was crazy!