At This Point Why Continue To....

[Undone]

The camera panned over to Frost talking to Dawson after the botched punt play.

 

The biggest question I have is, does Frost himself actually have any ideas on how Dawson & Becton could be setting things up better for success or no?

[Hilltop]

3 hours ago, Nebraska55fan said:

 

How many touchdowns were called back due to penalty? Was it 2 or 3? One was by the very same silly preventable penalty we had against Illinois- the pick- offensive pass interference.

 

Yes no turnovers is an absolute plus. NU threw deep 2 times and Toure definitely performs as advertised- thank you transfer portal.

Not all penalties are created equally and the last was absolutely wrong.  The first, even according to the announcers, shouldn't have been called.  

 

That said, these aren't the kind of penalties that have plagued Nebraska.  These are guys intentionally making plays.  Could the pick play have been run a little smoother?  Of course but we all know that every team in the country runs them.  The illegal forward pass?  Even the rules analyst on the broadcast said that was a bad call.  Logan releases the ball even with his body as his feet cross the 11.  Nixon catches the ball in front of him with his back foot on the 12.  The ball was perfectly 90 degrees- shouldn't have been a penalty and the touchdown should have stood.  I personally believe the refs were upset we were still trying to score with under 20 seconds left.  

 

 

[NoLongerN]

47 minutes ago, runningblind said:

We don't need 2-3 4* recruits, we need someone who can develop lineman. Getting high rated guys doesn't matter if you can't develop, and if you can develop, you can turn 3*'s with 4* mixed in into the best lines in the country.  See our own division for evidence.

Yes, I've stated that as well.   I've fired that shot already.

[Nebraska55fan]

1 minute ago, Hilltop said:

 

 

  Could the pick play have been run a little smoother?  Of course but we all know that every team in the country runs them.  

 

 

 Yes everyone runs pick plays. Not everyone commits an obvious offensive pass interference call on the play. 

 

The salient coaching point on the player setting the pick is he MUST look like and behave like an intended receiver- NOT a blocker. You MUST whip your head around and look for the ball and you certainly DONT raise your hands to set up a block. He Didn't whip his head around to "locate" the ball and he was a blocker all the way. The announcers were dead wrong, they often times are. This- just like the Illinois game was a clear cut and easy to call pick play- offensive pass interference. We didn't learn from the Illinois game it seems. 

[BigRedBuster]

5 minutes ago, Nebraska55fan said:

 Yes everyone runs pick plays. Not everyone commits an obvious offensive pass interference call on the play. 

 

The salient coaching point on the player setting the pick is he MUST look like and behave like an intended receiver- NOT a blocker. You MUST whip your head around and look for the ball and you certainly DONT raise your hands to set up a block. He Didn't whip his head around to "locate" the ball and he was a blocker all the way. The announcers were dead wrong, they often times are. This- just like the Illinois game was a clear cut and easy to call pick play- offensive pass interference. We didn't learn from the Illinois game it seems. 

You may be technically right?  The problem I have with the call is that it had nothing to do with the play.  There was no way those defenders were going to get to the receiver to make a play.  

 

We agree that our WRs need to learn how to do it better so it's not called.

[BigRedBuster]

@Nebraska55fan I just went back and rewatched the play several times.  I think the call is BS even more now.  We had two WRs in the area and it's clear that the three defenders were there trying to defend those two WRs.  They weren't even attempting to get outside to defend the WR that caught the ball.  AND, our WRs didn't make a direct block on them.  They basically brushed them hard.

[Undone]

2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

I think the call is BS even more now.  We had two WRs in the area and it's clear that the three defenders were there trying to defend those two WRs.  They weren't even attempting to get outside to defend the WR that caught the ball.

 

Yep. It's like when defensive pass interference gets waived off because the ball was uncatchable anyway. 

[Husker in WI]

3 hours ago, Nebraska55fan said:

 Yes everyone runs pick plays. Not everyone commits an obvious offensive pass interference call on the play. 

 

The salient coaching point on the player setting the pick is he MUST look like and behave like an intended receiver- NOT a blocker. You MUST whip your head around and look for the ball and you certainly DONT raise your hands to set up a block. He Didn't whip his head around to "locate" the ball and he was a blocker all the way. The announcers were dead wrong, they often times are. This- just like the Illinois game was a clear cut and easy to call pick play- offensive pass interference. We didn't learn from the Illinois game it seems. 

 

You don't have to be constantly looking back for the ball for it to be a good, legal route. You don't even have to avoid contact - you just can't seek it out. You want to see OPI, watch Minnesota's TE in the slot on this play. This wasn't called, and was pretty big in keeping Minnesota in this game. 

 

[big_red_husker_01]

we beat buffalo real good, two W's in a row.. Huskers getting it turnt up, should be ready to go vs OK

[Nebraska55fan]

2 hours ago, Undone said:

 

Yep. It's like when defensive pass interference gets waived off because the ball was uncatchable anyway. 

It doesn't matter-

 

Play 3: A1 and B2 are beyond the neutral zone, attempting to catch a legal forward pass intended for A1. A3, who is on the opposite side of the field, blocks B4 downfield. Ruling 3: A3 is guilty of offensive pass interference. Note it would be a foul under both codes whether it occurred before or after the legal forward pass crossed the line and, in NCAA, even if the pass to A1 was uncatchable. 

 

https://caaf.cz/upload/zebri/docs/UltimatePI.pdf

[Nebraska55fan]

5 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

@Nebraska55fan I just went back and rewatched the play several times.  I think the call is BS even more now.  We had two WRs in the area and it's clear that the three defenders were there trying to defend those two WRs.  They weren't even attempting to get outside to defend the WR that caught the ball.  AND, our WRs didn't make a direct block on them.  They basically brushed them hard.

 

 

Play 3: A1 and B2 are beyond the neutral zone, attempting to catch a legal forward pass intended for A1. A3, who is on the opposite side of the field, blocks B4 downfield. Ruling 3: A3 is guilty of offensive pass interference. Note it would be a foul under both codes whether it occurred before or after the legal forward pass crossed the line and, in NCAA, even if the pass to A1 was uncatchable

 

https://caaf.cz/upload/zebri/docs/UltimatePI.pdf

 

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, Nebraska55fan said:

 

 

Not true-

 

Play 3: A1 and B2 are beyond the neutral zone, attempting to catch a legal forward pass intended for A1. A3, who is on the opposite side of the field, blocks B4 downfield. Ruling 3: A3 is guilty of offensive pass interference. Note it would be a foul under both codes whether it occurred before or after the legal forward pass crossed the line and, in NCAA, even if the pass to A1 was uncatchable

Look at the clip of the Minnesota game above.  Our players did nothing like that. They brushed against the defenders.  The defenders were actually trying to defend the WRs that brushed against them.

 

The call was BS.

[Undone]

7 minutes ago, Nebraska55fan said:

It doesn't matter-

 

Play 3: A1 and B2 are beyond the neutral zone, attempting to catch a legal forward pass intended for A1. A3, who is on the opposite side of the field, blocks B4 downfield. Ruling 3: A3 is guilty of offensive pass interference. Note it would be a foul under both codes whether it occurred before or after the legal forward pass crossed the line and, in NCAA, even if the pass to A1 was uncatchable. 

 

https://caaf.cz/upload/zebri/docs/UltimatePI.pdf

 

I understand that it doesn't matter. But I drew a similarity to a different rule under which it does matter.

[Nebraska55fan]

2 hours ago, Husker in WI said:

 

You don't have to be constantly looking back for the ball for it to be a good, legal route. You don't even have to avoid contact - you just can't seek it out. You want to see OPI, watch Minnesota's TE in the slot on this play. This wasn't called, and was pretty big in keeping Minnesota in this game. 

 

 Good coaches do all they can to avoid penalties and even the appearance of penalties. That is why on pick type plays you coach your receiver to look as much like an eligible receiver as you can- to avoid the penalty or possibility of a penalty. That is why many coaches tell the receiver to look back at the QB and hence avoid a penalty like at the NU game that cost Nebraska a touchdown. Had our receiver done that and not put up his hands to appear to be a blocker- highly likely we dont get the penalty and get the touchdown. Perception matters when you are talking rules and penalties and you coach to the referees perception- which will in turn be the final result. Perception is reality when in these types of circumstances and you dont want to leave anything to the discretion of a referee. 

 

Or I guess we could keep doing that and get called for it again- doing that has already resulted in losing 2 touchdowns. Yep- lets just continue doing that- it has worked out fabulously so far. 

[Nebraska55fan]

6 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Look at the clip of the Minnesota game above.  Our players did nothing like that. They brushed against the defenders.  The defenders were actually trying to defend the WRs that brushed against them.

 

The call was BS.

Good coaches do all they can to avoid penalties and even the appearance of penalties. That is why on pick type plays you coach your receiver to look as much like an eligible receiver as you can- to avoid the penalty or possibility of a penalty. That is why many coaches tell the receiver to look back at the QB and hence avoid a penalty like at the NU game that cost Nebraska a touchdown. Had our receiver done that and not put up his hands to appear to be a blocker- highly likely we dont get the penalty and get the touchdown. Perception matters when you are talking rules and penalties and you coach to the referees perception- which will in turn be the final result. Perception is reality when in these types of circumstances and you dont want to leave anything to the discretion of a referee. 

 

Or I guess we could keep doing that and get called for it again- doing that has already resulted in losing 2 touchdowns. Yep- lets just continue doing that- it has worked out fabulously so far.