Buffalo: What Did We Learn?

[krc1995]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

How many of his 74 passes this year are you thinking are "way off"?  He's completed 62.2% of them so 46 of them must not have been.  I remember maybe 3 all year that I would say, "where in the hell are you throwing"?

 

Maybe a little perspective would be nice.

Ok, he would have 3 int’s if threw  near anyone. 

 

 

[Caveman]

I think we will gain a bit more perspective about our team after this weekend…and I’m not referring to our game against OU. I think Norman will be a bloodbath. We will be severely outclassed is most phases of the game by an elite team. No, I’m talking about Buffalo vs Coastal Carolina. We will see how well Buffalo performs against an experienced, competent squad. Even though the Chanticleers operate a completely different scheme, a good showing by Buffalo will go a long way in improving my outlook for the rest of the season. 

[Mavric]

Word is the B1G got back to Nebraska on the plays they submitted and told them that the OPI should not have been called and the illegal forward pass also should not have been called and let replay look at it to see if there was an issue.

[Farms]

Good now they owe us a couple. 

[ZRod]

1 hour ago, Mavric said:

Word is the B1G got back to Nebraska on the plays they submitted and told them that the OPI should not have been called and the illegal forward pass also should not have been called and let replay look at it to see if there was an issue.

The forward pass I can see either way. In reality (and by the letter of the rule) the ball moved forward because of the momentum from Smoothers sprinting forward, which is a penalty. But in the realm of physics he didn't apply a forward force on the ball, or attempt to, so it should have been a no call.

[Mavric]

13 minutes ago, ZRod said:

The forward pass I can see either way. In reality (and by the letter of the rule) the ball moved forward because of the momentum from Smoothers sprinting forward, which is a penalty. But in the realm of physics he didn't apply a forward force on the ball, or attempt to, so it should have been a no call.

 

Yeah, I thought there was some sort of "initial direction" in the rule but if it was there at one time (or perhaps in high school?), it's not there any more.  Just where it was thrown and where it was caught.  But even that is pretty questionable because there isn't a clear shot of it.  And the official not only didn't have a good angle but was reaching for the flag before it was caught so there is literally no way he could have known it was forward before he decided it was a penalty.

[hskrfan4life]

20 hours ago, krc1995 said:

Ok, he would have 3 int’s if threw  near anyone. 

And he wouldn't have any fumbles if the offensive line is better.

 

Woulda coulda shoulda

[Saunders]

57 minutes ago, ZRod said:

The forward pass I can see either way. In reality (and by the letter of the rule) the ball moved forward because of the momentum from Smoothers sprinting forward, which is a penalty. But in the realm of physics he didn't apply a forward force on the ball, or attempt to, so it should have been a no call.

That was a textbook option pitch. The vector of the ball was backwards (look at the release), but because he was running forwards, it moved forward in space while still being a lateral. Refs don't understand Newton's laws of motion.

 

An object at rest remains at rest, and an object in motion remains in motion at constant speed and in a straight line unless acted on by an unbalanced force.

[Savage Husker]

8 minutes ago, hskrfan4life said:

And he wouldn't have any fumbles if the offensive line is better.

 

Woulda coulda shoulda

Protecting the football is squarely one person’s job. 

[Undone]

4 minutes ago, Saunders said:

The vector of the ball was backwards (look at the release), but because he was running forwards, it moved forward in space while still being a lateral. 

 

I kind of don't think this actually matters as far as the rule book is concerned, though.

 

It either goes forward, sideways, or backwards. Perfectly sideways (a lateral) and backwards are allowed, forward is not.

 

But I will say that the OPI was a completely stupid call that should have never happened. If we kept that TD and Culp makes the other two field goals that's a 41-3 game.

[Savage Husker]

3 minutes ago, Saunders said:

That was a textbook option pitch. The vector of the ball was backwards (look at the release), but because he was running forwards, it moved forward in space while still being a lateral. Refs don't understand Newton's first law.

 

An object at rest remains at rest, and an object in motion remains in motion at constant speed and in a straight line unless acted on by an unbalanced force.

Neil de Grasse explained the physics of this after RW3 made a similar pitch in a game 2-3 years ago.
 

Galilean Tranformation - https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/12/05/neil-degrasse-tyson-physics-football-russell-wilson-lateral

[Saunders]

20 minutes ago, Undone said:

 

I kind of don't think this actually matters as far as the rule book is concerned, though.

 

It either goes forward, sideways, or backwards. Perfectly sideways (a lateral) and backwards are allowed, forward is not.

 

But I will say that the OPI was a completely stupid call that should have never happened. If we kept that TD and Culp makes the other two field goals that's a 41-3 game.

No, it has to matter, otherwise the option is impossible.  The QB will almost always be moving forward when pitching the ball, which means the ball will be moving "forward" in relation to space, but not vector. If I throw a ball laterally or a backwards out of a moving vehicle, it's still going to be  "moving forward" in space.

[Undone]

1 minute ago, Saunders said:

No, it has to matter, otherwise the option is impossible.  The QB will almost always be moving forward when pitching the ball, which means the ball will be moving "forward" in relation to space, but not vector.

EDIT: NDT is dead on.

 

But of course, the QB can intentionally put a little backwards motion into the pitch to cancel this out so that it truly does not go forward.

 

I feel like a nerd typing this out. I think it was Mavric who mentioned he was looking it up in the rule book to see whether this was accounted for - which if it is, then ignore everything I'm saying.   

 

I'm just pretty sure though that according to the rule book, there is no distinction between a "pitch," a "a lateral," and a "forward pass" as it pertains to whether or not the ball goes forward for whatever reason. If the ball goes forward and the person committing this action is past the line of scrimmage, it's an illegal forward pass.

[Born N Bled Red]

2 hours ago, Mavric said:

Word is the B1G got back to Nebraska on the plays they submitted and told them that the OPI should not have been called and the illegal forward pass also should not have been called and let replay look at it to see if there was an issue.

 

Any word on the BS calls from the Illinois game?

[Saunders]

26 minutes ago, Undone said:

 

But of course, the QB can intentionally put a little backwards motion into the pitch to cancel this out so that it truly does not go forward.

 

I feel like a nerd typing this out. I think it was Mavric who mentioned he was looking it up in the rule book to see whether this was accounted for - which if it is, then ignore everything I'm saying.   

 

I'm just pretty sure though that according to the rule book, there is no distinction between a "pitch," a "a lateral," and a "forward pass" as it pertains to whether or not the ball goes forward for whatever reason. If the ball goes forward and the person committing this action is past the line of scrimmage, it's an illegal forward pass.

Edited my note, because the article posted above with NDT's quote isn't entirely correct.

 

Quote

Rule 3, Section 22, Article 4:
"It is a forward pass if:

a. the ball initially moves forward (to a point nearer the opponent's goal line) after leaving the passer's hand(s);"

 

BUT..... In the rulebook, it further stipulates:
 

Quote

A.R. 3.15 The ball, moving backwards in the hands of an offensive player A1, is possessed by offensive player A2 who is in advance of A1. Ruling: Illegal forward handing unless A2 is behind his line and is eligible to receive a forward pass.
A.R. 3.16 The ball moving forward in the hands of offensive player A1, is possessed by A2 who is behind A1. Ruling: A backward pass.
http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/6_Rule3_Definitions.pdf

 

Because he's moving it to someone behind him in space, it's backwards.