Things we haven't discussed yet

Submitted by archangel2k12 on
(unless I missed it).
First: Every time they showed Michael Floyd's smug arrogant face it made my blood boil. Did anyone else feel this way?
Second: First offensive drive of second half. Is it an exaggerating to say that Denard trucked half of the Irish defense for an extra 7 yards at the end of his long run?

gater

September 11th, 2011 at 9:59 PM ^

1) Floyd is good, he deserves to have a smug arrogant look on his face.

2) I don't remember him running many people over. He did hit Teo head on once though and got the first down.

R Kelly

September 11th, 2011 at 10:27 PM ^

I did about 2 seconds of research, and from what I found you can advance it if the other team has possession and then fumbles it, not just touches it.  An argument can be made either way for whether the ND player really had possession when he touched the ball.

Also I don't think there is a difference between a sqibb kick, an onside kick, or even a full kick that the recieving team fails to field.  I think all are treated the same under this rule.  

teldar

September 11th, 2011 at 10:15 PM ^

Why do people think that was a damn on-sides kick. It was a squib. And it was fielded and fumbled by a ND player

IT

WAS 

NOT

AN 

ON-SIDE

KICK

I don't think it's possible to try harder to get this point out. I have seen this probably 10 times on this site.

What looked like an on-sides kick to you?

FreddieMercuryHayes

September 11th, 2011 at 10:26 PM ^

Well if you're arguing about advancement rules by a kicking team, then technically there is no such thing as an onside kick in the first place.  There are legal kicks and illegal kicks.  A legal kick goes 10 yards and stays inbounds; it's a live ball.  So even if the kicker kicks it deep and no one on the receiving team touches it, the kicking team would get the ball where recovered.  Once it travels 10 yards, it doesn't matter what the kick looks like after that.

Now, if you're talking about strategy, then yes, that was totally a squib and not an on-side.  Who would think that anyway?  Dolts.

gbdub

September 11th, 2011 at 11:19 PM ^

You sir, are correct. I'm not sure why anyone is freaking out that some people labelled this an onside kick. All kickoffs are the same - once it goes 10 yards, it's a live ball and recoverable (though not advanceable) by either team (The ball also must hit the ground first to be recovered by the kicking team). This is equally true whether the ball travels 10 yards or 60 yards. "Onside kick" has no meaning in the rulebook. This play was not an intentional onside kick, just a "squib" but effectively it became an onside kick.

There are many odd kicking rules that don't get dealt with too often in a game - look up "fair-catch field goal" for another interesting rule.

 

go16blue

September 11th, 2011 at 10:03 PM ^

2) He definitely did carry the pile on that run, it was fun to see. 3) What do you guys think of Borges' playcalling? We had trouble getting anything going, but I think playcalling always looks bad when you cant run the ball and your QB is missing opprotunities. If we executed better he would have looked a lot smarter, imo.

LB

September 11th, 2011 at 10:04 PM ^

 on his back, he managed to put half the ND defense on his back too. That run was nothing short of amazing, but I had not thought of it in all of my delirium. Thanks for bringing that one up!