|
|
#131
10-15-2005, 08:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: USC v ND
[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read any of this thread, but is what Bush did on the final play a penalty? Or is that only illegal when an offensive lineman pushes someone across? Only got to watch the final 2 minutes, but it sure looked like an awesome game. The Union was going crazy. [/ QUOTE ] It's a penalty but realistically that kind of thing is never going to be called in that situation. 
|
|
#132
10-15-2005, 09:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fumble=clock stop
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] So why don't teams do this intentionally - have the RB fumble the ball out of bounds if they can't get out themselves? (I know they have the no forward fumble rule in the NFL in the last 2 minutes - kind of similar.) [/ QUOTE ] There are a few screwed up rules in football. For example, if a team false starts with the clock running, the clock starts again after the ball is spoted. It is only a matter of time until a team with the lead at the beginning of the fourth quarter intentionally false starts until the game is over. After this, the rule will be fixed. [/ QUOTE ] Check page 115--"Unfair Acts" B NCAA rule book [/ QUOTE ] In a way, I am disapointed to see this. It means that some screwed up rules will never be fixed.
|
|
#133
10-15-2005, 09:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: USC v ND
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I haven't read any of this thread, but is what Bush did on the final play a penalty? Or is that only illegal when an offensive lineman pushes someone across? Only got to watch the final 2 minutes, but it sure looked like an awesome game. The Union was going crazy. [/ QUOTE ] It's a penalty but realistically that kind of thing is never going to be called in that situation. [/ QUOTE ] It really never gets called period, let alone in a huge situation like that. The main purpose for the rule is to stop what they used to do. You'd line up 2 big guys and a little ass dude in the backfield. The little guy would get the ball and the 2 big guys would grab the little guys belt loops on the little guys pants and throw him over the endzone.
|
|
#135
10-15-2005, 10:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: USC v ND
It's funny to see ND fans complaining about refereeing when ND gets more calls in marginal situations than any team in the history of college football.
For example, it's miraculous how those holding calls seem to happen right when ND needs momentum. Funny that ND didn't want replays for the game when it turned out it might have benefitted them with a spotting of Leinert's fumble.
|
|
#136
10-15-2005, 10:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: USC v ND
It was USC who didn't allow the use of replays. You really think Weis wouldn't want replay?
|
|
#138
10-15-2005, 11:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: USC v ND
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] For example, it's miraculous how those holding calls seem to happen right when ND needs momentum. [/ QUOTE ] That's not an example. [/ QUOTE ] Yea, its funny how people who hate certain teams always think that team gets the breaks 100% of the time. Uhh.. it happens to everyone at one time or another.
|
|
#140
10-16-2005, 12:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: USC v ND
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah USC was the team who did not want replay, good thing they didn't too. That ball was out of bounds at like the 3 yard line it looked like. [/ QUOTE ] I hope all of you who are saying this realize it doesn't matter. Cry all you want, we would have won anyway.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
