OT: Charlie Weis is Inventing New Methods of Screwing Up
Down 5 points with 2:10 to go and two timeouts remaining, Jimmy Clauson throws what is ruled an incomplete pass when a defensive lineman gets a hand on the ball at the beginning of the throwing motion. As it is 4th and 15, Weis calls timeout because he didn't have a good play set up for the situation. About 15-20 seconds after the timeout is called, the booth reviews the play, overturns the ruling of an incomplete pass, and rewards Pitt with the ball. Pitt runs out the clock.
Weis can at least be consoled that his relatively brief tenure at Notre Dame will be remembered.
November 14th, 2009 at 11:27 PM ^
ha yeah thats what happened
November 15th, 2009 at 3:21 AM ^
I feel for you Irish.
We know the feeling.
Can't say I'm mad about it, just that I know the feeling...
November 14th, 2009 at 11:28 PM ^
I would consider that a bad break more than a big screwup. On 4th and 16, with the game (and possibly my job) on the line, I'd call a timeout, too, to make sure everyone is on the same page. It was a tough break for him that the officials then decided to review (and somehow decided it was a fumble).
November 14th, 2009 at 11:38 PM ^
that it was a fumble was a "interesting call" as Herbstreit put it, but that they awarded the ball to pitt. I mean the Pitt player didn't pick the ball up until after the whistle blew the play dead, you can see all but that Pitt player give up on going after the ball right as it blows and the ball was still on the turf.
They're supposed to play to the whistle, play to the whistle what do you now play to the ball? I mean what is that? Seriously at a loss on that, same thing happened last week against Navy too
November 14th, 2009 at 11:49 PM ^
I don't get it. There have been tons of times that the play has been whistled dead, and a REAL fumble that happened is ruled void because of the whistle. So in this instance, they not only overturn the play, they overturn the whistle.
November 15th, 2009 at 12:16 AM ^
Yeah, the "fumble" wasn't the worst part of the call. I could go either way on that but I thought the NCAA couldn't overturn plays after the whistle had blown.
In the NFL the rule is to play past the whistle. Unless the rules changed, I don't see how they didn't rule the play dead. I guess if nobody actually blew the whistle but that seems unlikely.
November 14th, 2009 at 11:28 PM ^
That Clausen fumble was a joke
November 14th, 2009 at 11:36 PM ^
the replay system and refs have been an abomination this year.
I don't understand how Charlie didn't get that TO back.
November 14th, 2009 at 11:31 PM ^
Was Weis supposed to tell his team to hurry up and run a play before the review came on? Every coach would have called a time out in that situation, and it wouldn't matter if they failed on 4th down, since a timeout is not enough to get the ball back after a 3 and out with 2 mins. I didn't think the fumble was that apparent to quickly run the next play, with the game on the line.
November 14th, 2009 at 11:33 PM ^
I was rooting for Weis on this one b/c I'm not ready for cooper...I mean Weis to go. ND got robbed. Oh well
November 15th, 2009 at 12:03 AM ^
....but unfortunately I think he will now be gone
November 15th, 2009 at 12:08 AM ^
most likely
November 14th, 2009 at 11:45 PM ^
broken down ex-officials in the replay booth? How can we continue to have such incompetence? The Alamo? I remember the fucking Alamo!!
November 14th, 2009 at 11:48 PM ^
I just talked to the replay official who confirmed the Clay TD against Michigan and he said the guy got the call correct.
November 15th, 2009 at 12:23 AM ^
Looked pretty clear to me, actually - the ball got knocked loose before Clausen threw, and Clausen just pushed the loose ball forward. I'd say it was clear enough to warrant an overturn; the question is when the whistle blew. (A play ruled down/incomplete can be turned into a fumble if it's obvious who recovered and if the recovery occurred before the whistle.)
November 15th, 2009 at 1:03 AM ^
The rules say the officials can overturn and award a recovery of a loose ball blown dead if "there is clear recovery of a loose ball in the immediate continuing action after the loose ball."
In this case, even though players may have stopped with the whistle, the pitt guy didn't hesitate to grab it and no ND players were around him, so i think you could reasonably say it was a clear recovery.
whether it was indeed a fumble is a separate question.
November 15th, 2009 at 1:59 AM ^
Clauson didn't have possession. If he did, the ball would have gone in the direction that he was attempting to throw it in. Instead, it was headed at an angle that strongly suggested that it's main momentum was sideways (the direction that the Pitt player pushed the ball) and that Clauson just pushed it forward a bit. Then, after ruling the ball fumbled, the replay officials can give Pitt the ball because a Pitt player had picked up the ball immediately with nobody else even in the vicinity.
Also, I don't blame Weis for not anticipating the review. I blame him for not being ready with a playcall if third down didn't work out because with only two left and 2:10 to go, there is a strong chance that he'll need two timeouts to win, particularly if the 4th down and long conversion fails. Calling that timeout forces Notre Dame to make the conversion or the game would end. I just thought it was funny that Weis got screwed so badly as a result of calling a timeout that he probably should not have needed to use.
For what it's worth, Notre Dame should have gotten the timeout back after the review.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:54 AM ^
Four Words: Buffalo Wild Wings Refs
November 15th, 2009 at 9:27 AM ^
That commercial sucks. Why? Because nobody in their right mind wants to stay at Buffalo Wild Wings. The beers are ridiculously expensive and not that good (if I'm dropping 6 or 7 bucks on a beer I'll do it at Ashley's, thanks) and the waitresses are just fed up with their lives after people stop getting food in, I don't know, the third quarter. At some point you're getting food out of pity for the waitresses, which you regret because it's terrible for you and doesn't taste that freaking good anyway screw buffalo wild wings and that commercial that is all.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:39 AM ^
My understanding is they should only reverse a call when it there is "irrefutable" evidence that the original call was incorrect. If there is any question at all they should stop, stick with the original call and move on. I thought it was likely a fumble but didn't think it rated a reversal. Same exact thing with the Carlos Brown lateral last week - that was ridiculous.
Just my opinion.