ADVERTISEMENT

Chop block

TheRealVille

5000+
Apr 27, 2015
5,518
4,216
26
For all the criticism Satterfield is receiving after losing to BC, the continued bad luck and or bad timing of a single play ends up being the main reason for losing the game.

It was indeed a chop block on the Cards that negated a TD from Jordan that would have given the Cards that much needed two score lead in the 4th quarter.

I suppose BC still had enough time to overcome a 12 point deficit but that was very unlikely. Instead of Cards fans lamenting a loss we would be lamenting a ugly win but for that penalty. A penalty you rarely see.

It's always something these past three seasons. We have lost so many close games due to stuff like this, be it a bad call by a ref, a fluke turnover, and a unlikely penalty. For some reason, Louisville football just can't get over the hump.
 
We seem to get a lot of chop block calls.
I don't recall many at all. This was the only one all game and it came in the 4th quarter away from the runner. It had no bearing on Jordan running into the end zone. It was just a horrible time to commit this penalty.
 
I don't recall many at all. This was the only one all game and it came in the 4th quarter away from the runner. It had no bearing on Jordan running into the end zone. It was just a horrible time to commit this penalty.
We pretty routinely have chop blocks called on us. I watch a lot of college football and don’t see it called much in other games.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CommodoreCard
I didn’t get to see the game due to the dispute between SlingTV and Disney … my question is, which UofL player was already engaged with the defender(s) when our offensive linemen attempted to block them below the knees?

As I understand it, blocking below the knees is legal as long as the defender is not already engaged with another blocker.
 
I didn’t get to see the game due to the dispute between SlingTV and Disney … my question is, which UofL player was already engaged with the defender(s) when our offensive linemen attempted to block them below the knees?

As I understand it, blocking below the knees is legal as long as the defender is not already engaged with another blocker.
I dumped slingtvs ass today over this because I feel they were shady about notifying their customers.

I switched to directtv streaming.
Better picture and WAY more channels.
 
I didn’t get to see the game due to the dispute between SlingTV and Disney … my question is, which UofL player was already engaged with the defender(s) when our offensive linemen attempted to block them below the knees?

As I understand it, blocking below the knees is legal as long as the defender is not already engaged with another blocker.
That's what I thought too, but they may have changed it, does anyone know if they dud or not?
 
I couldn’t watch the volleyball match between Louisville & Ga Tech because of the dispute with Disney. They kept running the anti Disney commercial non stop during the whole match and that was on direct tv.
 
I never like saying one play was the reason for winning or losing. However that was a bad call that negated a score. Only issue i have is that the defense was so bad who is it too say BC still would not have overcame that deficit. Like i stated in a prior thread i was taking a wait and see . Seen enough this marriage is just not going too work. Satt loyalty to Brown cost him his job.

Heres another big issue nobody talks about or realizes if you keep him another year . Alot of the staff will more than likely bolt if they have options then you are replacing them with people just looking for work. We seen this with Bobby aftermath trying to get a d-coord Van Gorder .Just do a mutal parting of ways . Heck nothing but money we used to it now.
 
Last edited:
I never like saying one play was the reason for winning or losing. However that was a bad call that negated a score. Only issue i have is that the defense was so bad who is it too say BC still would not have overcame that deficit. Like i stated in a prior thread i was taking a wait and see . Seen enough this marriage is just not going too work. Satt loyalty to Brown cost him his job.

Heres another big issue nobody talks about or realizes if you keep him another year . Alot of the staff will more than likely bolt if they have options then you are replacing them with people just looking for work. We seen this with Bobby aftermath trying to get a d-coord Van Gorder .Just do a mutal parting of ways . Heck nothing but money we used to it now.
English is a great tool in competent hands.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OldhamCard335
I didn’t get to see the game due to the dispute between SlingTV and Disney … my question is, which UofL player was already engaged with the defender(s) when our offensive linemen attempted to block them below the knees?

As I understand it, blocking below the knees is legal as long as the defender is not already engaged with another blocker.
SS in his press conference was asked about it. He said Chandler tried to cut his man and actually never touched the guy. but while he was laying on the ground the Tackle pushed the guy who then fell over Chandler layiing on the ground. He said from the angle the Offical was looking he probably couldn't tell Chandler whiffed on the block.
He said the disappointing thing is it was on the back side of the play and had absolutely nothing to do with Jordan breaking the run for a TD.
 
Yup. It's always some bad break that leads directly to a close loss. It's been truly remarkable how many close losses during the Satterfield era that ultimately came down to one play.
 
If we were the team we thought we were or could be 1 play against BC should not have determined the game. Especially, when we had a plus 2 turnover margin. We are doing things that bad football teams do.
 
The irony here, is that if that TD was not called back, it is possible UL could have won by 12 rather than losing by 1.

Not an excuse, but rather another example of ways things can turn out in college football.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SoulSr
The irony here, is that if that TD was not called back, it is possible UL could have won by 12 rather than losing by 1.

Not an excuse, but rather another example of ways things can turn out in college football.
Yeah, it’s amazing how frequently those twists go against us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mayoman
Good teams win despite these things and Louisville hasn’t been good.

I still think they have a major talent problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2330859
The hardest thing to evaluate from year to year is does the team have actual talent. We all rely on coaches and players bias opinions.

The one thing that was a major red flag with this group is none of the players they hype up actually met that evaluation.

Brown has hyped up the defense the last 2 years. 2 years they haven’t been good. No draft picks.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT