Recruiting Forum Football Talk XXIX

[BruinVol]

buchanon getting whipped in the 1st qtr and warrior giving up a td, and fils aime knocking the ball out of dobbs hands, all due to injuries at south carolina.

And the Aime issue was Dobbs fault.

 

[BruinVol]

Well, my curiosity got the better of me, so I pulled up the rule book. I think this is the rule that applies to the play we're discussing:

Beyond the Neutral Zone
ARTICLE 2. a. No inbounds player of the kicking team shall touch a
scrimmage kick that has crossed the neutral zone before it touches an
opponent. Such illegal touching is a violation that, when the ball becomes
dead (emphasis added by me), gives the receiving team the privilege of taking the ball at the spot​

of the violation (

Exception: Rule 6-3-4) (A.R. 2-12-2-I and A.R. 6-3-2-I).

b. This privilege is canceled if there is an accepted penalty for a live-ball
foul by either team (A.R. 6-3-2-I-IV, A.R. 6-3-11-I-III and A.R. 10-1-
4-VII).
c. The privilege is canceled if there are offsetting fouls.​

d. Illegal touching in Team A’s end zone is ignored.

So, I think the interpretation is that McDowell was not allowed to touch the ball and, since he did, SC had the choice to accept the ball at the spot where he touched it, or in the spot where the ball became dead.

A lot of discussion to arrive at the same conclusion...dumb play by McDowell.
​

Why was he not allowed to touch the ball?

 

[LA Vol]

buchanon getting whipped in the 1st qtr and warrior giving up a td, and fils aime knocking the ball out of dobbs hands, all due to injuries at south carolina.

Again, we had the offensive firepower on the field to outscore SCAR. There's just no getting past that.

 

[Chuckie]

Why was he not allowed to touch the ball?

The rule states plainly, "No inbounds player of the kicking team shall touch a scrimmage kick that has crossed the neutral zone..."

I didn't post the entire section, but for this play the neutral zone is the area between the LOS and the spot of the kick. So, the rule says that it's a violation for the kicking team to touch the ball before the receiving team has touched it. I think this seems strange because there is no penalty for doing this, just that the receiving team has the choice of taking the ball at either the spot it was touched by the kicking team or the spot the ball becomes dead (for this play, in the end zone).

 

[WriterVol]

Really just an excellent post. LOL @ everyone throwing out the VT win over OSU. If we lose to Kentucky or Vanderbilt: "Hey guys, it's ok! Ohio State lost to Virginia Tech three years ago!"

I love this place. Most predicable place ever.

Sunday: USCe loss is the most embarrassing bad loss ever. Fire Jones I am done.

5 days later: USCe isn't a bad team. They may win 3 of their last 4. Even if they don't every team has losses like this. GBO! It was the players that lost the game anyway.

This isn't what's going on at all. People are trying to put it into context of the season as a whole. By comparing it to other disappointing losses, it helps place that context. No one has excused South Carolina, but it contrasts the Florida, Virginia Tech, and Georgia wins.

That's why Saban and his history get brought up all the time. It's context.

As for South Carolina being a "respectable loss" or not, it was simply me asking Jave if he thought a South Carolina that won out would make it respectable. I made no comment on the matter in that post. In another post, I said clearly it was a bad loss.

 

[csprig9]

I love this place. Most predicable place ever.

Sunday: USCe loss is the most embarrassing bad loss ever. Fire Jones I am done.

5 days later: USCe isn't a bad team. They may win 3 of their last 4. Even if they don't every team has losses like this. GBO! It was the players that lost the game anyway.

No excuses for losing to south Carolina coming off a bye week. Flat out embarrassing. The only good thing this team has done was end the Florida streak and thank God they beat uga again. But yeah, south Carolina is awful and this team with proper preparation should have kicked the **** out of that team. I'm not back on the butch bandwagon yet, get another top 8 class and beat fl, uga and at least try against bama and LSU next year. Next year winning the east should be the low expectations. And MAKE SOME ****ING STAFF CHANGES or hit the road butch. And another thing, fans especially, quit bragging about three stars, see work out but stars do matter. Look at bama, Clemson, osu, etc

 

[chavisut]

Ole Miss was 3-4 until they managed to turn it around in the second half of the season with losses to Vanderbilt and South Carolina.

If South Carolina wins out or even goes 3-1 (Clemson on the schedule), would it then be a respectable loss?

No.

 

[jave36]

Ole Miss was 3-4 until they managed to turn it around in the second half of the season with losses to Vanderbilt and South Carolina.

If South Carolina wins out or even goes 3-1 (Clemson on the schedule), would it then be a respectable loss?

More respectable than if they don't win 3 out of 4,definitely. They're no 9 win Ole Miss team though. And we were coming off a bye, so it's even less respectable of a loss.

 

[BruinVol]

The rule states plainly, "No inbounds player of the kicking team shall touch a scrimmage kick that has crossed the neutral zone..."

I didn't post the entire section, but for this play the neutral zone is the area between the LOS and the spot of the kick. So, the rule says that it's a violation for the kicking team to touch the ball before the receiving team has touched it. I think this seems strange because there is no penalty for doing this, just that the receiving team has the choice of taking the ball at either the spot it was touched by the kicking team or the spot the ball becomes dead (for this play, in the end zone).

He touched it on the inch line how was the between the LOS and where it was first touched?

Not arguing just trying to understand

 

[VolsDoc81TX]

I'd take DeBord over a promoted Azzanni at OC any day. DeBord can put up points but lacks creativity at times. We have no idea whether Z would be a disaster or not.

I also think DeBord would be fine moving forward provided the next QB is adequately coached and the offensive line improves. But that leads to a staff number crunch. Someone has to fill a dual role on staff, and the obvious solution for most staffs is to hire an OC who is also a proven QB coach, and DeBord ain't that.

Dooley:sunseri
Would be the equivalent of
Butch: azzanni OC

Would be a death sentence....
Jmo

 

[WriterVol]

Warrior giving up a TD is on the coaches. He should have played all year and their conservative ass wouldn't play him.

So you'd rather he had given up a TD in the Georgia game or maybe the App State game?

He's played in every game so far.

What's the old saying about having to play freshmen in the SEC?

 

[butchna]

He touched it on the inch line how was the between the LOS and where it was first touched?

Not arguing just trying to understand

The rub is that it appeared that McDowell didn't knock it into the end zone...a South Carolina player kicked it. I don't know if Chuckie is trying to use the basis of that rule as justification for the call...not sure what the neutral zone is for a successful punt.

 

[WriterVol]

More respectable than if they don't win 3 out of 4,definitely. They're no 9 win Ole Miss team though. And we were coming off a bye, so it's even less respectable of a loss.

I tend to agree. I was just asking for clarification.

You hold Florida's Ole Miss loss a little higher than I do though. I'd call it a pretty bad loss, but it didn't kill their season.

 

[Chuckie]

This isn't what's going on at all. People are trying to put it into context of the season as a whole. By comparing it to other disappointing losses, it helps place that context. No one has excused South Carolina, but it contrasts the Florida, Virginia Tech, and Georgia wins.

That's why Saban and his history get brought up all the time. It's context.

As for South Carolina being a "respectable loss" or not, it was simply me asking Jave if he thought a South Carolina that won out would make it respectable. I made no comment on the matter in that post. In another post, I said clearly it was a bad loss.

I think bringing up the topic of context is salient. Although we really have no other choice and nothing else to do at this point, judging our wins and losses in real time is short-sighted. Each of the games and the season as a whole can really only be judged once the entire season is complete. Lots of what-ifs right now. Once the season is over and we know how it plays out for everyone, then we can objectively make judgments. The SC loss feels like a really bad one right now, and I don't think we'll feel much better about in the second week of January, but the fact is that right now we just don't know for sure.

 

[jason3713]

If we somehow backed into the SEC championship game it would be the biggest trap game ever. They already kicked the **** out of us and they are looking to the playoffs and a national championship. I still don't think we would win with all the Dline injuries but I think it stays close.

 

[WriterVol]

I think bringing up the topic of context is salient. Although we really have no other choice and nothing else to do at this point, judging our wins and losses in real time is short-sighted. Each of the games and the season as a whole can really only be judged once the entire season is complete. Lots of what-ifs right now. Once the season is over and we know how it plays out for everyone, then we can objectively make judgments. The SC loss feels like a really bad one right now, and I don't think we'll feel much better about in the second week of January, but the fact is that right now we just don't know for sure.

This is how I'd prefer it on pretty much all matters (including staff changes), but what are you going to do? It's a message board.

As for SC, I doubt it does anything but remain a bad loss.

I don't think you can call this season anything but a mixed bag so far. Overall, it's been very confusing.

 

[BruinVol]

So you'd rather he had given up a TD in the Georgia game or maybe the App State game?

He's played in every game so far.

What's the old saying about having to play freshmen in the SEC?

Neither. I wanted him to play safety in the VATech game and the Ohio game.
He did in neither.

 

[Chuckie]

He touched it on the inch line how was the between the LOS and where it was first touched?

Not arguing just trying to understand

The rub is that it appeared that McDowell didn't knock it into the end zone...a South Carolina player kicked it. I don't know if Chuckie is trying to use the basis of that rule as justification for the call...not sure what the neutral zone is for a successful punt.

I'm saying that, based on the portion of the rule that I posted, I think the officials' interpretation was that McDowell illegally touched the ball (because any touching of the ball by the kicking team prior to touching by the receiving team is illegal) on the 6-inch line and the ball came to rest in the end zone. Based on those criteria, SC had the option of accepting the ball where it was touched or where it became dead (in the end zone, which results in a touchback).

This is why it makes sense that, in the circumstance of my initial post where the ball is touched at the 25 but comes to rest at the 15, the receiving team would obviously accept the ball where it was touched instead of where it became dead.

The rule is still unclear, though, about how it should have been handled if Tennessee caused the ball to become dead at the 6-inch line but the SC player caused the ball to go into the end zone. I think McDowell touching the ball first makes it impossible that we could have been awarded a touchdown. But SC clearly shouldn't have been allowed to gain an advantage by causing the touchback. This is where I think we have a beef.

 

[BruinVol]

I thought that once the UCSe player touched it and we recovered in the endzone it was a TD. I really thought it should have been a TD for us but I havnt seen anything suggesting I was correct.

 

[unioncityvol]

Again, we had the offensive firepower on the field to outscore SCAR. There's just no getting past that.

it almost appeared that dobbs was paid off to lose. very treon esque performance.

 

[daj2576]

This is how I'd prefer it on pretty much all matters (including staff changes), but what are you going to do? It's a message board.

As for SC, I doubt it does anything but remain a bad loss.

I don't think you can call this season anything but a mixed bag so far. Overall, it's been very confusing.

To me the problem is that the same people who were over-valuing the team pre-season (10-2 or better was never a likely outcome based on comparative talent) are the same people who are relying on their incorrect base assumption to support their current despondency.

From where I sit, an objective talent analysis predicted a 9-3 season as being the most likely record for this team, with 10-2 or 8-4 both being significantly less likely than 9-3 but still plausible with good/bad luck, and anything outside of that being highly unlikely.

In essence both the hype and anti hype are unsupportable positions.

That said, SCAR should have been a W, but UGA should have been a L given these evaluations. That's a wash, and 9-3 is still on the table.

Here is the SEC, to date, showing a talent prediction rate in the 2/3 neighborhood on a game by game basis, and seasonal predictions whereby 12 of 14 teams are performing within a game of said predictions. Talent is a solid predictor.

 

[jave36]

I thought that once the UCSe player touched it and we recovered in the endzone it was a TD. I really thought it should have been a TD for us but I havnt seen anything suggesting I was correct.

Chuckie could be right, once we touch it, it didn't matter what the USC player did.

Or, it wasn't 100% indisputable that the USC player kicked it at the 1 inch line. The ball could have crossed the goal line already, and since that was the call on the field, they couldn't overturn it.

 

[VolGee4]

I thought that once the UCSe player touched it and we recovered in the endzone it was a TD. I really thought it should have been a TD for us but I havnt seen anything suggesting I was correct.

I actually haven't seen the play, but once the kicking team touches the ball, the return team can pick it up or touch it without penalty. It's a quirky rule that more teams should take advantage of.

For example, if the kicking team accidentally touches the ball at the 25 and causes it to roll to the 15, the return team can touch and fumble or can also pick it up and run. If the return team doesn't make it to the 25, then it is still spotted at the 25. It's a no-lose situation for the return team. That is why when the kicking team inadvertently hits a ball, another member needs to down it as soon as possible.

 

[chavisut]

UGA, at home, against a freshman QB, no Chubb, with a new coach, should have been a loss?

 

[VolGee4]

UGA, at home, against a freshman QB, no Chubb, with a new coach, should have been a loss?

2 of those variables were not known preseason, when data was being used to predict outcomes.