Just re watched the game on BTN in 60

[RobertG]

Observations:

McDaniels and Rossi are to be congratulated for their game plans. Rossi's bitzing and stunting really worked against MSU's OL. McDaniels ran a lot of counters and misdirections.

The OL and DL had significantly better games than against PSU. Night and day.

Our DBs were in position. There was no one running free. Most passes were contested. The bye week really helped.

Laviano had a good game, the final sanfu was dumb but ultimately meaningless. He hit his open receivers, he scrambled, he protected the ball.

Carroo is fantastic

The mismanagement of the time outs has got to be stopped. We could have used them at the end of the game.

Reading the rules; the possible second intentional grounding no call was correct. Number 3 was at the LOS and Cook threw in his direction.

Cook was not great, he was good, in this game. Cook threw up a lot of high balls and the receivers pulled a lot of them out of the air and hung on, even when contested.

The MSU receivers won this game.

 

[Kbee3]

Observations:

McDaniels and Rossi are to be congratulated for their game plans. Rossi's bitzing and stunting really worked against MSU's OL. McDaniels ran a lot of counters and misdirections.

The OL and DL had significantly better games than against PSU. Night and day.

Our DBs were in position. There was no one running free. Most passes were contested. The bye week really helped.

Laviano had a good game, the final sanfu was dumb but ultimately meaningless. He hit his open receivers, he scrambled, he protected the ball.

Carroo is fantastic

The mismanagement of the time outs has got to be stopped. We could have used them at the end of the game.

Reading the rules; the possible second intentional grounding no call was correct. Number 3 was at the LOS and Cook threw in his direction.

Cook was not great, he was good, in this game. Cook threw up a lot of high balls and the receivers pulled a lot of them out of the air and hung on, even when contested.

The MSU receivers won this game.

Don't disagree with anything here.
I would add that Joseph looks like a player. And Gause was awesome.

 

[DHajekRC84]

Observations:

McDaniels and Rossi are to be congratulated for their game plans. Rossi's bitzing and stunting really worked against MSU's OL. McDaniels ran a lot of counters and misdirections.

The OL and DL had significantly better games than against PSU. Night and day.

Our DBs were in position. There was no one running free. Most passes were contested. The bye week really helped.

Laviano had a good game, the final sanfu was dumb but ultimately meaningless. He hit his open receivers, he scrambled, he protected the ball.

Carroo is fantastic

The mismanagement of the time outs has got to be stopped. We could have used them at the end of the game.

Reading the rules; the possible second intentional grounding no call was correct. Number 3 was at the LOS and Cook threw in his direction.

Cook was not great, he was good, in this game. Cook threw up a lot of high balls and the receivers pulled a lot of them out of the air and hung on, even when contested.

The MSU receivers won this game.

agree on all except the grounding. Just because the players is 10 yards away from where the ball landed but in the direction of a ball thrown into the ground doesn't make it legal..although often used in this manner to justify not throwing the flag. Although I will now have to go re-read the rule to check it out. Wouldn't be the first time I found a rule to be stupid...but a stupid rule is still a rule.

 

[lighty]

"The mismanagement of the time outs has got to be stopped. We could have used them at the end of the game."

This really can't be stressed enough. Burning early time outs has come back to bite RU many times this season.

It simply changes the way you approach the final 3-5 minutes of a game...

 

[RobertG]

agree on all except the grounding. Just because the players is 10 yards away from where the ball landed but in the direction of a ball thrown into the ground doesn't make it legal..although often used in this manner to justify not throwing the flag. Although I will now have to go re-read the rule to check it out. Wouldn't be the first time I found a rule to be stupid...but a stupid rule is still a rule.

try this site

1. There is not, nor will there ever be, an exact yardage distance between the receiver and where the pass lands that will absolutely determine whether a foul has been committed. That distance can vary significantly based on the circumstances of the play and the direction of the pass. This phrase "direction of the pass" is emphasized as it provides the crucial piece of evidence that allows us to determine the "intentional" aspect of the play. For example, the quarterback in the pocket throws the ball toward eligible receiver A88 who is five yards downfield, but the pass lands seven yards short directly in front of A88. This would not be a foul. However, if the pass is thrown away from A88 and lands seven yards to his left as A88 crosses to the right, this would indeed be a foul. Note: seven yards is used simply as an example---it is not intended to be "the yardage guideline." In making this determination, officials are to use “direction of the pass” to judge how far away from an eligible receiver the ball must be before calling a foul. We should stretch this distance as much as reasonably possible based on the direction of the pass. For a foul to be called it should be clear to everyone that the passer throws the ball into an area not occupied by an eligible receiver. Do not be overly technical.

 

[DHajekRC84]

try this site

1. There is not, nor will there ever be, an exact yardage distance between the receiver and where the pass lands that will absolutely determine whether a foul has been committed. That distance can vary significantly based on the circumstances of the play and the direction of the pass. This phrase "direction of the pass" is emphasized as it provides the crucial piece of evidence that allows us to determine the "intentional" aspect of the play. For example, the quarterback in the pocket throws the ball toward eligible receiver A88 who is five yards downfield, but the pass lands seven yards short directly in front of A88. This would not be a foul. However, if the pass is thrown away from A88 and lands seven yards to his left as A88 crosses to the right, this would indeed be a foul. Note: seven yards is used simply as an example---it is not intended to be "the yardage guideline." In making this determination, officials are to use “direction of the pass” to judge how far away from an eligible receiver the ball must be before calling a foul. We should stretch this distance as much as reasonably possible based on the direction of the pass. For a foul to be called it should be clear to everyone that the passer throws the ball into an area not occupied by an eligible receiver. Do not be overly technical.

thanks G. Interesting site. So to me now I think they were being overly technical because I don't think #3 was really in "the area". He was in the direction but way to far downfield to be a realistic attempt. But "stretching the distance as much as possible"..wow, what kind of guideline is that? Way too much room for interpretation in my book and exactly what played out here.

 

[RUBOB72]

# 3 was on his way to the bathroom outside sec 120...intentional grounding should have been very easy to call.

 

[derleider]

thanks G. Interesting site. So to me now I think they were being overly technical because I don't think #3 was really in "the area". He was in the direction but way to far downfield to be a realistic attempt. But "stretching the distance as much as possible"..wow, what kind of guideline is that? Way too much room for interpretation in my book and exactly what played out here.

The thing is that given how his arm was hit - its somewhat reasonable to say that the QB was TRYING to throw it to him (it was in his direction) but couldnt complete the throw because his arm was hit. As the rule says - if he had thrown it away to his right, it would have been a penalty - but he basically threw it on a straight line at the RB.

Its basically a gaping loophole in the whole rule - there is usually a RB or a TE eligible somewhere in the vicinity of the LOS (often more than one), so if the QB throws it in that direction, they wont call the penalty. Cook - being a SR QB knows the rules well enough to know what is allowable and took advantage twice to avoid taking the big sack. I call it smart QBing.

 

[kupuna133]

Gause Longa and the db's had much improved games. Gause back to his seek and destroy mentality he has played with the prior years. Leads me to wonder why there was such a change in schemes in the previous games.

 

[RobertG]

Gause Longa and the db's had much improved games. Gause back to his seek and destroy mentality he has played with the prior years. Leads me to wonder why there was such a change in schemes in the previous games.

My guess is that they had more time to learn the new schemes

 

[kupuna133]

My guess is that they had more time to learn the new schemes

No the scheme was to be passive rather than bring pressure. The pressure would have helped the inexperienced backs.

 

[RC1978]

My guess is that they had more time to learn the new schemes

My guess the more of the pro package then spread. When we play the spread teams we leave the LB's back for coverage and cannot blitz as often. When our DB's get a little moe experience we will be able to blitz more often.

 

[RobertG]

No the scheme was to be passive rather than bring pressure. The pressure would have helped the inexperienced backs.

The pressure also leaves them in one on ones

 

[RUSK97]

Just watched the full game on BTN yesterday. Saw a lot of things I had missed when at the game on Saturday. BTN is awesome.

That 3rd quarter inside shoulder pass where Carroo looped back to evade the defender was sick.

 

[kupuna133]

The pressure also leaves them in one on on

 

[RP78]

agree on all except the grounding. Just because the players is 10 yards away from where the ball landed but in the direction of a ball thrown into the ground doesn't make it legal..although often used in this manner to justify not throwing the flag. Although I will now have to go re-read the rule to check it out. Wouldn't be the first time I found a rule to be stupid...but a stupid rule is still a rule.

If the intended receiver is past the LOS then the standard for no grounding should be the same as when outside of the tackles - get it to the LOS.

 

[kupuna133]

The pressure also leaves them in one on ones

They are in one on ones regardless. Would rather have limited time one on ones with pressure than all day zones with no pressure. The dbacks played much better this weekend in man responsibility with help over the top.

 

[ecojew]

I watched the 60 minute replay last night as well. I liked the announcers - I thought they were very balanced giving kudos to whomever they were due and did not appear biased at all. I would love to have heard what they were saying in between plays but you don't get that in the 60 minute broadcast.

One thing that still isn't clear to me after watching the replay was the play when RU recovered what appeared to be a fumble by their QB but it was ruled an incomplete pass. The short broadcast did not show any replay of that with a closer view to see if, in fact, Cook had started to throw a pass. It certainly didn't look like it from section 121, where we were directly facing the action. But nothing was called and the RU staff didn't seem to protest the call. MSU scored one or two plays later (on a play where a review was called for, but for no apparent reason) so the non-call on the "fumble" was a turning point in the game.

Has anyone seen a replay of that "fumble"?

Thanks.

 

[RUSJ73]

Intentional grounding without a doubt. Ball was thrown away as QB was falling to avoid sack. Ball did not reach line of scrimmage. Every time I watch it looks more and more like Int. grounding.

 

[PaKnight]

Gause Longa and the db's had much improved games. Gause back to his seek and destroy mentality he has played with the prior years. Leads me to wonder why there was such a change in schemes in the previous games.

We started to become more aggressive against Kansas.

 

[Yeah Baby]

Agree OP on all but I don't think 1st timeout in second half was on us. We ran for a first down and everyone was standing around waiting for the chains to move because it was pretty close. We got in and out of the huddle quickly but I think the play clock got reset around 10-15 seconds before the chains were set. I am not 100% sure of clock rules but I saw McDaniel giving the refs flak right away and the next break in the game watching the replay.

 

[RU76COOK]

"The mismanagement of the time outs has got to be stopped. We could have used them at the end of the game."

This really can't be stressed enough. Burning early time outs has come back to bite RU many times this season.

It simply changes the way you approach the final 3-5 minutes of a game...

Even took one with an injured MSU player down for a few minutes; waste.

 

[SirScarlet]

Agree OP on all but I don't think 1st timeout in second half was on us. We ran for a first down and everyone was standing around waiting for the chains to move because it was pretty close. We got in and out of the huddle quickly but I think the play clock got reset around 10-15 seconds before the chains were set. I am not 100% sure of clock rules but I saw McDaniel giving the refs flak right away and the next break in the game watching the replay.

This. Exactly this.

And when macdaniels is yelling to the ref to restart the clock the ref just gave him an "I don't know what's going on" gesture

I know cause I saw it happening real time and I was livid

 

[yesrutgers01]

Why didn't you just respond in jelly's thread?