November 26th, 2011 at 9:22 PM ^

Why were we even punting in that situation?

I'm sure Brian's analysis (we'll get one this year, woot!)  will include whether the math says we should have gone for it..


November 26th, 2011 at 9:37 PM ^

Priceless face.  If you don't know what's happening and just see his face you ask...


1.  Did he just fumble the snap?


2.  Did he just see his parents having sex?


November 26th, 2011 at 9:36 PM ^

... including dropped snaps (let's give him props for getting some really good boots on the ball earlier), re-posting gifs of dropped snaps, and ridiculous reversals by the replay ref.

Actually, upon further review, while I'm willing to laugh about the dropped snap, I'm still pissed off about the replay on Fitz's touchdown.  

WTF does the word "indisputable" mean anymore?  

One theory-- at the end of games, where the replay call can potentially be outcome-determinative, the replay refs are under a standing order (spoken or otherwise) to simply start in the middle, disregard what the call on the field was, and make the best judgment they can on what the real answer was, even if it's a 50/50 type of call.  If you started with that standard, I could see the guy saying "in my opinion, he was a foot short."  But under the indisputable standard, with one replay showing it was very close and the other showing he appeared to break the plane (and the second being a more down-the-line shot), there is simply no way that call can get reversed.

Exhibit B for the above theory:  Sparty vs. Wisconsin, review of hail mary.  That was not indisputable, and should not have been reversed under that standard.  It was probably the accurate call, though, if you put aside indisputability and just try to make the right call.

/rant.  mostly I'm pissed because Fitz deserved a touchdown after that performance.


November 26th, 2011 at 9:57 PM ^

... has (or ought to have) an implicit "reasonable neutral observer" element to it, meaning indisputable doesn't mean some homer can't come up with a case for calling it the other way, but if you put 10 reasonable observers in a room, probably all 10 are going to agree a call was blown.  Usually that happens when a play  that was called a catch clearly bounces off the ground, or a catch called out of bounds clearly shows a foot being dragged, etc.   There's a fair number of "indisputable" incorrect calls in that sense.

I always think this should be the guideline: if you have to look at it more than once or twice, it's not indisputable and should stand.  It's close.  If the goal is just 51% certainty, fine, look at it for 5 minutes.  if the goal is 90% certainty, look at it once or twice, and if you're not sure, the call stands.


November 26th, 2011 at 10:04 PM ^

I was at the game and didn't get a really good look at that play.  The replays they showed didn't have a good angle of the play.  Based on the footage I saw, it looked like a TD.  Did anyone viewing from home see a better view?  Was it a clear non-TD?

My stomach was really churning after the double penalty.  When Fitz first scored I felt this rush of relief and joy knowing we had just sealed it.  Going from that to 4th and 25 felt like the end of Cloverfield - "Yes, we escaped and now we're headed to . . . what do you mean we're crashing?"

By the way (this post is getting a bit stream of conciousness, but I woke up at 6:15 to get to the golf course for tailgating and am exhausted), we have a field goal kicker!  That's so cool.  Gibbons has been steady all year, but dude that kick was no guarantee.

What thread was I in?  I'm here for the pos . . .

Oh, the happy thread.  Yes.  Yes.  I am so, so happy; only by repeating words, words can I adequately describe it (hmmm, maybe that last example is a poor one).  A battle from start to finish, and we came out on top.  There are so many great individual stories from this game, I can't wait to read the message boards tomorrow and Brian's post on Monday.

Now, I'm going to sleep and dream of perfectly executed zone reads and this bolt of maize and blue dilithium (that smiles, always).


EDIT:  Turns out I'm in the mortified punter thread.  Oh well.  They're all happy threads tonight.


November 26th, 2011 at 10:17 PM ^

One replay looked like he's in, one like maybe a few inches short, but you'd have to take into consideration the angle of the camera not being straight down the line.

More importantly, +1 for the Cloverfield reference, and for acting like most people actually saw Cloverfield like you were quoting The Godfather or something.  I actually did see it, and on the tacopants-to-dead-on-analogy scale, I give it a rating of "generally apt".


November 26th, 2011 at 9:38 PM ^

out of me.  It seemed that once again OSU was getting every break (and it contiued after this, with the Touissant TD that was a TD, but wasn't a TD, even though it really was a TD).  However, after celebrating the win, i'm with Lee Corso "Aw Fuck it", this GIF is a classic!


November 26th, 2011 at 10:08 PM ^

Hagerup's botched snap is a reminder for the potential for disaster with punts, and makes me appreciate that Wile, as a true Freshman made it through his time during Hagerup's suspension without any major fiascos.  This included some high pressure punts in enemy territory during UTL.

not advocating a punter war, just giving complements to Wile...


November 26th, 2011 at 11:03 PM ^

... was his comment at the presser about the play.  He basically told Hagerup that it's a statistical inevitability (don't think Hoke used that term) that he would drop a snap every so often, and that it won't happen again for a long time since he got this one out of the way.

It's amazing how supportive he is, and his unassuming way to build up players.