It was an indefensible, bullshit reversal
by oneill3b (2019-01-12 22:25:33)

In reply to: still pissed  posted by irishnole4638


And it’s very likely that it changed the course of the game. The booth flat disregarded the standard of review. Had ND gone up 10-3, I have no doubt that the game would have gone differently. We may not have won but it would have been a good game, particularly because Love also wouldn’t have been hurt.


ND needed a lot of breaks to go its way.
by rockmcd  (2019-01-14 12:27:06)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

It was a bad call and bad calls are part of the game, but it was only one of several things that did not go the Irish's way in the first half. The key things in my mind were (in no particular order):

That overturned replay

Tillery's roughing the passer mistake, which gave them the opportunity to make that circus catch in the endzone just before halftime. Had Tillery laid off the QB, the 1st half probably would have ended with either a hail mary or an unlikely field goal attempt.

Claypool's dropped pass on the opening drive.

We fumbled on each of the first 2 drives (and lost one of them).

Failed to pick up 3 yards on 2 plays when we had 3rd & 3 at the Clemson 34.

Love's injury, and the inability to compensate for it.


Make no mistake, Clemson was the more talented team with a superior coaching staff. ND needed to play mistake free and get some breaks in order for this to be a tight game into the 2nd half, but neither of those things happened. Given the hindsight of the subsequent Clemson-Bama game, if they played the ND-Clemson game 10 times, my hunch is that most of the games would have had Clemson pulling away in the 3rd quarter. In this case Clemson got some breaks and were able to pull away in the 2nd quarter. Whatever.


I agree with this....when watching it i realized this call
by irishnole4638  (2019-01-13 15:07:54)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

is the game. It was our chance to hang in there. Against Clemson we needed some breaks. In spite of our fumbles and dropped conversion passes we could have been going up 10-3 with our worst plays behind us.

I agree we may not have won. My only point in all this is how about an explanation for Jon Bible on why he made the judgment that it was clearly out of bounds, indisputable. It was a HORRIBLE call and it hurt ND


I doubt that call changed the outcome of the game.
by manofdillon  (2019-01-12 23:36:03)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Our offense fucking blew. But it was a bad reversal. College replay officials have no understanding of the standard of review.


there's no consistency with officiating at the NCAA level
by jt  (2019-01-13 00:06:57)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

largely because each conference is responsible for hiring, training and retaining their staffs and each will have a different focus/emphasis, etc.


Not to mention biases and conflicts of interest. *
by BeastOfBourbon  (2019-01-13 15:04:47)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


I agree *
by ACross  (2019-01-12 23:38:06)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


Here's the angle that reversed it
by ND44  (2019-01-12 23:16:12)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post



Oh yeah that's crystal clear... my fucking ass


If that the plane of the goal line, and it was a ND player
by Endthecursein05  (2019-01-13 12:58:10)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

holding the ball out there instead, and it was called not a touchdown, as a ND fan would you argue that the ball crossed the plane?
I understand what the argument is here, but I see the tip of the ball on the line. In the other scenario I present, I would say it is touchdown (take out if he was down or not).


The ball doesn't have to touch the ground for a TD.
by LastDon  (2019-01-13 12:59:33)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

I think that distinction is a pretty big deal here.


Weve been over this...yes it crossed the plane, no it was
by irishnole4638  (2019-01-13 14:49:35)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

not out of bounds.


Was that when Love was injured?
by Flanner89  (2019-01-12 23:09:13)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Was Love injured on the special teams fumble? I hadn’t heard when it happened.


Very likely, no doubt
by ACross  (2019-01-12 22:47:51)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Give me a break


Games between good teams often pivot on key plays
by oneill3b  (2019-01-12 23:05:12)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

even early ones. Of course there’s no way to know, but as some of the ND players said after the game, it felt like ND was ready to pounce at that point before the reversal. It’s not hard to imagine that ND would have gotten a very helpful boost of confidence had that sequence gone differently. I wouldn’t say that if ND had looked overmatched or unable to move the ball throughout the rest of the game, but ND moved the ball on most drives and failed to make the plays at every key moment.


Ready to pounce. LOL *
by ndzippy  (2019-01-13 10:49:11)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


why is this funny...i agree...they were going to score
by irishnole4638  (2019-01-13 14:55:14)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

a TD then goldilocks and company would have been rattled. SACK...FUMBLE...POUNCE


They were going to score a FG. *
by tdiddy07  (2019-01-14 17:54:59)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


how about after we stopped them on defense, forced the
by jt  (2019-01-13 09:20:03)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

punt, and then had the ball with great field position and then fumbled on the first play?

Was that the replay refs fault as well? Did we get screwed on that one? That sequence certainly hurt our confidence.

We have nobody to blame but ourselves.


Yes, I'd argue we got screwed on that one as well
by LuckyMcD  (2019-01-13 16:28:28)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

I was surprised to see the replay show that Book fumbled, but in order to overturn the call there needs to be clear evidence of a recovery. After the fumble, you couldn't see the ball until the Clemson DL stood up with the ball sitting on the ground. There was a clear opportunity for a recovery, there was no clear recovery. Then later in the game Mack made the catch, made a football move (turning upfield with possession), and was ruled incomplete. None of the calls affected the outcome of the game, even cumulatively, but all three were egregiously incorrect and all three went against us.


You'd argue wrong. Clear fumble and recovery. *
by tdiddy07  (2019-01-14 14:29:22)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


good Lord
by jt  (2019-01-13 20:32:15)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

we completely fuck up and cannot execute the basics of the game and it's the refs fault (of course).

"Oh, but I said none of the calls affected the outcome of the game!"


Both can be true. *
by oneill3b  (2019-01-13 11:23:43)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


I try to worry about things I can control
by jt  (2019-01-13 12:51:54)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

that's a pretty consistent message that I've heard most successful coaches/leaders harp on a lot these past few years and I agree with it.

Truthfully, it's probably just a ripoff of what Holtz/Saban/Meyer would do.


How about when it was 9-3 late 2nd half...
by Irishdemon  (2019-01-13 11:14:24)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

... when we were methodically driving into Clemson territory and your favorite 5-star couldn't hang on to a crucial catch to help extend a drive?

Although I think replay got that one wrong too - but jesus christmas, hang on to the damn football.


or the first drive of the game
by jt  (2019-01-13 12:52:53)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

when we had the easy third down conversion and our wr just dropped the ball at the sticks.

Motherfucking replay refs screwed us on that one!


Don’t disagree. That was another crucial failure. *
by oneill3b  (2019-01-13 11:34:10)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


What ifs and hopes are for losers
by 2ndstreeter  (2019-01-12 23:55:51)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Clemson would have just crushed us for the full second half. Book couldn’t do crap all game and that wouldn’t have changed and we still wouldn’t have scored near enough points.