Option play with Paul

[JTrain]

Really bizarre play... what was it ruled? Martinez was at least a full yard past the LOS at one point.

 

[Jason Sitoke]

Really bizarre play... what was it ruled? Martinez was at least a full yard past the LOS at one point.

It was an ill advised pitch. Reminiscent of his little flip pass earlier.

It was a forward pass, but replays were not conclusive.

 

[epocSoN]

I didn't think that the play was reviewable? You can't review a penalty or none penalty... I was confused.

 

[JTrain]

But the ref said, "Play stands as completed forward pass". That's what made it really confusing.

 

[Hercules]

The ref said the ruling on the field stands, which i'm fairly certain was as a pitch.

Niles has got to stick with Martinez on that play. The QBs job on the option is to either cut and run, or to make the defense commit to him and then pitch. On that play, he cut to make the defense commit, and then pitched, and Niles has to be ready for that. Problem with the option is that it takes lots of repetition to really nail the timing down, and our offense does so many other things that we're never going to have the timing of that play down like the Husker teams of old.

 

[whateveritis1224]

Looked like the play was designed to be similar to what Oregon does sometimes, inside fake/give to the RB and then the option with the inside receiver.

 

[BIGREDFAN_in_OMAHA]

Got lucky on this one. I do hope they keep this wrinkle after they work on it some more.

 

[PaulCrewe]

The ref said the ruling on the field stands, which i'm fairly certain was as a pitch.

Niles has got to stick with Martinez on that play. The QBs job on the option is to either cut and run, or to make the defense commit to him and then pitch. On that play, he cut to make the defense commit, and then pitched, and Niles has to be ready for that. Problem with the option is that it takes lots of repetition to really nail the timing down, and our offense does so many other things that we're never going to have the timing of that play down like the Husker teams of old.

You are correct in that they were reviewing if it was a legal pitch. Looking at all the angles they showed it actually looked like a forward pass(formerly it would be lateral but the term has been erased from football lingo a couple of year ago) but the replay squad didn't have enough strong visual evidence to over turn the call that is why it was announced the call stands and not the call was confirmed.

can't fault Niles on this one. Taylor did cut upfield and looked like he was gonna run, thus Niles started looking to help with a block. However, for the first time, Taylor pulled a Crouch and looked to pitch late(almost a bad decision).

It is a great wrinkle to the offense and I wish we would see more stuff like this other than our basic mid line read option that defenses are catching up to quickly.

 

[Hercules]

The ref said the ruling on the field stands, which i'm fairly certain was as a pitch.

Niles has got to stick with Martinez on that play. The QBs job on the option is to either cut and run, or to make the defense commit to him and then pitch. On that play, he cut to make the defense commit, and then pitched, and Niles has to be ready for that. Problem with the option is that it takes lots of repetition to really nail the timing down, and our offense does so many other things that we're never going to have the timing of that play down like the Husker teams of old.

You are correct in that they were reviewing if it was a legal pitch. Looking at all the angles they showed it actually looked like a forward pass(formerly it would be lateral but the term has been erased from football lingo a couple of year ago) but the replay squad didn't have enough strong visual evidence to over turn the call that is why it was announced the call stands and not the call was confirmed.

can't fault Niles on this one. Taylor did cut upfield and looked like he was gonna run, thus Niles started looking to help with a block. However, for the first time, Taylor pulled a Crouch and looked to pitch late(almost a bad decision).

It is a great wrinkle to the offense and I wish we would see more stuff like this other than our basic mid line read option that defenses are catching up to quickly.

The pitchman should never look to block on an option. You're the pitchman, you're the option. If you turn upfield to block, it's no longer an option.

And Taylor earlier this year (Idaho maybe?) showed he knew how to cut, make the defense commit, and then pitch late. Taylor was fine, Niles has to stay disciplined as the pitchman.

 

[PaulCrewe]

The ref said the ruling on the field stands, which i'm fairly certain was as a pitch.

Niles has got to stick with Martinez on that play. The QBs job on the option is to either cut and run, or to make the defense commit to him and then pitch. On that play, he cut to make the defense commit, and then pitched, and Niles has to be ready for that. Problem with the option is that it takes lots of repetition to really nail the timing down, and our offense does so many other things that we're never going to have the timing of that play down like the Husker teams of old.

You are correct in that they were reviewing if it was a legal pitch. Looking at all the angles they showed it actually looked like a forward pass(formerly it would be lateral but the term has been erased from football lingo a couple of year ago) but the replay squad didn't have enough strong visual evidence to over turn the call that is why it was announced the call stands and not the call was confirmed.

can't fault Niles on this one. Taylor did cut upfield and looked like he was gonna run, thus Niles started looking to help with a block. However, for the first time, Taylor pulled a Crouch and looked to pitch late(almost a bad decision).

It is a great wrinkle to the offense and I wish we would see more stuff like this other than our basic mid line read option that defenses are catching up to quickly.

The pitchman should never look to block on an option. You're the pitchman, you're the option. If you turn upfield to block, it's no longer an option.

And Taylor earlier this year (Idaho maybe?) showed he knew how to cut, make the defense commit, and then pitch late. Taylor was fine, Niles has to stay disciplined as the pitchman.

True to an extent. The ONE play was against Idaho, and the pitch was to Rex, but Taylor was still going down the line on that play. Here Taylor was heading up field. It actually was the first time since that play in the first quarter of the Idaho game where Taylor pitched the ball. Yes you should keep the pitch relation but, it actually was a poor, high risk decision by Taylor.

 

[Landlord]

The ruling on the field was a completed FORWARD pass, the same as if he had thrown the ball 15 yards downfield.

What the replay official was reviewing was whether or not Taylor had crossed the line of scrimmage before passing the ball forward.

Even though it looked like he was past the line of scrimmage, there was inconclusive video evidence, therefore the refs couldn't overturn the call.

That is why the official said "The call on the field stands". These are the words they use when they don't know if it was right or not, but can't overturn it. If they had determined beyond a shadow of a doubt that the call was right, they would say "The call on the field was confirmed".

Hope that helps.

 

[JTrain]

The ruling on the field was a completed FORWARD pass, the same as if he had thrown the ball 15 yards downfield.

What the replay official was reviewing was whether or not Taylor had crossed the line of scrimmage before passing the ball forward.

Even though it looked like he was past the line of scrimmage, there was inconclusive video evidence, therefore the refs couldn't overturn the call.

That is why the official said "The call on the field stands". These are the words they use when they don't know if it was right or not, but can't overturn it. If they had determined beyond a shadow of a doubt that the call was right, they would say "The call on the field was confirmed".

Hope that helps.

If that's the case, I don't know what inconclusive means. Taylor was at the 27.5 at one point, and the LOS was dead center on the 26.

 

[Landlord]

The ruling on the field was a completed FORWARD pass, the same as if he had thrown the ball 15 yards downfield.

What the replay official was reviewing was whether or not Taylor had crossed the line of scrimmage before passing the ball forward.

Even though it looked like he was past the line of scrimmage, there was inconclusive video evidence, therefore the refs couldn't overturn the call.

That is why the official said "The call on the field stands". These are the words they use when they don't know if it was right or not, but can't overturn it. If they had determined beyond a shadow of a doubt that the call was right, they would say "The call on the field was confirmed".

Hope that helps.

If that's the case, I don't know what inconclusive means. Taylor was at the 27.5 at one point, and the LOS was dead center on the 26.

I would imagine it means that, although it certainly looked that way, they had no definitive way of proving it with the camera angles available to look at on replay. Just my guess.

 

[Chaddyboxer]

It clearly looked like a lateral toss to me....I didn't see the ball move forward..only lateral...eh....there were some horrid calls this game. You guys had to have seen the call when they gave OSU the first down when it clearly WAS NOT! They even reviewed it and they stated that there was undisputable evidence that it was a first down...whatever happened to bring out the DAMN CHAINS!!!! MAN I WAS PISSED!

 

[shyndy]

to me the ball looked like it actually went straight, so a lateral, but it looked forward bc of where Martinez was in relation to where Paul was. Reminded me of that kick return throwback, I think it was the titans, in the NFL a few years ago.