October 20, 200718 yr No blown call on the fair catch, UL wins. Bottom line. UConn would have had zero momentum the rest of the game...Call me a sore loser if you want, that call cost them the game. I agree. In a rather low-scoring close game like this one, a single call can make a huge difference.
October 20, 200718 yr Sounds like the refs called it by the book in not calling the fair catch... No, go back and read the rule again. Whether the receiver completes the fair catch signal or not if he does anything other than shade his eyes he loses the chance to advance the ball. Its in the article 1, section b part I pointed it out a few posts ago.
October 20, 200718 yr I agree. In a rather low-scoring close game like this one, a single call can make a huge difference. It was the correct call...
October 20, 200718 yr No, go back and read the rule again. Whether the receiver completes the fair catch signal or not if he does anything other than shade his eyes he loses the chance to advance the ball. Its in the article 1, section b part I pointed it out a few posts ago. That rule made me dumber reading it...
October 20, 200718 yr The NCAA rules on a fair catch SECTION 7. Fair Catch Fair Catch ARTICLE 1. a. A fair catch of a scrimmage kick is a catch beyond the neutral zone by a player of Team B who has made a valid signal during a scrimmage kick that is untouched beyond the neutral zone. b. A fair catch of a free kick is a catch by a player of Team B who has made a valid signal during an untouched free kick. c. A valid or invalid fair catch signal deprives the receiving team of the opportunity to advance the ball, and the ball is declared dead at the spot of the catch or recovery or at the spot of the signal if the catch precedes the signal (Rule 6-5-1-a Exception). d. If the receiver shades his eyes from the sun, the ball is live and may be advanced. Valid Signal ARTICLE 2. A valid signal is a signal given by a player of Team B who has obviously signalled his intention by extending one hand only clearly above his head and waving that hand from side to side of his body more than once. Invalid Signal ARTICLE 3. An invalid signal is any signal by a player of Team B that does not meet the requirements of a valid signal (Rule 6-5-3). It's right there in red, the invalid fair catch signal still should have stopped the play. It's written that way specifically to keep something like that from happening.
October 20, 200718 yr I think the rule is pretty clear. Even an invalid signal (only waving once in this case) prevents you from advancing the ball. The officials completely blew it. Might as well start counting everything that happens after the whistle is blown.
October 20, 200718 yr No blown call on the fair catch, UL wins. Bottom line. UConn would have had zero momentum the rest of the game...Call me a sore loser if you want, that call cost them the game. Where was that momentum when UL took a 10 point lead in the 4th quarter? It was a horrible call but UL still had the game in hand and blew it.
October 20, 200718 yr That's no fun... :laugh: You're a stand up kinda guy. Tis a good thing. There was a BGP member a few years back that posted some info about his uncle who had recently passed away. He said the following was included on his epitaph that still makes me laugh to this day: "He was often wrong but never in doubt". Not that you are often wrong, but your comment made me think about that hilarious statement.
October 20, 200718 yr What has happened to this team? My dad used to say that "if you put salt on a Red Bird's tail feathers that it couldn't fly", maybe this is what has occured.:lol:
October 20, 200718 yr Sounds like the refs called it by the book in not calling the fair catch... Right...they shouldn't have called a fair catch....BUT THEY should've called it dead once he advanced the ball....that's "by the book"..
October 20, 200718 yr Here's my take. I really like how the defense played. I was supremely concerned about the rain and it came up big in UConn's favor. UConn dropped seven guys and made U of L either run (which is clearly evident that they can't do), or dink and dunk. They didn't go downfield because Brian didn't feel comfortable throwing it out there. Brian's first interception was a tremendous, tremendous play by that LB'r. The second simply slipped out of his hand he had his man open, it simply slipped. Again, it is was a disappointing loss, but there were still positives to take from it. Just play, I do think that Louisville can still win on of the big ones in the future.
October 21, 200718 yr Here's my take. I really like how the defense played. I was supremely concerned about the rain and it came up big in UConn's favor. UConn dropped seven guys and made U of L either run (which is clearly evident that they can't do), or dink and dunk. They didn't go downfield because Brian didn't feel comfortable throwing it out there. Brian's first interception was a tremendous, tremendous play by that LB'r. The second simply slipped out of his hand he had his man open, it simply slipped. Again, it is was a disappointing loss, but there were still positives to take from it. Just play, I do think that Louisville can still win on of the big ones in the future. This is one thing that has me curious. Brock Bolen was obviously our best back last night. Allen, who had seemed like he'd be our second bright star behind Brohm at the begining of the season has seemed to play mediocre these past few games. I heard a rumor that he'd be transferring. If that's true, then why not have Brock, who seems like he truly WANTS to play, get all the main touches (along with Spencer, Beaumont, etc, just to keep him fresh)? I agree, the defense did seemed improved last night.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.