Ok Fro Daddy. I'm only going to get into this because you called us out as not knowing a simple rule. First of all, what rule are you talking about? It, and I have to guess, sounds like you are talking about the rule that applies to diving catches. Yes, you have to hold onto the ball as you hit the ground, because you have not established a catch by being on your feet. This was not the case at all. Menolik Holt was completely balanced when he caught the ball and could have run indefinitely on both feet if he chose to. His problem was he was looking the ball into his hands and couldn't account for the exact location of the people standing beyond the end line nor did he want any part of the concrete wall that sits approximately 10 feet beyond the end zone. He hit the turf out of self preservation, (maybe to help stay in bounds). He CHOSE to go down to keep from hitting the unknown (foreign stadium too). It was the second move he made after securing the ball. If you dvr'd it and still have it, watch again and you can see for yourself. He could have stayed up and it was NOT a diving catch. Had he spiked the ball after taking a second step he would have had a td and a 15 yd penalty on the ensuing kickoff. At least we would have lead by 9. So "rule guy" how many steps does a receiver have to take for it to be a catch before he can go to the ground and lose the ball? 3? 6? 10? Are you saying he could have taken 400 and if he fell and lost the ball it is incomplete? I don't even care about that play and don't feel like it was the reason we lost (although we might have won), but if you are going to act like you know so much, you have to be able to tell us what the rule is. Just having a moron ''color guy" say it wasn't a catch means nothing. It was Matt Millen :dumdum ! Funny. Since writing this I looked again and you used the exact words Millen did. double :dumdum :dumdumI watched the game once live then again on DVR. I wanted to get my first look at the Huskers (I’m cheap and not a fan so no way I was going to pony up $30 bucks to watch you play some scrubs) These are a few things I took from the game.
1) VT's offense is awful. GOD AWFUL. NE did a decent job in containing the run, in the second half especially, but that offence of theirs leaves ALOT to be desired.
2) Zac Lee....I hope for you guys that he just had a bad game...a real bad game. He was pathetic. I don’t know that I have ever seen a worse D-1 QB. (And I have seen some pretty bad ones line up under center for Ol' MU over the years) 30% completion percentage, missing wide open players and missing badly. One game does not a season make, but that was about as un-impressive as one game can look
3) Roy is every bit as good as I believed him to be. Great runner, good vision. Not in the class of the greatest Husker RB's that I have seen, but I believe clearly the best in some time to carry the ball for NE
4) What the h**L is with your pass rush?! Good God it was sad at times. Taylor had all day to pick his a** back their. He must have been sending text messages because he sure as he** wasn’t hitting open receivers, and they were open. The boys looked like they were stuck in sand half the game. The only one he looked like he tried the whole game was Suh. That last drive killed me, every one rushed 3-4 steps then just stood there for contain. Clearly a bad idea, sack the QB, pressure him. It seemed like the only time NE got pressure Taylor played volleyball with Suh. Every other sack seemed to come from Taylor acting like a re-re and dancing around then running into people
5) The DB's....man o man. They are bad. Good in run support, but they can’t cover to save their lives. I can’t even count the number of open receivers I saw in that game. Luckily Taylor sucks just as bad as Lee did because he couldn’t get them the ball until there was only 1 minute left in the game. How do you let some one get behind you in prevent?! The TD, I can understand the DB's on had to cover the wr's long enough for me to go make a bowl of popcorn after Taylor took the snap, and I still made it back to see the catch. When someone has that long to find somebody, they usually will
6) Dillard seems to be an improvement over random RS Freshman lost in action LB. Made some nice plays, even when he was not the one making the tackle (funneling ball carriers and eating up pulling linemen)
7) Niles is a good return man. I would like to have someone like that on my team to return kicks. Aggressive, and pretty consistent. Give him a crease and watch him work.
8) Henery = good kicker...DUH
9) It was not a catch...you must maintain position of the ball all the way through. Not till a knee hits, not till an extremity hits out of bounds. You must have the ball all the way through. Some of you who claim to be the most knowledgeable fans in college football should clearly know a basic rule. Quit crying foul, nobody is out to get you because you are Nebraska :dumdum
Overall it is just one game, and a close loss on the road at that. It's not like it was a blow out. It's not the end of the season but I don't know that it tells us that much. Nebraska's D looked good, But VT has sucked on O since 2005, they are no better this year and Taylor is just crappy as a passer. So whats the real story? IS NE that good, or VT that bad, or...a little of both.
Ne ran well, but VT's run D sucks. They gave up nearly 300 yrd to Alabama and are averaging something like 5.5 yards allowed per rush. So is it that VT opens up like a drunken Kearney girl on prom night or that NE was able to assert their will? Little of both maybe?
I am unsure what to take from this game. Ne did some things I thought were impressive, some things that were not. I don't think it's a down hill spiral from here. There are still plenty of games that you should win. Maybe some of those games look a little tougher now, maybe not. After all it was just one game.
But I do know this. If Lee plays in B12 ball like he did this weekend, NE will not reach their goals this year. He must get better.
Couple of things that I took from Saturdays game
- Thread starter fro daddy
- Start date
fro daddy
All-Conference
its accutally pretty simple the act of a "catch" is eveything holt did until he made the next "football move". I.E. turning up field, juking, runing, ect. Basically showing he had complete control of the ball. As he was falling, and had not established control, that fall out of bounds is still in the act of the "catch" The ball popping out when he hits the ground is no differnt than if you jump and catch the ball and as you land, one foot in bounds, i drill you and the ball pops out. I mean you caught it, and your foot hit inbounds. SO thats a catch? or how about if you catch the ball and fall to your butt after one foot hits in bounds, then as you butt hits the ground you drop the ball. Is that a catch? Neither is a catch and it is not a catch when a player loses the ball after hitting the ground in the act of making a catch.
instead of blaming big 12 officails, or a color guy in the booth, or random objects behind the endzone, place blame on the guy that lost control of the ball.
and that was a joke about all those who cried foul like someone didnt give the right call just because your nebraska, not a jab at all husker fans
Last edited by a moderator:
If you read my post correctly you would have seen where I suggested the act of going down to keep from hitting something he was running full speed at, while looking backward for the last 3 seconds, was his second football move.The first move being the catch, landing on one foot, then another foot all while having a secure grip on the ball. You didn't answer the question about how many steps would make it a catch. It is a valid question. How many steps would he need to take to establish a catch? Obviously, if he runs the length of the field, say 90 yards then falls to the ground it is a catch. I say 2 should do it. The video shows he was running and decided to hit the deck after two steps. How many should he have taken to make it a catch. Just tell me and I'll drop it. Any answer that suggests it is not a Husker touchdown won't be acceptable, by the way.
caveman99
All-American
No the video doesn't show that. Holt started falling to the ground as he was gained possession so he has to maintain possession through the fall to include hitting the ground.
Yes, I'm sorry but Fro Daddy is right. This was indeed an incomplete pass as much as it pains me to say it. Holt needed to hold onto the ball through the fall, including when he hit the ground. It is what it is and now it's time to move on to the next game.
fro daddy
All-Conference
no use in tryin to explain it caveman. he obviously caught the ball then went into a head long dive to avoid hitting a mystery 'thing' that wasnt there. All along the big 12 crew that was calling the game was made up of KU/MU/CU alums and saw the perfect opertunity to stick it to the hated huskers. They called the catch an incompletion, then the replay crew while trying to deciede if they should look at the play had their video screens cut in by some debbie does dallas video because everyone know that MU turns out half the employees at espn and they feed the vidoe to the replay booth. so in a effort to down those pesky huskers this mu grad switch the video of what was obviously a catch to porn, cause after all who doesnt love porn. DR TOM thats who, which is why the switch was that much more great.
You see caveman, the world is out to get NU. It couldnt have possibly been that the player made a catch while going down and lost the ball. Nope he was screwed while protecting himself from a magical hazard and the man stuck it to NE
caveman99
All-American
fro daddy
All-Conference
Last edited by a moderator:
BlackShirt1340
Five-Star Recruit
Husker Runner
Starter
fro daddy on fire today.
Last post on this. I promise (provisionally anyway)! I agree that if the player is falling to the ground during the catch he has to maintain the ball through going to the ground. My case is, and always has been, that he made the catch, in effect, took two steps, then proceeded to launch himself off of his knee, to the ground. I was making the case that he had made the catch and had done everything necessary for it to be a catch then fell causing the ball to come out. In other words, I don't think that applying that rule is correct. See you in another thread.
husker B-rent
All-Conference
captain k is correct. his knee hit the ground after he had both feet in bounds thus meaning the play was over.
Bo himeself, this morning, even said that after they looked it over after the game they also thought that it was a TD. he also said that the rule was applied incorrectly. i dont know about you guys, but i trust a guy that makes a living out of this game more than a few people on a message board....just sayin.....
Bo himeself, this morning, even said that after they looked it over after the game they also thought that it was a TD. he also said that the rule was applied incorrectly. i dont know about you guys, but i trust a guy that makes a living out of this game more than a few people on a message board....just sayin.....
husker B-rent
All-Conference
...
caveman99
All-American
You can think what you want but just having the feet in isn't good enough according to the rule.