Lorewarn Posted November 8, 2022 Share Posted November 8, 2022 because it looks bad 1 Quote Link to comment
TGHusker Posted November 8, 2022 Share Posted November 8, 2022 19 minutes ago, Mavric said: May we end up remembering Frost and Davidson for that game and that play and not the past 5 years. 1 3 Quote Link to comment
ZRod Posted November 9, 2022 Share Posted November 9, 2022 20 hours ago, TGHusker said: May we end up remembering Frost and Davidson for that game and that play and not the past 5 years. What have they done the past 5 years? I haven't seen much from them. Quote Link to comment
Decoy73 Posted November 9, 2022 Share Posted November 9, 2022 1 hour ago, ZRod said: What have they done the past 5 years? I haven't seen much from them. Matt’s been raising a lot of money for NU. Scott’s been taking a lot of money from NU. 2 Quote Link to comment
ZRod Posted November 9, 2022 Share Posted November 9, 2022 3 hours ago, Decoy73 said: Matt’s been raising a lot of money for NU. Scott’s been taking a lot of money from NU. Net neutral hopefully... /s Quote Link to comment
Husker in WI Posted November 10, 2022 Share Posted November 10, 2022 36 minutes ago, Mavric said: bUt tHiS waS aN iLLegAl fOrMaTiOn!!@! Heard that from a few people. It was, but also who cares. And I never saw if the receivers checked with the ref, a lot of times the refs don't care enough to actually make the receivers get in position and just make sure the right number of them check that they are on/off the line of scrimmage. Quote Link to comment
Red Five Posted November 10, 2022 Share Posted November 10, 2022 3 minutes ago, Husker in WI said: bUt tHiS waS aN iLLegAl fOrMaTiOn!!@! Heard that from a few people. It was, but also who cares. And I never saw if the receivers checked with the ref, a lot of times the refs don't care enough to actually make the receivers get in position and just make sure the right number of them check that they are on/off the line of scrimmage. A) It was an illegal formation. B) If you believe one the WRs was supposed to be on the line, then it should be ineligible man downfield. Quote Link to comment
Mavric Posted November 10, 2022 Author Share Posted November 10, 2022 14 minutes ago, Red Five said: A) It was an illegal formation. B) If you believe one the WRs was supposed to be on the line, then it should be ineligible man downfield. You are correct. I assume the outside WR was supposed to be inside and on the line because it doesn't appear that he goes downfield and then we would have been OK. Quote Link to comment
Husker in WI Posted November 10, 2022 Share Posted November 10, 2022 14 minutes ago, Red Five said: A) It was an illegal formation. B) If you believe one the WRs was supposed to be on the line, then it should be ineligible man downfield. Yeah, but we needed a break. The outside two were supposed to be on the line - farthest outside seems to think he was ineligible since he only went ~1 yard downfield. If you go frame by frame the slot who was on the line is maybe a hair past 3 yards out when the ball is released and does a good job letting the DB hit him, he doesn't initiate contact. He's also moving forward, so it looks worse in full speed because he's more like 5 yards out when it's caught. I know it was an illegal formation, but what bothered me is the whiners insisted that's the only reason the play worked. Maybe they align differently if they know the slot isn't a receiver, but Allen was clearly off the line and an eligible receiver. It's embarrassing for refs to miss an alignment penalty but they miss worse things. Quote Link to comment
bisonwiches Posted November 10, 2022 Share Posted November 10, 2022 https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/look-former-nebraska-coach-furious-with-bo-pelini-theory/ar-AA13XW79?li=BBnbfcL Read that, absolutely dumb take by SM. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.