Mavric

There were some iffy calls last night, but we also dodged a bullet a couple of times. At one point after the play had been blown dead (I believe it was a special teams play though can't remember for sure), Alonzo Whaley picked up a Michigan defender and threw him to the ground. The refs didn't see it but it was a blatant, undisciplined play by Whaley.

We did get a couple breaks. They let us get away with a pretty bad PI as well.

Did I dream this up or was there a flag on the play that Bell got hurt that somehow disappeared?

Gina has opened up her lead. The pack is falling behind, with only one girl, Ashley Frazier, gaining points since the word got out yesterday. When I first mentioned this Gina's lead was 5.2% over the two closest girls. Today those two girls have dropped back and Frazier has taken over #2, but Gina's lead is larger, at 6.4%.

 

If you've jumped straight to this post, here's your link to vote. You can vote every day.

 

http://www.seniorcla...olleyball_2012/

Slipped to second. Keep voting!

How did I never see that he got to 1st Base during that scene before? That's crazy! I've watched that movie 100 times.

Time to dig them back out again...

Finally getting there for the first time this year. Didn't know I had enough friends to fill up September with wedding weekends.

OWH Article on this weekend's visitors. A couple things that stuck out to me:

“For a guy my size I actually move real well laterally,” Gregory told Huskers Illustrated, which covers Nebraska recruiting. “They think I can stand up a lot more and actually play a little bit of outside linebacker. I can bring a lot to the table.”

Jamone Boyd (6-4/240, Lee's Summit, Mo.): The four-star end takes his first official visit of the year to Nebraska, accompanying friend and Husker commit Zach Hannon. Boyd is a 3-4 end in high school, usually playing head-up on the tackle, but his power rush is a good fit for Nebraska. He's unofficially visited Arkansas and Missouri.

This has likely been talked about but we have a DE who's been told he could also play OLB and a 3-4 DE. Getting some guys who can play a 3-4 against an opponent where we can definitely use as much speed on the field as possible won't be a bad thing, IMO.

This is the one that went against Antonio Bell, right?

I believe so.

The Refs assesed that one correctly it was during the play therefore no change of posseison had occured.

I was pretty sure that the change of possesion is right after the ball leaves the foot of the punter. I thought it was a bad call as far as us repunting the ball, but Stafford did something dumb, aggresive but dumb.

yes, which is why when a team blocks in the back on punt returns it doesn't give the punting team a first down.

Nope

In Possession

ARTICLE 1. “In possession’’ is an abbreviation meaning the holding or controlling of a live ball or a ball to be free-kicked. It may refer either to player possession or team possession.

a. A player “gains possession’’ when he secures the ball firmly by holding or controlling it while contacting the ground inbounds. The ball is then in player possession.

b. A team has team possession:

1. When one of its players is in possession, including when he is attempting a punt, drop kick or place kick;

2. While a forward pass thrown by one of its players is in flight; or

3. During a loose ball if one of its players was last in possession.

Possession doesn't change until a player on the receiving team gains control.

There was that time he let a linebacker run right by him to kill Martinez....

 

if your talking about that 2 pt conversion, that was Reed that went the wrong direction.

Nope that's not what he's talking about.

 

But I think Ben was expecting help from the OT right there too... Didn't get none... I'll blame them both for almost getting Martinez killed.

I think that's the same play he and and the OT both pointed fingers at each other and appeared to start arguing. That was a big flag for me. When players start arguing amongst themselves like that, there are problems. Fortunately, things worked out in the long run but stuff like shouldn't happen

Yeah, I think the problem was they botched the pass protection.

Ben thought the tackle would help out. Instead the tackle blocked down. You think it's a problem when players are frustrated about a bad play?

Just googled NCAA Football Rules. It's on the NCAA site.

NCAA Rule Book

Rule 9, Section 3, Article 4

 

e. When a legal forward pass crosses the neutral zone during a forward-pass play and a contact foul that is not pass interference is committed beyond the neutral zone, the enforcement spot is the previous spot. This includes Rule 9-3-4-c (A.R. 7-3-9-I and A.R. 9-3-4-I and II).

 

PENALTY—10 or 15 yards from the previous spot, plus first down if the foul occurred against an eligible receiver before the pass was touched [s38, S42, S43 or S45].

 

It would seem to me that the penalty was indeed a personal foul and the ref misstated the penalty, or the enforcement was wrong and the refs will be hearing from either the B10 and/or NCAA about it.

That isn't the correct rule citation. The one you cited only has to do on passing plays which is where you most often see defensive holding. This was called on a running play.

From Rule 9:

ARTICLE 4.

a. Defensive players may use hands and arms to push, pull, ward off or lift offensive players when attempting to reach the runner.

b. Defensive players may not use hands and arms to tackle, hold or otherwise illegally obstruct an opponent other than a runner.

PENALTY—10 yards [s42].

So the 10 yards was correct. 5 yards and an automatic first down is the NFL rule.

As far as the enforcement, I also thought that seemed odd but it appears to be correct:

From Rule 10

Determining the Enforcement Spot

ARTICLE 2. <snip>

c. The Three-and-One Principle (Rule 2-33) is as follows:

1. When the team in possession commits a foul behind the basic spot, the penalty is enforced at the spot of the foul.

2. When the team in possession commits a foul beyond the basic spot, the penalty is enforced at the basic spot.

3. When the team not in possession commits a foul either behind or beyond the basic spot, the penalty is enforced at the basic spot.

d. The following are basic spots for the various categories of plays:

1. Running plays.

(a) Previous spot, when the related run ends behind the neutral zone.

(b) End of the related run, when the related run ends beyond the neutral

zone.

© End of the related run, on running plays that have no neutral zone.

So, as crazy as that seemed, it appears it was enforced correctly.

His throwing has been quite poorus today to be frank

can we put in someone else in at qb....i mean isnt that other teams do if their starter cant do his job

 

Really? What does Martinez need to do? He's had 1 bad throw, but outside of that he's doing everything he can to win this game. The O-Line definitely hasn't been helping him out. Mistakes on Special Teams hasn't helped him at all. What else does he need to do?

 

Beautiful throw by him for the TD to.

If we had a pro style QB we would be up in this game.. Our wideouts are that good

Yeah, if we only had a QB who completed 69% of his passes and threw for 340+ yards and 3 TDs without an INT ... oh, wait.

OK. But imagine what we could do with a guy who was top 15 in the country in QB rating ... oh, wait.

OK. But imagine if we had one of the 14 guys in NCAA D-1 history with 5000+ passing yards and 2000+ rushing yards ... oh ....

tOSU getting away with Pass Interference to keep Purdue out of the end zone...

If Purdue's QB would not have thrown it out of the back of the end zone, it would have been TD or PI.

That's what happens when you miss an Extra Point, miss a FG and throw in INT in the end zone.

If we're going to contain with our D-Line, pretty sure we've tried that before with limited success.

If we're going to contain with LBs/Safeties, I'd be more hopeful.

So you get to use an entire speech to find the link but we don't even get the preceding sentence?

Keep going . . .

 

Not quite ready to spring the transcript yet.

Proceed.

Calling an event an act of terror in a speech about that event doesn't mean that he called the event an "act of terror."

Do you people even listen to yourselves? Is this representative of what the present GOP is? Simply unbelievable.

How can you say that he was talking about Libya with his " No act of terror" . . .

Well . . . given that the whole speech was about the Libya attacks . . . and the immediate words after the "No acts of terror . . ." sentence were "[t]oday we mourn four more Americans . . ."

How can you not say that he was not talking about Libya? Oh, right. Because it conforms with your political beliefs.

Would it involve someone claiming that something was immediately prior when it . . . demonstrably . . . factually . . . was not immediately prior?

So you get to use an entire speech to find the link but we don't even get the preceding sentence?

Saying "act of terror" does not mean he called the event an act of terror.

Calling an event an act of terror in a speech about that event doesn't mean that he called the event an "act of terror."

Do you people even listen to yourselves? Is this representative of what the present GOP is? Simply unbelievable.

How can you say that he was talking about Libya with his " No act of terror" . . .

Well . . . given that the whole speech was about the Libya attacks . . . and the immediate words after the "No acts of terror . . ." sentence were "[t]oday we mourn four more Americans . . ."

 

How can you not say that he was not talking about Libya? Oh, right. Because it conforms with your political beliefs.

Probably about like how someone can be talking about putting things on a credit card, give two examples of deficit spending, say he voted opposite his opponent because he said we couldn't afford them but somehow the first example doesn't count?

Could that have something to do with political beliefs as well?

Yeah, that was really bad. I'm guessing he was trying to allude to the debate over spontaneous vs. planned but he slaughtered it either way.

I'm pulling for an unranked team slipping into the Rose Bowl.

NOOOOO!!!! We're still better than the Big East, right????

You guys are laughable on this one. Biden interrupted Ryan 82 times in a 90 minute debate. Now, if I remember correctly, Ryan talked 38 minutes. That means that Biden interrupted him every 27 seconds while he was talking. That doesn't even count totally looking like an azzhat sitting there laughing and smirking.

 

It proves one thing. Biden as VP is Obama's best security blanket. NOBODY wants anything to happen to Obama because Biden would be next in line.

Did you work up those numbers or did you take them from the RNC Chairman Priebus when he gave his "expert" and "unbiased" opinion on the debate. I'm assuming you took his word for it since a)normal people don't watch a debate that closely & b) it is WORD FOR WORD his assessment!!!! Now tell us again how you are "unbiased"....

Great tactic. You don't have any argument against the numbers so just attack the poster.

The "poster" didn't give me any self-derived numbers (it was word-for-word what the RNC chairman said after the debate without a source). That was my "argument"....

So we're now only accepting numbers that individual research for themselves? Things are going to dry up around here pretty quickly.

You guys are laughable on this one. Biden interrupted Ryan 82 times in a 90 minute debate. Now, if I remember correctly, Ryan talked 38 minutes. That means that Biden interrupted him every 27 seconds while he was talking. That doesn't even count totally looking like an azzhat sitting there laughing and smirking.

 

It proves one thing. Biden as VP is Obama's best security blanket. NOBODY wants anything to happen to Obama because Biden would be next in line.

Did you work up those numbers or did you take them from the RNC Chairman Priebus when he gave his "expert" and "unbiased" opinion on the debate. I'm assuming you took his word for it since a)normal people don't watch a debate that closely & b) it is WORD FOR WORD his assessment!!!! Now tell us again how you are "unbiased"....

Great tactic. You don't have any argument against the numbers so just attack the poster.

there was no argument to be had, it was just his response to a person's opinion.

So you're both conceding the numbers are correct?

You guys are laughable on this one. Biden interrupted Ryan 82 times in a 90 minute debate. Now, if I remember correctly, Ryan talked 38 minutes. That means that Biden interrupted him every 27 seconds while he was talking. That doesn't even count totally looking like an azzhat sitting there laughing and smirking.

 

It proves one thing. Biden as VP is Obama's best security blanket. NOBODY wants anything to happen to Obama because Biden would be next in line.

Did you work up those numbers or did you take them from the RNC Chairman Priebus when he gave his "expert" and "unbiased" opinion on the debate. I'm assuming you took his word for it since a)normal people don't watch a debate that closely & b) it is WORD FOR WORD his assessment!!!! Now tell us again how you are "unbiased"....

Great tactic. You don't have any argument against the numbers so just attack the poster.

1 - Prove that he wasn't talking about the two wars he referenced immediately prior.

False. "Immediately prior" to his statement about voting against Ryan you'll see references to the Bush tax cuts and Medicare Part D.

So immediately prior to you does not include elements of the previous sentence? What in his statement indicates he was separating the two?

2 - If, perhaps, he wasn't talking about the wars, his statement was STILL a lie.

How so?

Because he also voted in favor of the prescription drug benefit.

I think it's pretty plain by now that the requests went to the state department and were denied. Supposedly they didn't get to the White House. So basically Biden was just throwing the State Department under the bus.

not sure about this, but then there is this:

 

The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank breaks it all down:

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program —

well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration

. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.

[GOP vice presidential nominee Paul] Ryan, [Rep. Darrell] Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations,

including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions

. Under Ryan’s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

“It’s also important to note,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said last week, “that the Republican appropriation in Congress gave the administration $300 million less than it asked for for the State Department, including funding for security.”

link

Just for carl - prove this cut the funding for Libya.

why? on the second part, not sure on the first. are you saying your response is just for carl, or would i be proving a point for carl?

It seemed like you were inferring that the Republicans cut funding for security which could have led to less security in Libya.

If carlfense disagreed with you, he would insist you prove the cuts in funding directly resulted in denying the extra security that was requested.

I think it's pretty plain by now that the requests went to the state department and were denied. Supposedly they didn't get to the White House. So basically Biden was just throwing the State Department under the bus.

not sure about this, but then there is this:

 

The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank breaks it all down:

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program —

well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration

. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.

[GOP vice presidential nominee Paul] Ryan, [Rep. Darrell] Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations,

including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions

. Under Ryan’s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

“It’s also important to note,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said last week, “that the Republican appropriation in Congress gave the administration $300 million less than it asked for for the State Department, including funding for security.”

link

Just for carl - prove this cut the funding for Libya.