I was just curious what everyone's thoughts were on the end of the ND game. Looked like a clear touchdown to me. Am I missing something?
I'VE HAD JUST ABOUT ENOUGH OF YOU SONNY
That was a clear TD. Not even close.
It seemed suspect to review it anyway because who the hell knows when the whistle was called.
BTW he was in.
Whistle irrelevant per Mike Perreira.
I wish he would have elaborated on that. How could the whistle be irrelevant? Are you not expected to stop playing when the whistle is blown?
I've heard him say before it's the polar opposite of the "intent to blow whistle" rule in hockey. For the whistle to matter it has to be so obvious that players stopped playing.
is that a decision that forward progress has been stopped is not reviewable. They can review the spot at which progress was stopped but they can't reverse the official's decision that it happened. It's the same as a player stepping out of bounds, or an official ruling that a ball carrier's knee was down*. Even if replay shows it didn't happen it can't be reversed.
It's not the whistle, it's the official's determination...so in a sense it's similar to the hockey rule, but with sanity.
*I'm not talking about a fumble where they're checking whether the ball came out before or after contact with the ground--the kind of play I'm talking about is where, say, a ball carrier stumbles at the 25 and the official steps in to rule that his knee was down. He rights himself and runs into the endzone--the call on the field is that he was down at the 25, but replay shows that he managed to keep his knee off the ground. Replay can't award a touchdown in this situation.
1) Call on the field was a stop. 2) Forward progress seemed to be stopped before that final surge. 3) Ball may have been out before reaching the goal line.
I understand that we all hate ND but I think it would have been just about as controversial to over rule that call than it has been to let it stand. I don't have a problem with it. Down-vote away.
So do you think the officials called forward progress too early?
IDK. Really it is just sort of silly for us to be making such a big deal about it. We should be worrying about ourselves. Who cares what happened in ND's game? This is all very little brotherish.
Huh? I'm not making a big deal out of it. I really don't care. I was just curious about what people thought of the call. Geez.
Not referring to you specifically, just the general reaction on the board is pretty silly.
It was the marquee game of the week, and blatantly blown call that decided the game. Add in that it came at the hands of our rivals.
What are you talking about? It is clearly questionable at best
as much as it hurts for ND to finally be in the midst of an official return to glory...their ability to keep winning makes Michigan look so much better. Think about it...yes we've lost 2 games, but it was to the #1 and #7 teams in the country. And Notre Dame will probably be #5 on Sunday thanks to a monumental meltdown by West Virginia and a tough loss by South Carolina.
I will cheer for Notre Dame to keep winning. I have this rather "unrealistic" hope that, at the Rose Bowl, Michigan will win to finish off a 12-2 year, while the only two teams to beat them are playing for the BCS Championship the following week.
Stranger things have happened.
If progress was stopped then the side judge who had the clearest view of it all, would have been running in blowing his whistle waving his hands.....he wasn't
If the ball was out before crossing the goal line, a Stanford lineman clearly recovered it in the endzone. This was a bush call. The side judge should have gotten it right the first time around, but he didn't have the cojones. This play was the definition of "second effort."
There was one angle they showed where you could see the ball come out and the lineman who revovered grabbed it on the field side of the goal line and then moved it across. You can't see the rest of the lineman's body but based on the torso you could partially see you'd have to assume his knees were on the ground. So even then the recovery was in the field of play and he would've been down befor sliding the ball across the line.
If a player fumbles the ball forward on fourth down, they must recover their own fumble. So that argument doesn't work here.
There's no way anybody could argue that the ball was out before it crossed the line. He crossed the line then just let go of the ball.
ball (he clearly broke the plane before losiing it anyways) Stanford also recovered it in the endzone. Anyway you slice it, it looked like a TD.
Yeah, the call had to be that forward progress ended if we take Mike Pereira's comment about whistles to be fact. If they didn't call progress then Stanford scored with Taylor reaching over, and if that wasn't good enough, when he fumbled and his o lineman got it. Did anyone catch what the officials statement on the play was?
Actually, looking back, I could see one more call leading to an ND victory: fumblerooski on Stanford.
Exactly, forward progress was clearly stopped, end of story.
To hell with Notre Dame
Best comment-signature combination I've seen in a long time
not either of the two times they got it. #bullshit
Are you talking about 2nd down or 4th?Haha
Was that personal foul called for helmet to helmet? I ask because it looked to clearly be shoulder to helmet.
When the officials review a play, the whistle is not involved in the decision. That was a clear TD. I dont know how you couldnt call it a TD.
It was a clear TD unless the refs blew the whistle, or considered him stopped at the line. I'm really confused by the conclusion to the review being "the play stands as called." I don't get why they wouldn't be able to actually confirm or reverse the call. That was a pretty lame/embarassing way to lose for Stanford.
With the replay,you don't get sound to determine if the whistle had blown.
Moreso,why wasn't a celebration penatly served up as in the game played 16 of Sept UT vs BYU...talkabout your wild finish.
Along with the announcement that the play stands as called, they also said there would be no celebration penalty because the players thought, incorrectly, that the game was over.
For one thing, that's welcome sanity; for a second, it confirms that in the officials' view the game was not over at that point which means there had been no ruling that forward progress had been stopped.
There was nothing clear about that play. It was going to stand whichever way they called it on the field. In my opinion his forward progress was stopped and then he reached the ball out across the line.
My understanding was that since it went to review forward progress was not a consideration. If they called the play dead by forward progress then there would be no reason to review. They went to review, though, and he was clearly in the end zone. ND got the benefit of several horrible calls in the last couple minutes that allowed them to win the game. If that game was played in Palo Alto, Stanford would have won.
If I was a Stanford fan, I'd be pretty pissed. Good thing hardly anyone roots for Stanford football. The camera angle on the runner's side clearly shows him scoring and fumbling immediately after, but that's irrelevant. It also looked like his elbow may have been down. My only misgiving is the elbow thing. Looks like they got screwed.
In slow motion you can see his left elbow is down before his right arm is finished moving the ball forward - but its hard to tell exactly where the ball is when the elbow is down. Close call
Whether or not he was in, I absolutely hate NBC announcers.
Reasons to hate watching ND games.
1) It is ND
2) The announcers are terrible
3) The constant TV timeouts
4) The announcers are terrible
He's being nice.
Mike mayock is an asshat and that was a touchdown. How Mayock its on nfl network rivals matt millen as an announcer. hopefully osu loses to balance my perfect football Saturday.
I wondered if maybe they thought it was a fumble, and then the other Stanford player recovered it, but first had it 6 inches outside and pulled it back in. I can see why they called the review the way they did, but kinda surprised they didn't call it a TD on the field.
I do know one thing; I've scarcely been so unimpressed by a top 10 team. Now ensues the endless ND ballwashing.
their BCS blowout loss
I don't see them getting in with 2 losses
Really? This is Notre Dame (aka America's Team!) we're talking about here. Didn't they get in with 3 losses a few years back?
It all depends on where they are ranked. There's a clause that if ND is something like 8th or higher, they are automaticly in the BCS.
"I've scarcely been so unimpressed by a top 10 team."
To be fair, Notre Dame was a lot more impressive than West Virginia.
I think the bigger issue was the "helmet to helmet" call against Stanford that knocked out Golson. The replay showed that there was no helmet to helmet and the penalty gave ND an extra 15 yards nearing the end of the game. Without that penalty, ND loses its QB and it is a very different ball game.
Very good point. I saw the Stanford player clearly turn to his side to avoid the helmet to helmet and sacrificed his RIB CAGE in order to maintain "safety on the field". How was he rewarded...15 yard penalty. Good point I completly forgot about that.