[CTcard]

Eliminate the bad wave-off of the 59er touchdown in the first half and the brain-dead late hit in the second -- neither of which were created by our defense -- and we might have been looking at a 35-33 game. To me, that sounds more like luck than strategy.

1. I wouldn't call it a bad wave off. It appears to me to be consistent with how such plays are called. There is a judgement as to just when a receiver has established "firm control" - and in this case there didn't seem to be much question in the mind of the backjudge. We don't really know if there was much question in the mind of the replay official other than clearly not enough to overturn in a case where the TV footage was 100% clear.

2. The brain-dead late hit turned a third and 10 into a second and 25. Either would be a fairly tough conversion - neither impossibly difficult. [5 yds per play needed vs about 8 yds/play]
EDIT (courtesy of stupac): That would  be turned a third and 10 into a third and 25. Still both are tough conversions - but the comparison changes a lot.

In either case, particularly the latter, the issue is one of tactics rather than strategy.
Given that both plays actually did happen, Stanford responded by deciding that the only way c.a.l. could win was if they managed quick scores - which we prevented.


It doesn't lead to exciting football, or more annoyingly, it didn't allow for a satisfying pounding of the rival - which I hated last night. But, it's a little hard to say it was wrong in any absolute sense when it worked.
[And it worked in a way that wasn't really a near-thing. The last time c.a.l. had possession of the ball within one score was in the middle of the second quarter.]

[CTcard]

Eliminate the bad wave-off of the 59er touchdown in the first half and the brain-dead late hit in the second -- neither of which were created by our defense -- and we might have been looking at a 35-33 game. To me, that sounds more like luck than strategy.

1. I wouldn't call it a bad wave off. It appears to me to be consistent with how such plays are called. There is a judgement as to just when a receiver has established "firm control" - and in this case there didn't seem to be much question in the mind of the backjudge. We don't really know if there was much question in the mind of the replay official other than clearly not enough to overturn in a case where the TV footage was 100% clear.

2. The brain-dead late hit turned a third and 10 into a second and 25. Either would be a fairly tough conversion - neither impossibly difficult. [5 yds per play needed vs about 8 yds/play]
EDIT (courtesy of stupac): That would  be turned a third and 10 into a third and 25. Still both are tough conversions - but the comparison changes a lot.

In either case, particularly the latter, the issue is one of tactics rather than strategy.
Given that both plays actually did happen, Stanford responded by deciding that the only way c.a.l. could win was if they managed quick scores - which we prevented.


It doesn't lead to exciting football, or more annoyingly, it didn't allow for a satisfying pounding of the rival - which I hated last night. But, it's a little hard to say it was wrong in any absolute sense when it worked.
[And it worked in a way that wasn't really a near-thing. The last time c.a.l. had possession of the ball within one score was in the middle of the second quarter.]