Video of the Pass Interference

[Buster Bluth]

In gif format. SIAP.

 

[kmoose]

Or it might have, if you didn't start straying over to the dark side ...



Stick to your guns, kmoose. Anyone who dares to suggest that anyone but ND's own players and coaches bears any responsibility for the loss lacks moral fiber. Tell them as haughtily, from as high a horse as you can find, how it was the right call and ND beat itself. Don't waver. By all means, condescend until everyone is ashamed to disagree with you.

It's so ironic, how you would condemn my condescension in such a condescending manner.

 

[IrishLax]

My thought is that you mentioned the Tuitt incident. The play was reviewed and he still was ejected so I don't think you can put blame on Ryan for that.

The play being upheld was simply another error... but an explicable one. There was helmet to helmet contact, and many times review is just to determine if the contact occurred, not to review the "judgement" aspect of whether the contact to the head/neck warranted targeting. Basically, the replay officials at the time were often instructed by their conference only to overturn the call if there was no contact to the "targeting area."

After the fact... and during the broadcast, too... they noted it was a bad call. And now they use it as an example of when the ball carrier lowers their head and there is incidental contact you're not supposed to call it.

Also, someone noted that you highlighted the umpire.

Yeah, apparently I highlighted the wrong guy, so 80% of that article is moot. Need to retool it.

I'm very confused now actually on who threw the flag. It was definitely the back judge -- not the umpire --- correct? Anyone got a good link?

 

[Me2SouthBend]

I didn't realize the helmet coming off was on THAT play, I thought it was on the play after... THAT hurts.

A call for unsportsmanlike conduct would've given the Irish a first down on the 9 yard line w :12 remaining. Time for 2 plays.

 

[IrishinTN]

The play being upheld was simply another error... but an explicable one. There was helmet to helmet contact, and many times review is just to determine if the contact occurred, not to review the "judgement" aspect of whether the contact to the head/neck warranted targeting. Basically, the replay officials at the time were often instructed by their conference only to overturn the call if there was no contact to the "targeting area."

After the fact... and during the broadcast, too... they noted it was a bad call. And now they use it as an example of when the ball carrier lowers their head and there is incidental contact you're not supposed to call it.



Yeah, apparently I highlighted the wrong guy, so 80% of that article is moot. Need to retool it.

I'm very confused now actually on who threw the flag. It was definitely the back judge -- not the umpire --- correct? Anyone got a good link?

If you check the end of the ESPN link to the penalty play, the guy discussing it with the head ref has a "B" on his back, so it was definitely the back judge.

 

[domer13]

Yeah, apparently I highlighted the wrong guy, so 80% of that article is moot. Need to retool it.



I'm very confused now actually on who threw the flag. It was definitely the back judge -- not the umpire --- correct? Anyone got a good link?

Yes, give me a sec



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[domer13]

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/OAKIi6gONFA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Watch from 1:10.

I don't agree with this particular analysis of the play, however.

 

[Classic Irish]

kmoose, you have whatever is the opposite of a victim complex.

Attention-seeking behavior? I dunno, but if I were to disagree with most people on this board about a football-related issue, I'd express my views and then just let it go. We're talking about a football game here, not some weighty moral issue. To repeatedly insist upon stating your opinion in the face of overwhelming disagreement with your point of view about something like a football game strikes me as just looking to draw attention to oneself and stir up trouble. Again, if I were the one who held a minority view on such a matter on this board, I'd simply agree to disagree and then move on. Seems like the mature thing to do.

 

[IrishinSyria]

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/OAKIi6gONFA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Watch from 1:10.

I don't agree with this particular analysis of the play, however.

I can't watch that video with sound, but it brings up an entirely different issue: had Rob stayed about a yard back before catching the ball could our guys just have blocked at will? Because if they could...this one has to stay in the playbook.

 

[domer13]

I can't watch that video with sound, but it brings up an entirely different issue: had Rob stayed about a yard back before catching the ball could our guys just have blocked at will? Because if they could...this one has to stay in the playbook.

Yep, that would have been fine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kmoose]

I can't watch that video with sound, but it brings up an entirely different issue: had Rob stayed about a yard back before catching the ball could our guys just have blocked at will? Because if they could...this one has to stay in the playbook.

If the pass is caught behind the LOS, then the receivers are allowed to block right from the snap of the ball.

 

[scUM Hater]

Anyone notice FSU player taking his helmet off on the field after that play.....

 

[ACamp1900]

Anyone notice FSU player taking his helmet off on the field after that play.....

This part of the whole thing gets to me more than the PI call... the PI call was 'iffy' but a player taking his helmet off like that is pretty clear cut...

 

[CarrollVermin]

Gary Danielson from CBS was on with Mad Dog today. He called the TAMU and Alabama game but watched our game after. He said that the penalty was a bad call. Said a couple things that he did not agree with:

1. Will Fuller was trying to turn around or he did turn around. Because of that, the referee should have been able to see that he was trying to make a play on the ball. The fact that he was late turning has nothing to do with Corey making the catch...has to do with him completing his route.

2. And this is the one that I agree with most...the referee that made the call was not in position to make the call. I know that has been discussed here. He argued, that from his position there was no way to know where Corey had caught the ball. Simply, if Corey had caught the ball behind the line of scrimmage, then the play was legal. From his position, there was no way for him to have known, at the time he threw the flag, if it was indeed PI.

Gary is one of the best analysts out there. I don't say that because I agree with him here, in fact, after we beat Stanford, he said, "well maybe Stanford isn't as good as we thought they were". He was candid and animated in talking about it...he was pretty adamant about being right.

 

[Luckylucci]

https://m.facebook.com/Sportsbeat960?_rdr

Here's a link that a poster at BGI posted. Apparently the ACC has switched the call to Procise and admits to missin the unsportsmanlike conduct penalty. This is insanely convenient. Let the media watch the replay, decide which part of the play they view as the most agregious, and then decide that was what was called. Lastly I love that "aw shucks" we missed that other call. They are admitting that it should've been 1st and goal from the 9 with 13 seconds on the clock.

 

[IrishLax]

Gary Danielson from CBS was on with Mad Dog today. He called the TAMU and Alabama game but watched our game after. He said that the penalty was a bad call. Said a couple things that he did not agree with:

1. Will Fuller was trying to turn around or he did turn around. Because of that, the referee should have been able to see that he was trying to make a play on the ball. The fact that he was late turning has nothing to do with Corey making the catch...has to do with him completing his route.

2. And this is the one that I agree with most...the referee that made the call was not in position to make the call. I know that has been discussed here. He argued, that from his position there was no way to know where Corey had caught the ball. Simply, if Corey had caught the ball behind the line of scrimmage, then the play was legal. From his position, there was no way for him to have known, at the time he threw the flag, if it was indeed PI.

Gary is one of the best analysts out there. I don't say that because I agree with him here, in fact, after we beat Stanford, he said, "well maybe Stanford isn't as good as we thought they were". He was candid and animated in talking about it...he was pretty adamant about being right.

This is all 100% correct. The ref who made the call was not the one who should've made it... just like how he was in no position to make the Tuitt targeting ejection a year ago but still threw the flag...

 

[IrishinSyria]

https://m.facebook.com/Sportsbeat960?_rdr

Here's a link that a poster at BGI posted. Apparently the ACC has switched the call to Procise and admits to missin the unsportsmanlike conduct penalty. This is insanely convenient. Let the media watch the replay, decide which part of the play they view as the most agregious, and then decide that was what was called. Lastly I love that "aw shucks" we missed that other call. They are admitting that it should've been 1st and goal from the 9 with 13 seconds on the clock.

Jesus, I take back all my justifying of the call if it was on Prosise. He has every right to drive the guy for three yards from the LOS, which is just about as far as he did before Robinson caught the ball. Even if it was more than 3 yards, it sure as hell wasn't 4 yards.

 

[NDTH91]

Sorry if already discussed, but I will be very interested to see how refs call this play throughout the rest of our season. We had run it a number of times up to this point without it being called. I'm sure we will see it more this season, it will be interesting to see which refs call it and which don't and if they're consistent.

 

[Rhode Irish]

I know it obviously wouldn't have happened because CRob was so wide open, but if Everett had thrown the ball to Will on his slant, it would have been an obvious PI on Darby and 1st and goal from the 2. I'm not saying that to suggest Golson should have done that, just to further highlight how ridiculous the call was. That film from the back view is just so damning. It couldn't be clearer that Darby jumped the inside route and never even thought about Robinson on the play.

 

[yankeehater]

I am still trying to figure out the last play that no one is discussing. It was ruled an INT, I thought the guy was out of the back of the end zone. After he catches the ball I believe they assumed the game was over and he runs out of the end zone and chest butts a teammate at the 10 yard with ball in hand. The camera then moves away and you can no longer see the ball. Why is this not a live ball?

 

[IrishinSyria]

I am still trying to figure out the last play that no one is discussing. It was ruled an INT, I thought the guy was out of the back of the end zone. After he catches the ball I believe they assumed the game was over and he runs out of the end zone and chest butts a teammate at the 10 yard with ball in hand. The camera then moves away and you can no longer see the ball. Why is this not a live ball?

Holy fuck dude, I think you're right

Edit: Never mind. The white line is, in fact, the backstop to the endzone. Not sure why it was ruled a pick, I'm sure if anyone cared to review it it would have been overturned.

Edit again: but seriously, what was with Koyack's route? What's the point of having him stop running at the ten? There was some serious real estate towards the middle of the field there.

 

[arndtjc]

No use in crying over spilled milk, not gonna change anything...

Enjoy the last five games of the year, and with a little luck, we can take them again on a neutral field

 

[phork]

Holy fuck dude, I think you're right

Edit: Never mind. The white line is, in fact, the backstop to the endzone. Not sure why it was ruled a pick, I'm sure if anyone cared to review it it would have been overturned.

Edit again: but seriously, what was with Koyack's route? What's the point of having him stop running at the ten? There was some serious real estate towards the middle of the field there.

It was 4th down anyways.

Koyacks job was to get the ball if everyone in the end zone was covered. Typically your TE is the one that can fight to the goal line on a pass short to the goal line.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

No, it's not. I have been saying for some time now (after seeing enough replays to change my initial impression) that I don't think there was any offensive foul on Prosise. What I think is a legitimate call is that Fuller tried to run through Darby, to continue his route. According to the rules, which state that the offensive player has the responsibility to avoid contact, I think there's a case to be made for the guy throwing the flag. A much better case, anyway (in my opinion) than the case for a corrupt crew trying to steal the game from ND. Again..... if Fuller had just pulled up a little, keeping himself between the defender and the receiver, I don't think that flag gets thrown.

My bad.

 

[RDU Irish]

Sorry if already discussed, but I will be very interested to see how refs call this play throughout the rest of our season. We had run it a number of times up to this point without it being called. I'm sure we will see it more this season, it will be interesting to see which refs call it and which don't and if they're consistent.

As universally as these officials are getting bashed, no one in their right mind is going to call this. You can bet your rear that dip who threw the flag is either being berated behind closed doors (or high fived if ACC officials are corrupt from top to bottom). Publicly they have to defend the call.

 

[RDU Irish]

Jesus, I take back all my justifying of the call if it was on Prosise. He has every right to drive the guy for three yards from the LOS, which is just about as far as he did before Robinson caught the ball. Even if it was more than 3 yards, it sure as hell wasn't 4 yards.

Not to mention him being engaged first by the defender then held by the defender the whole way to the point you can see his shoulder pad being pulled down in the endzone. That makes even less sense. Prosise didn't stand a chance to turn in b/c the defender was molesting him.

Oh, and the ref throws the flag at Fuller, not Prosise. He is looking right at #7 and throws the flag at him in the goal line view of the "smoking gun" video above. Purely ridiculous call and I would love to see confirmation that this is the guy that ejected Tuitt so we can keep an eye out for him in the future. I smell a rotten apple.

 

[Grahambo]

It was 4th down anyways.

Koyacks job was to get the ball if everyone in the end zone was covered. Typically your TE is the one that can fight to the goal line on a pass short to the goal line.

Koyack could have run to the middle of the field with a better chance at scoring instead of sitting down around the 10 yard line near the sidelines. But thats really just being ticky-tack about it.

As universally as these officials are getting bashed, no one in their right mind is going to call this. You can bet your rear that dip who threw the flag is either being berated behind closed doors (or high fived if ACC officials are corrupt from top to bottom). Publicly they have to defend the call.

It will get called when it needs to get called. For example, if a defender if trying to fight through the pick and you can clearly see he is being interfered with or being held, then it will be called. Those are the times that I have seen a flag called on those plays.

In this instance, the officials can't even figure out who to officially call the flag on. That's telling to me. Of course they are going to back their officials publicly but I am confident (with no evidence) that they are behind the scenes acknowledging the error of the call. Even the head ref had to ask the guy if he was sure with a slight nervous chuckle.

An undefeated FSU with all of their problems can generate more stories then an undefeated ND right now.

 

[kmoose]

Jesus, I take back all my justifying of the call if it was on Prosise. He has every right to drive the guy for three yards from the LOS, which is just about as far as he did before Robinson caught the ball. Even if it was more than 3 yards, it sure as hell wasn't 4 yards.

I concur with that. I think there is a case to be made for throwing the flag on Fuller, but there is no excuse for throwing it on Prosise.

 

[Luckylucci]

I concur with that. I think there is a case to be made for throwing the flag on Fuller, but there is no excuse for throwing it on Prosise.

Whats funny is that a lot of the media, specifically on CFB daily, yesterday was saying at how egregious the penalty on Procise was as he was blocking Ramsey into the end zone. No mention of him being held and no mention of the 3 yard rule. Insanely bad coverage of this play by big media for the most part.

 

[Grahambo]

Whats funny is that a lot of the media, specifically on CFB daily, yesterday was saying at how egregious the penalty on Procise was as he was blocking Ramsey into the end zone. No mention of him being held and no mention of the 3 yard rule. Insanely bad coverage of this play by big media for the most part.

They want FSU to remain the story.