Final: Stanford 38, weenies 17 - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Final: Stanford 38, weenies 17 (/thread-8323.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Final: Stanford 38, weenies 17 (/thread-8323.html)
Re: Final: Stanford 38, weenies 17 - needle - 11-22-2014
Quote: More than half the yardage came a single play, a 24-yard Hogan keeper around left end that got an add-on of 21 yards for two separate personal fouls, one during the play and another after the ball was dead.Â
Almost forgot about this. Kal sucks, and it's so, so funny.
Re: Final: Stanford 38, weenies 17 - Spiny_Norman - 11-22-2014
(11-22-2014, 06:50 PM)garvin link Wrote:One opposite-of-silver lining. Ty Montgomery left the game in the first quarter for x-rays of a shoulder energy and did not return to the field. Having had some experience with broken shoulders around my house in recent times, if it's broken, he's done for the season.
David Lombardi from post-game Shaw comments - "Ty Montgomery situation: 'not as bad as we originally thought' per Shaw. No broken bones. Not dislocated. UCLA status depends on MRI."
Re: Final: Stanford 38, weenies 17 - washingtonismoney - 11-22-2014
In pro-59er whining, this seems like a very silly piece: http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/targeting-ejection-call-rule-stanford-cal-michael-lowe-big-game-mike-pereira-112214
Re: Final: Stanford 38, weenies 17 - stupac2 - 11-22-2014
(11-22-2014, 08:55 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:In pro-59er whining, this seems like a very silly piece: http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/targeting-ejection-call-rule-stanford-Low APR U-michael-lowe-big-game-mike-pereira-112214
Quote: And if it had happened in the second half, Lowe would have been out for any bowl game that Cal might get, if it qualifies.
Is that true? I haven't heard of that.
Re: Final: Stanford 38, weenies 17 - 82 Card - 11-22-2014
(11-22-2014, 09:34 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=11187.msg106196#msg106196 date=1416714928]
In pro-59er whining, this seems like a very silly piece: http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/targeting-ejection-call-rule-stanford-Low APR U-michael-lowe-big-game-mike-pereira-112214
Quote: And if it had happened in the second half, Lowe would have been out for any bowl game that Low APR U might get, if it qualifies.
Is that true? I haven't heard of that.
[/quote]
Unlikely. Kal has one more regular season game against BYU.
Re: Final: Stanford 38, weenies 17 - Kathy - 11-22-2014
The weenies have another game ... against BYU next week. If the targeting had occurred in the second half, he would have to sit out the first half of the BYU game, right?
Re: Final: Stanford 38, weenies 17 - dabigv13 - 11-22-2014
Yup. Pereira was mistaken.
Re: Final: Stanford 38, weenies 17 - washingtonismoney - 11-22-2014
Well, he was mistaken about the facts but that seems like the wrong emphasis. The problem with that article isn't that his facts are wrong, but that his opinion is stupid. He concedes the targeting call is the right call. We know what the penalty is for that; it's well-established. It may be a "soft" instance of the penalty but that's in the nature of rules. If you have a law forbidding behavior there will by nature be some relatively borderline cases.
Of course we also know that there's enforcement discretion; some rules we don't care about borderline cases all that much. What's your reaction when you get pulled over for driving 60 on a 55 MPH speed limit section of the highway? Thought so.
But we don't want to use enforcement discretion for serious rules, like say, murder. And within the norms of the game of football targeting is closer to murder than it is speeding (which I suppose would be more like holding.) So if you'd prefer to avoid punishments for soft instances of targeting:
a) don't do it
b) legislate an actual lower tier of targeting.
But that's not a problem with the officials and it certainly isn't worth writing a whiny article about.
(also, there is no Hoover on the football team, if we want to catalogue stupid errors in the piece.)
Re: Final: Stanford 38, weenies 17 - pokey - 11-22-2014
So, just curious - Wright received 23 carries, while the #2 RB in carries was Seale at the end of the game. Does this mean that after only 11 games, we've finally found a primary RB?
Re: Final: Stanford 38, weenies 17 - Bruce Wang - 11-23-2014
It's funny how much better PAC-12 officiating has gotten since they fired the jackass that was running it.
Re: Final: Stanford 38, weenies 17 - 81alum - 11-23-2014
Anybody else think the referees got all three TD reversals right? I understand why the C.al people would be upset--especially people in the stands. I also know that Pereira did not agree with all the calls, but after watching them over and over I was persuaded that all three were correct.Â
On the first, pretty much everyone agreed that his knee was down prior to him flopping across the goal line.Â
On the second, Pereira said he did not see the indisputable evidence to reverse the TD, but I thought it was indisputable that his knee was down before the ball broke the plane. Was I delusional? It seemed obvious to me. You could see him pushing the ball across the goal line while he was lying on the ground, since when he fell the ball had not broken the plane.
Pereira also objected to the third call, saying that the receiver caught the ball and made a football move before crossing the goal line. This one is a rules interpretation, I think. After he crossed the goal line he lost the ball on the way to the ground. It seems to me that we have been told that a player has to control the ball all the way to the ground to prove it was a catch. Their receiver did not do this. So, was it a TD the instant he broke the plane, and then a fumble which did not count because the TD was already scored? Or was it an incomplete pass? Indisputable that he did not possess the ball all the way to the ground--but does that matter?Â
On the onside kick which we challenged and lost--I also think the refs got it right. I think their kicker did touch the ball but not until just after it had traveled 10 yards.
This would not be the first time I have thought Pereira as wrong--but I always feel a bit stupid second guessing someone with that level of expertise.
Re: Final: Stanford 38, weenies 17 - stupac2 - 11-23-2014
From the visitor's section we had no idea. It was on the opposite end of the field and they didn't really show the replays on the boards, at least not frequently enough to get an idea. They kept showing it once then putting up some dumb picture of a bear with glasses saying "Did you see that play?" No, I didn't so show the replay and not this stupid bear!
One of many things that were frustrating about that stadium. Hard to believe that retrofit cost so much and took so long and the place is still a complete dump. The bathrooms near the visitor's section (and student section) were just a handful of porta-potties, not nearly enough of them either, I used one toward the end of the game and the condition of it was horrifying, I don't even want to describe it. The water fountains had such variable pressure that you spilled more water than you got into a bottle, and as far as I could tell there were no filling stations anywhere.
Stanford Stadium may not be perfect, but every time I go somewhere I realize that it's actually quite good.
Re: Final: Stanford 38, weenies 17 - CTcard - 11-23-2014
(11-23-2014, 08:10 AM)81alum link Wrote:On the second, Pereira said he did not see the indisputable evidence to reverse the TD, but I thought it was indisputable that his knee was down before the ball broke the plane.Â
Actually, on the second one I don't think that the ball ever crossed the goal line. It clearly came down short of the goal line, and if he ever pushed it across it was WELL after the play was over.
Pereira was complaining that it is hard to reverse a "did he cross the goal line" call without a shot down the goal line clearly showing the ball. There wasn't such an image here. That is usually important given problems of parallax. However, in this case other cameras caught the ball and could see where the ball was when it touched the ground and its trajectory prior to that was fairly clear. I thought it was the correct call and the evidence was strong.
On the third non-TD, I think that it should have been a touchdown given how I think the rule should be interpreted. However, the way the rule actually is interpreted, that was a very close call and I wasn't surprised it was overturned.
Re: Final: Stanford 38, weenies 17 - dabigv13 - 11-23-2014
Anybody know of a link to watch these replays?
Re: Final: Stanford 38, weenies 17 - Spiny_Norman - 11-23-2014
From Ann Killion's Chronicle story, Dykes did make comments in the post game presser about the overturned TDs. The Cal media folks cut it out of the posted transcript.
Quote: Dykes, now 0-2 in Big Games, was clearly furious about the officiating, saying the sequence was shameful. (Interestingly, at the school that birthed the Free Speech Movement, the athletic department omitted the coachs reference to those overturned calls on its transcript.)
http://www.sfgate.com/collegesports/article/Loss-to-Stanford-hurts-a-lot-more-than-Cal-s-5911963.php
Re: Final: Stanford 38, weenies 17 - fullmetal - 11-23-2014
kal's DL will make any OL look good. Let's not get ahead of ourselves here...UCLA is a different animal entirely. Look at how they handled USC's run game. Hint: less than 100 yds total. Avged 1.9 yds per rush.
I would trade the (illegal) Play to give them those +4 points, just saying. Those leaping TDs-not-counted-inbounds were possibly legitimate to my untrained eyes.
But the best part of the game was watching kal score three TDs...that didn't even matter.
Re: Final: Stanford 38, weenies 17 - French Rage - 11-23-2014
(11-23-2014, 08:49 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:One of many things that were frustrating about that stadium. Hard to believe that retrofit cost so much and took so long and the place is still a complete dump. The bathrooms near the visitor's section (and student section) were just a handful of porta-potties, not nearly enough of them either, I used one toward the end of the game and the condition of it was horrifying, I don't even want to describe it. The water fountains had such variable pressure that you spilled more water than you got into a bottle, and as far as I could tell there were no filling stations anywhere.
Regarding the porta-johns, there were actually a whole bunch of them with no lines about 100 yards farther down. But no one seemed to realize, so the handful slightly closer had realllllly long lines.
Also, the announcer avoiding saying "first down" for us was pathetic.
Re: Final: Stanford 38, weenies 17 - stupac2 - 11-23-2014
(11-23-2014, 11:18 AM)French Rage link Wrote:Regarding the porta-johns, there were actually a whole bunch of them with no lines about 100 yards farther down. But no one seemed to realize, so the handful slightly closer had realllllly long lines.
Farther down past the students section? When I was using them it was after the game was effectively over, so the Cal fans were just streaming out. Getting 100 yards against that traffic would've taken as long as I waited.
Quote:Also, the announcer avoiding saying "first down" for us was pathetic.
Oh man their announcer was so bad. He called their receiver #3 "Michael Rector"! How do you screw up the name of your own guy? That was amazing.