Just a great game. Congrats to Wake Forest.
- Thread starter Louisvillian
- Start date
Lots of young talent on this Cardinal team.
Malik is a warrior
Malik is a warrior
I am on the road traveling I am down in Jacksonville right now so I had to keep up with the game online. It was a typical Louisville vs WF game a lot of back and forth it was even entertaining keeping up with it online.
Very good sentiment. It’s kind of a shame that the referees did not do their job as well as the young men on both teams.
Yes, it seems every week in college and the pros, you just hope you’re on the right side of it in close games.
I have a hard time looking at this as a “good game” when the consensus is many blatant mistakes by officials went against us. To the point the timing of some made it seem intentional.
Both teams played hard and it had the makings of a good game.
But it wasn’t a good game IMO.
Both teams played hard and it had the makings of a good game.
But it wasn’t a good game IMO.
No doubt the poor calls effected the outcome, which I rarely say. However besides that our guys battled and didn’t let that effect them in a negative manner. Yeah there were mistakes, but we are improving weekly and the play calling has been for the most part good. I can see progress and that’s a big plus in my book.
You would think by all of the whining and complaining about the botched call and FG that it happened at the end of the game and not before halftime. It’s 3 points. Take the 2nd half kickoff March down the field and score! Or hell make a stop on defense. As far as the punt interference, our player ran right across the face of the punt returner. You don’t have to make contact if you obstruct the view of the player, which our player did. Our message board has turned into the kitty lair with all of the conspiracy theories about the ACC.
If you watched the replay, you would have seen the WF player block our gunner in a way that changed his normal trajectory path from one side, to going into the face of the intended punt returner. An official review would have recognized that it was INCIDENTAL and at the worst have been a 5 yard penalty.
By definition, a conspiracy is ”when 2 or more are engaged in plan”. In the case of the video replay team putting an extra second on the clock …….it required at least 2, if not more, of the officials to come up with that decision; so it can qualify technically as a conspiracy for whatever motives that UL fans want to assign.
By definition, a conspiracy is ”when 2 or more are engaged in plan”. In the case of the video replay team putting an extra second on the clock …….it required at least 2, if not more, of the officials to come up with that decision; so it can qualify technically as a conspiracy for whatever motives that UL fans want to assign.
You coming up with your own rules. Interference on the returner is 15 yards. There is no incidental contact unless you’re talking about the punter and a blocker directs a player into the punter. A punt returner is a defenseless receiver.
Giving a team three points in a three point loss is pretty consequential regardless when it came. Or how about a bogus block in the back that negated a pass down to the opponent’s 20 yard line. Or perhaps the decision to not allow our dual threat quarterback to renter the game on a huge third down at midfield. I’m not gonna espouse conspiracy theories but it is fair to say that UofL was on the ass end of some ridiculously bad officiating in a one score game.
Btw…I think you are wrong on interference with punt returner. You cannot obstruct his path to field the ball. There is nothing in the rule about obstructing his view.
There is an optional 5 yard penalty for interference; anyone watching the replay could see our gunner was running to the outside of the WF return man when the WF guy blocked our guy into the inside, which forced him into the path of the return man.
INTERFERENCE
Article 1 During a scrimmage kick that crosses the line of scrimmage, or during a free kick, members of the kicking team are prohibited from interfering with any receiver making an attempt to catch the airborne kick, or from obstructing or hindering his path to the airborne kick, and regardless of whether any signal was given.
Item 1: Contact with Receiver. It is interference if a player of the kicking team contacts the receiver, or causes a passive player of either team to contact the receiver, before or simultaneous to his touching the ball.
Item 2: Right of Way. A receiver who is moving toward a kicked ball that is in flight has the right of way. If opponents obstruct his path to the ball, or cause a passive player of either team to obstruct his path, it is interference, even if there is no contact, or if he catches the ball in spite of the interference, and regardless of whether any signal was given.
Article 1 During a scrimmage kick that crosses the line of scrimmage, or during a free kick, members of the kicking team are prohibited from interfering with any receiver making an attempt to catch the airborne kick, or from obstructing or hindering his path to the airborne kick, and regardless of whether any signal was given.
Item 1: Contact with Receiver. It is interference if a player of the kicking team contacts the receiver, or causes a passive player of either team to contact the receiver, before or simultaneous to his touching the ball.
Item 2: Right of Way. A receiver who is moving toward a kicked ball that is in flight has the right of way. If opponents obstruct his path to the ball, or cause a passive player of either team to obstruct his path, it is interference, even if there is no contact, or if he catches the ball in spite of the interference, and regardless of whether any signal was given.
I see players peel off either left or right, not cross directly in front of him. It’s a rule to protect a defenseless player.
ps - if it wasn’t illegal, I would tell my punt return team to run across his view.
If they don’t hit him then I’m not sure what defenseless player has to do with it. Most coaches teach them to stop right in front of the receiver because 1) it’s can affect the receiver and 2) the punt team can recover it easily if it’s muffed (like we did before half). I don’t believe what he did was illegal based on the rules.
I see the defensive players run within inches of the punt catcher every game some even bump and there is no call. I was surprised when they changed the halo rule because it was a rule set up to protect the player. I watch a lot of games every week and there is some really bad refereeing out there. I wonder if because of the pandemic are they trying to keep refs closer to home. If so maybe the refs are getting caught up in the emotion of the game for the home team.
I’m normally in the camp that refs don’t normally change the outcome, but a blatant disregard of a rule is different. This wasn’t a missed call it was far worse. We made a goal line stance stopped them from scoring at the end of the half. That could have effected far more than 3 points, which ironically was the difference in the final score.
Heck even Mark Richt on the Huddle called it out as a game changer. And said Satt had a right to be mad and that he would have been. So I think fans should be outraged. Who knows if it changes the out come but the players deserve that rules be followed and allow it to be played out on the field. The players have to follow the rules and coaches too.
On a note about the ref. The SEC refused to allow him to ref games due to his inability to manage the clock. Funny the ACC does.
Has the ACC made any such statement about our game or is that part of the conspiracy too?
You keep bringing up conspiracies? Not sure what that’s about. I don’t think there’s a conspiracy. I do think there is incompetence. Easy calls being blown and incorrect application of rules should be called out.
NCCard, please show me the rule; not being argumentative here, as I recall witnessing 5 yard penalties in the past for unintentional interference. I can be wrong, just want to see the rule.
I believe this staff teaches our gunner to go behind the punt returner when they see a signal for a fair catch. From the video replay you can clearly see our gunner was heading on the outboard side of the returner, but was blocked inboard that changed his direction right in front of the return man.
As I have stated previously, officials deserve the benefit of doubt, but when you see so many strange calls, so many in one game that go against UL; and having video review evidence that supports UL; it is time to raise objection to the ACC Commissioner. It will not change the outcome, but it could result in an acknowledgment of error by those responsible, and could begin a process where more objective rulings would be employed during UL games.
I believe this staff teaches our gunner to go behind the punt returner when they see a signal for a fair catch. From the video replay you can clearly see our gunner was heading on the outboard side of the returner, but was blocked inboard that changed his direction right in front of the return man.
As I have stated previously, officials deserve the benefit of doubt, but when you see so many strange calls, so many in one game that go against UL; and having video review evidence that supports UL; it is time to raise objection to the ACC Commissioner. It will not change the outcome, but it could result in an acknowledgment of error by those responsible, and could begin a process where more objective rulings would be employed during UL games.
Knucklehank provided you the rule. It’s 6.4.1 I think. There is no 5 yard incidental contact, it’s either a 15 yard penalty or “no” penalty.
Being that type of judgement call, it’s probably not reviewable. Now if the U of L player plowed over the returner and it was determined that he was blocked into the returner, then there should be no penalty.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
BB RECRUITING: Sananda Fru commits to Louisville:
- Latest: KozmasAgain