FB: Liberty League

[mattvsmith]

38 should be shooting for a junior in college Rev. 

BTW, to the Hobart guys, if you care, they had a fallball tournament at Annapolis vs. Georgetown and Harvard yesterday.  The FR class is light on accolades (bc of how Hanna handled Kerwick and the dropping to DIII situation), but I've heard its the best team in terms of no stars from Georgetown Prep or Boys Latin being selfish in a number of years. 

PA, you boost my confidence.  College Junior it is.  The Rev will need to increase his intake of Vitamin E, shark dong, and tiger nuts in order to keep up with a filly that young.  (Thank God The Rev is in Asia where this stuff is readily available.)

Good news re: LAX.  Maybe a team of nobodies is just what Hobart needs to get over the hump.  The Rev  wishes he could be there to tape ankles and see how it all turns out.

[hammond5]

NJAC RELEASES SELECTIONS FOR CONFERENCE PLAYER OF THE WEEK
Zucconi wins 3rd NJAC Special Teams' honors of 2009
--for details and a list of the other honorees @ http://wp.me/pChoN-ea

TCNJ LIONS bounce back with win over THE COLLEGE AT BROCKPORT, 48-34
--full game recap @ http://tcnjlionsfootball.com/2009/10/10/tcnjwinsoverbrockporrt/

[union89]

I think I speak for most LLPPer's here.....hammond5, scram with your NJAC updates.....if we want to follow the NJAC, we know where to find you.....

[Doid23]

38 should be shooting for a junior in college Rev. 
 

Stick with the "half +7 rule". Which is, if your 38 years old, a 26 year old (19 +7) is probably the lower limit, in terms of both creepiness and energy.

Cooking and cleaning? Now you're talking.

[Knightstalker]

Remember how much The Rev ranted and raved after coming all the way from AZ to see Bart play and lose?  Imagine if The Rev had come all the way back from Korea as he considered doing a couple months ago.  The Rev would be so out of his tree with anger that The Rev would probably be in a TSA holding cell right now being questioned by the Feds for ranting and raving in the airport.

As it is, The Rev just finished off a couple of beers and some chicken with some random girl he met at a bar last week.  Not that great looking, but at 38 what can The Rev really hope for at this point, eh?  The Rev just hopes she's good at cooking and cleaning.

Rev, at 38 KS was getting married to MKS who was only 23, KS is now 39 but MKS is about to turn 33.

[bart37]

Dlip-Yeah,yeah,yeah...BUT the officiating still SUCKED!PI my orange @ss! Anyhooo,the statesmen should have never stopped runnin` the ball.It was there all day.Good blocking from the O-line and FB.Union`s front is soft,better tighten your chinstraps for RPI and SU.Guess Hobart will have to play for pride now...eye-opener...haven`t been out lookin` in in YEARS.Sorry `bout the ranting earlier..wasn`t tryin` to dis anyone...just sayin`though.Go Bart!!!

[lewdogg11]

I wish I could smite hammond over and over and over until my laptop blows up.

[Frank Rossi]

Nice to meet the guys from inside the hudLLe at the`Bart game.Hope you liked the tailgate!Anyhow,this game was back and forth all 1st half. Both teams made adjustments at the break and thus, a scoreless 3rd. The f@$*in 4th however, was decided by the f@$*in refs!Haven`t seen such BS officiating at a college game.All started with a strip of Coney and #52 Guidetti running to the end zone...touchdown `Bart? Nope ,ref says he blew the whistle.Since when does a RB still on his feet and fighting for yards have a play "stopped".I think the ref blew something else.Hobart D was insane...stopping Unionwhen needed...****,there`s another flag down..oops and another.WTF??Every time `Bart held or made a spectacular play on Union`s last scoring drive,the drive continued with help from the officials.Anyone at the game knows what I`m saying..even my Union friends were disgusted.Pass interference my ass! Should have been offensive if any call and the last pass interference call was made by the far side official...about 4 seconds AFTER the play was over.Gotta bad taste in my mouth after watching that series of BS calls one after the other.24-21 and `Bart was rollin`. Doesn`t matter anymore,but a game like this should not be decided by the officiating.That crew was a fn joke and the LL and the NCAA should watch that game tape.DISGUSTING!!!TOTAL BS!!!Feelin` bad for the pumpkin heads,but hold your heads high.You all played your asses off and deserve credit where credit is due.Union was very lucky and will still have a tough time winning the LL.Go `Bart!!!

OK.  Let's clear up some of these officiating issues, as I was hoping they would not fully permeate the analysis.

First, the call for Coney's forward progress being stopped was a clearly CORRECT call (and one that I never thought needed to be discussed until I read the above comments).  When six guys are tackling one player unhindered and said player has not made any forward progress in three or four full seconds while being tackled in such a way, his forward progress is stopped.  That was a clear call and the whole Coney fumbling thing is as much him knowing that play was dead as anything else.

Second, the two pass interference calls against Hobart in the final Union scoring drive were interesting.  The first call was Mike Concannon getting pushed out of bounds during his route down the left boundary (in front of the Hobart bench).  The Hobart defender nudged him out of bounds (drawing a beanbag from the Referee), which is, if the pass is catchable, pass interference at that point.  The pass was in fact catchable, making this call a correct call -- the yellow flag came out following the beanbag to denote the order of events.  This pass interference call was not as subjective as people are making it out to be.

The second pass interference call was a little tougher -- Jared Gourrier flying down the middle of the field for a pass play with a Hobart defender behind him.  What apparently most people did not see, including the referees to the front of the play was that the Hobart defender had grabbed Gourrier's jersey from behind while they were running for the ball down the field.  The referee that made the call was on the backside of the play, probably about parallel to our booth, and he appeared to defer to refs closer to the play to see if they were going to throw the same flag.  The ball fell about a yard in front of Gourrier when it came down, meaning that, if in fact his jersey was held, the ball would have been potentially catchable in that situation.  That is a subjective call that, to review, relies on the backside ref:  A) seeing a pull of the jersey during the run down the field; and B) giving the offensive player the benefit of the doubt that, but for the jersey grab, he could have made the catch.  Would I have thrown that flag?  No, probably not unless it was blatent (it reminded me of the scenario in the National Championship Game between Miami and Ohio State in overtime when Miami was running onto the field in celebration and the flag comes out two seconds after the seemingly final whistle).  However, I can't fault the official if the two aspects of the flag I discussed here were present in that play.

Finally, for all of the Hobart hemming and hawing that we're hearing, they leave out a crucial mistake (and this is not a subjective mistake) made late in the game.  After Union punted the ball to the Hobart 3 from their (give or take) 40, a flag came out -- Hobart had either 12 or 13 men on the field for the play.  Illegal substitution was called -- a deadball foul.  Illegal substitution did not exist as a penalty a decade ago -- the team would always be allowed to play the play with the extra man and be penalized for "illegal participation" (a signal with both hands placed behind the official's head).  That penalty still exists.  The point is this -- either the play needed to be stopped BEFORE THE SNAP for illegal participation (five yard penalty, no play) or the penalty that needed to be assessed was illegal participation since THE PLAY OCCURRED AND WAS NOT BLOWN DEAD (15 yard penalty on a 4th and 11).  Union should have been able to retain the possession in field goal range at this point.  The penalty, that Union eventually declined, was instead illegal substitution -- and that took possession away from Union at that crucial point.  

I bring it up because when we look at and complain about subjective calls (like forward progress and pass interference), we seem to forget that there is a lot of evidence to support the subjectivity.  Yet, when it comes to an objective call like illegal participation, things are much more mechanical as a referee.  I don't think the calls made in Union's favor should be considered "deciding the game" for the reasons stated here.  However, if you do, then think back to how Union felt in 2004 in Overtime when they scored two touchdowns (objective calls) and got awarded zero of them.  It's unfortunately part of the game, but it's all we got.

- Frank

[redswarm81]

Nice to meet the guys from inside the hudLLe at the`Bart game.Hope you liked the tailgate!Anyhow,this game was back and forth all 1st half. Both teams made adjustments at the break and thus, a scoreless 3rd. The f@$*in 4th however, was decided by the f@$*in refs!Haven`t seen such BS officiating at a college game.All started with a strip of Coney and #52 Guidetti running to the end zone...touchdown `Bart? Nope ,ref says he blew the whistle.Since when does a RB still on his feet and fighting for yards have a play "stopped".I think the ref blew something else.Hobart D was insane...stopping Unionwhen needed...****,there`s another flag down..oops and another.WTF??Every time `Bart held or made a spectacular play on Union`s last scoring drive,the drive continued with help from the officials.Anyone at the game knows what I`m saying..even my Union friends were disgusted.Pass interference my ass! Should have been offensive if any call and the last pass interference call was made by the far side official...about 4 seconds AFTER the play was over.Gotta bad taste in my mouth after watching that series of BS calls one after the other.24-21 and `Bart was rollin`. Doesn`t matter anymore,but a game like this should not be decided by the officiating.That crew was a fn joke and the LL and the NCAA should watch that game tape.DISGUSTING!!!TOTAL BS!!!Feelin` bad for the pumpkin heads,but hold your heads high.You all played your asses off and deserve credit where credit is due.Union was very lucky and will still have a tough time winning the LL.Go `Bart!!!

First, the call for Coney's forward progress being stopped was a clearly CORRECT call (and one that I never thought needed to be discussed until I read the above comments).  When six guys are tackling one player unhindered and said player has not made any forward progress in three or four full seconds while being tackled in such a way, his forward progress is stopped.  That was a clear call and the whole Coney fumbling thing is as much him knowing that play was dead as anything else.

Point taken.  "Three or four full seconds" might be an exaggeration, but your description is that of a correct call.

Second, the two pass interference calls against Hobart in the final Union scoring drive were interesting.  The first call was Mike Concannon getting pushed out of bounds during his route down the left boundary (in front of the Hobart bench).  The Hobart defender nudged him out of bounds (drawing a beanbag from the Referee), which is, if the pass is catchable, pass interference at that point.  The pass was in fact catchable, making this call a correct call -- the yellow flag came out following the beanbag to denote the order of events.  This pass interference call was not as subjective as people are making it out to be.

The Hobart announcers described it as uncatchable.  Subjective call, referees' judgment prevails.

(I'll quiet my inner nitpicker regarding the issues of when a defender may legally chuck a receiver, and when a receiver is nudged out of bounds v. steered out of bounds w/out any illegal contact.)

The second pass interference call was a little tougher -- Jared Gourrier flying down the middle of the field for a pass play with a Hobart defender behind him.  What apparently most people did not see, including the referees to the front of the play was that the Hobart defender had grabbed Gourrier's jersey from behind while they were running for the ball down the field.  The referee that made the call was on the backside of the play, probably about parallel to our booth, and he appeared to defer to refs closer to the play to see if they were going to throw the same flag.  The ball fell about a yard in front of Gourrier when it came down, meaning that, if in fact his jersey was held, the ball would have been potentially catchable in that situation.  That is a subjective call that, to review, relies on the backside ref:  A) seeing a pull of the jersey during the run down the field; and B) giving the offensive player the benefit of the doubt that, but for the jersey grab, he could have made the catch.  Would I have thrown that flag?  No, probably not unless it was blatent (it reminded me of the scenario in the National Championship Game between Miami and Ohio State in overtime when Miami was running onto the field in celebration and the flag comes out two seconds after the seemingly final whistle).  However, I can't fault the official if the two aspects of the flag I discussed here were present in that play.

Apparently, the Hobart announcers didn't see any jersey holding, either, since they described the play as involving no contact.

There is a penalty for defensive holding, or at least there was.  In those circumstances, I'd prefer to see a flag thrown for that penalty when the jersey is being held, and not another one of these "the call is deferred from point A until conditions B and C are met" kind of deals.

Finally, for all of the Hobart hemming and hawing that we're hearing, they leave out a crucial mistake (and this is not a subjective mistake) made late in the game.  After Union punted the ball to the Hobart 3 from their (give or take) 40, a flag came out -- Hobart had either 12 or 13 men on the field for the play.  Illegal substitution was called -- a deadball foul.  Illegal substitution did not exist as a penalty a decade ago -- the team would always be allowed to play the play with the extra man and be penalized for "illegal participation" (a signal with both hands placed behind the official's head).  That penalty still exists.  The point is this -- either the play needed to be stopped BEFORE THE SNAP for illegal participation (five yard penalty, no play) or the penalty that needed to be assessed was illegal participation since THE PLAY OCCURRED AND WAS NOT BLOWN DEAD (15 yard penalty on a 4th and 11).  Union should have been able to retain the possession in field goal range at this point.  The penalty, that Union eventually declined, was instead illegal substitution -- and that took possession away from Union at that crucial point.

I don't understand the need for the "illegal substitution" penalty, never have.  12 or 13 men on the field before the play begins seems irrelevant to me.  I'm also unclear on where the line is drawn: a 12th player runs onto the field, finds the player he's replacing, and sends him off the field.  Somewhere in there, illegal substitution has occurred?  Is there some sort of time limit for the incoming replacement player to find the player being replaced and send him off the field?

Hobart's fumble in the red zone seems to be a bigger factor than the officiating.

Thanks for the input, Tank.

[Frank Rossi]

I don't understand the need for the "illegal substitution" penalty, never have.  12 or 13 men on the field before the play begins seems irrelevant to me.  I'm also unclear on where the line is drawn: a 12th player runs onto the field, finds the player he's replacing, and sends him off the field.  Somewhere in there, illegal substitution has occurred?  Is there some sort of time limit for the incoming replacement player to find the player being replaced and send him off the field?

Hobart's fumble in the red zone seems to be a bigger factor than the officiating.

Thanks for the input, Tank.

In this case, what gave away the 12/13 player scenario to the backside official was that he saw an extra man AFTER THE PLAY running off the field.  They played the play with [an] extra man/men.  That's my point -- while the official should've called illegal subsitution before the play, if the play was actually played with an extra man/men, then that's a 15-yard penalty against the defense.  

Illegal substitution was installed to quell the harsh effect of a 15-yard penalty for illegal particiaption while not allowing a play to occur that might waste time and/or nullify a great play because of a correctable situation before the play.  However, the refs abused the penalty in this case -- they sort of tried to split the baby when there was no baby to be split in the objectivity of the call (counting to 11 or 12/13 in this case and throwing a flag).

One of the reasons we enjoy having Tom Santa Barbara as our color commentator is that he is a former official, and we were in complete agreement on this one -- if the play starts and the illegal substitution is not called before the play, there is only one other choice for the official.

[redswarm81]

I don't understand the need for the "illegal substitution" penalty, never have.  12 or 13 men on the field before the play begins seems irrelevant to me.  I'm also unclear on where the line is drawn: a 12th player runs onto the field, finds the player he's replacing, and sends him off the field.  Somewhere in there, illegal substitution has occurred?  Is there some sort of time limit for the incoming replacement player to find the player being replaced and send him off the field?

Hobart's fumble in the red zone seems to be a bigger factor than the officiating.

Thanks for the input, Tank.

In this case, what gave away the 12/13 player scenario to the backside official was that he saw an extra man AFTER THE PLAY running off the field.  They played the play with [an] extra man/men.  That's my point -- while the official should've called illegal subsitution before the play, if the play was actually played with an extra man/men, then that's a 15-yard penalty against the defense.  

Illegal substitution was installed to quell the harsh effect of a 15-yard penalty for illegal particiaption while not allowing a play to occur that might waste time and/or nullify a great play because of a correctable situation before the play.  However, the refs abused the penalty in this case -- they sort of tried to split the baby when there was no baby to be split in the objectivity of the call (counting to 11 or 12/13 in this case and throwing a flag).

One of the reasons we enjoy having Tom Santa Barbara as our color commentator is that he is a former official, and we were in complete agreement on this one -- if the play starts and the illegal substitution is not called before the play, there is only one other choice for the official.

So there's still a permanently grey area re: when a substitution becomes an "illegal" substitution.

Rules are like moving parts: the more there are, the more ways there are for the system to break down.  If the penalty for illegal participation was too harsh, the proper remedy would be to lessen the penalty, not invent a new permanently grey rule.

(It won't do any good to report me to our brethren at the bar, Frank--they already know I'm an iconoclast/heretic, for I actually like clear, black lines.)

[dlippiel]

Holy **** Frank the knowledge is endless  ! The officiating analysis is great and to be honest dlip was quite unsure about some of the finer points. dlip does feel like the officiating at times, tends to be a problem in the LL, maybe across the country. The only time dlip really gets fired up about it is when he feels the officials take control of the game and basically end up dictating how the game turns out. dlip still thought the officiating was, at times, unorganized and out of sync. Yet the more dlip reflects upon the game there is one thing you want from your officials and that is consistency. dlip must admit even though he has been critical of the officiating yesterday they were consistent. Meaning, that as a team you must adjust period. dlip can understand Bart fans frustration though but as he stated earlier, Bart could have done many things differently (or the same, run, run, run) to alter the outcome of the game.

[Frank Rossi]

I don't understand the need for the "illegal substitution" penalty, never have.  12 or 13 men on the field before the play begins seems irrelevant to me.  I'm also unclear on where the line is drawn: a 12th player runs onto the field, finds the player he's replacing, and sends him off the field.  Somewhere in there, illegal substitution has occurred?  Is there some sort of time limit for the incoming replacement player to find the player being replaced and send him off the field?

Hobart's fumble in the red zone seems to be a bigger factor than the officiating.

Thanks for the input, Tank.

In this case, what gave away the 12/13 player scenario to the backside official was that he saw an extra man AFTER THE PLAY running off the field.  They played the play with [an] extra man/men.  That's my point -- while the official should've called illegal subsitution before the play, if the play was actually played with an extra man/men, then that's a 15-yard penalty against the defense.  

Illegal substitution was installed to quell the harsh effect of a 15-yard penalty for illegal particiaption while not allowing a play to occur that might waste time and/or nullify a great play because of a correctable situation before the play.  However, the refs abused the penalty in this case -- they sort of tried to split the baby when there was no baby to be split in the objectivity of the call (counting to 11 or 12/13 in this case and throwing a flag).

One of the reasons we enjoy having Tom Santa Barbara as our color commentator is that he is a former official, and we were in complete agreement on this one -- if the play starts and the illegal substitution is not called before the play, there is only one other choice for the official.

So there's still a permanently grey area re: when a substitution becomes an "illegal" substitution.

Rules are like moving parts: the more there are, the more ways there are for the system to break down.  If the penalty for illegal participation was too harsh, the proper remedy would be to lessen the penalty, not invent a new permanently grey rule.

(It won't do any good to report me to our brethren at the bar, Frank--they already know I'm an iconoclast/heretic, for I actually like clear, black lines.)

That's the thing -- I don't think this is a grey area.  Defensive players have to be off the field before the snap.  Offensive players cannot enter/exit when breaking the huddle, or in the lack of a huddle, when the team approaches the line for the play.  Defensive players have more leeway in this scenario, and they still didn't get the player(s) off the field in time.  

Again, not trying to dwell on this one call -- the point is that there were other calls that were missed (including a couple blatent pass interference calls against Hobart earlier in the half) that balanced this whole game out.  I just confirmed that the two calls were decent calls by the refs by people who have watched the film from yesterday's game -- so like I said, let's begin to analyze the game itself, such as the lack of need for a running quarterback with an okay arm for Hobart.  Their running backs can truly launch a consistent running game from what we saw yesterday -- they need a good arm to take advantage of what happens when the defense begins to adjust to a running offense, and Hobart didn't seem to trust Vella in that role (i.e., to throw the ball downfield).  Union on the other hand said, "If you're going to blitz every down now, guys, we're going to roll and throw to our main weapon -- and he's going to put this game away for us."  Union should've run the play six plays earlier and it would've worked for the same touchdown they scored late to Gallo.  The problem with riverboat gambling is that eventually, the cards will beat you -- but I credit Cragg for keeping his team in the game with some gutsy calls.  He just needs to find a comfort zone in the QB slot at this point.  Hobart will be back, without a doubt.

[dlippiel]

Vella is quite the question mark to me. dlip thought he showed some flashes of validity and prowess but then seemed a bit confused at others. dlip though he actually proved quite mobile when scrambling but was inconsistent with his throws. dlip credits Bart with their abilty to change up formations on O and keep U D on their heels. Again dlip felt he was a bit over critical of U's D coaching and in reflecting back feels the coaching of Cragg kept them guessing. Again, dlip still feels Cragg should have continued to run straight at U D until Bart was stopped dead. Great win for U and dlip concurrs with Mr. Rossi, Bart will be back and they will be O.K.

[Frank Rossi]

This week on "In the HuddLLe," we will have the following features:

- "Around the League" will recap this weekend's three big Liberty League games;

- Justin Gallo (WR - Union) will join us to discuss his record-breaking performance yesterday for the Dutchmen, the entire Dutchmen season and his family ties to the Union Football program;

- Head Coach Steve Briggs (Susquehanna) will join us to discuss his team's big win against Rochester yesterday, his quarterback quandry and the team's game next week against RPI;

- We will compare and contrast the Division I and Division III sports' atmospheres with 10 Siena College students who attended yesterday's Hobart/Union game;

- James Baker will join us to discuss his view of the Hobart/Union game and look ahead to the second half of the season for all Liberty League teams;

- Frank Rossi, Eric Ren and James Baker will predict next Saturday's three Liberty League contests; and

- We will take your comments in the chat room and questions by telephone throughout the broadcast.

Please join us tonight (Sunday) at 7:30pm EDT on "In the HuddLLe" at http://inthehuddlle.com (two L's).