FB: Liberty League

[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.)

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 . . . .

I wasn't talking about the call/non-call in the Union-Hobart game.  The refs clearly blew it if there were 12 men on the field and they didn't penalize the team for illegal participation.  I was talking about the Illegal Substitution rule itself.

Defensive players (in excess of 11) have to be off the field before the snap.  That used to be the entire rule, for offensive and defensive players.  I don't see anything lacking in that rule.  Each team is only permitted to play with 11 players, so if the play begins when there are 12 men on the field, a penalty has occurred.  Throw the flag, and give the harmed team the option of accepting or refusing the penalty, as with any other penalty.

How is the game improved by prohibiting the offense from substituting after they break the huddle, or "when they approach the line for a play" (whenever that is)?  For that matter, what harm is inflicted on the defense when a substitution is made after the offense breaks the huddle?  Why does a penalty need to be assessed before the play?  There is no possibility of damage or harm being inflicted on the opposing team before the ball is snapped, so why deny the offending team the ability to remedy the situation before the snap?

[dlippiel]

Here is something dlip noticed yesterday; every time Bart punted (and did not fake) the punter held the ball for at least 4-8 sec (dlip counted) before punting. At this time dlip and co noticed that Barts O-line was like half-way down the field before the punter actually punted. Isn't that illegal? They did this everytime? If not it seemed very smart and beneficial as long as Union wasn't attempting to block the punt, which were did not.

[Frank Rossi]

Here is something dlip noticed yesterday; every time Bart punted (and did not fake) the punter held the ball for at least 4-8 sec (dlip counted) before punting. At this time dlip and co noticed that Barts O-line was like half-way down the field before the punter actually punted. Isn't that illegal? They did this everytime? If not it seemed very smart and beneficial as long as Union wasn't attempting to block the punt, which were did not.

Only if he throws in that situation.  The second fake was a run because he recognized that it would've been an illegal man downfield penalty at that point.  If it's a running play, there is no penalty for illegal men downfield.  I do not believe that in a kick situation in college, the same penalty can be called if the play actually ends up being a kick.

[Saxon73]

Here is something dlip noticed yesterday; every time Bart punted (and did not fake) the punter held the ball for at least 4-8 sec (dlip counted) before punting. At this time dlip and co noticed that Barts O-line was like half-way down the field before the punter actually punted. Isn't that illegal? They did this everytime? If not it seemed very smart and beneficial as long as Union wasn't attempting to block the punt, which were did not.

Only if he throws in that situation.  The second fake was a run because he recognized that it would've been an illegal man downfield penalty at that point.  If it's a running play, there is no penalty for illegal men downfield.  I do not believe that in a kick situation in college, the same penalty can be called if the play actually ends up being a kick.

Frank,  Had to read this one a couple times but understand what you meant to say. If it is a running play there are no illegal men downfield.  No harm intended just like to catch you once in a while.  I worked for a man named Rossi once and you are much nicer.  I almost went to Union and have a brother who did.  Plus as a note of History, the instructors who started the Alfred School were Union graduates.  Best Wishes  

[JT]

The kid in Denver can coach, but Mangini still sucks and JT is glad he's Cleveland's burden.

[wildcat11]

Wanted to share a video with the LL'ers that I think you'll like.  A streaker hit the Linfield at Whitworth game this weekend and Wildcat11 was able to capture the action.  Enjoy!

ADvantage Catdome Linfield extends the streak and the crowd was streaked at Whitworth

[Doid23]

The kid in Denver can coach, but Mangini still sucks and JT is glad he's Cleveland's burden.

God, I hate Mangini. Just looking at him get's me going. Between having to see Mangini today and Carl Pavano shutting down the Yankees, well, I'm just glad Rich Kotite didn't show up somewhere or it would have put me over the edge.

I haven't had a chance to look over any old posts yet, did anybody talk about the calls in the Hobart-Union game?

[redswarm81]

Wanted to share a video with the LL'ers that I think you'll like.  A streaker hit the Linfield at Whitworth game this weekend and Wildcat11 was able to capture the action.  Enjoy!

ADvantage Catdome Linfield extends the streak and the crowd was streaked at Whitworth

It is nice to know that some things never go out of style.  No school like the old school. (3:10)

[PBR...]

careful...all u fools that bought a snuggie...

http://www.consumersearch.com/blog/the-snuggie-rebate-scam

[pumkinattack]

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, "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.

You should have left it with your technical analysis, which is hard to argue with (regarding the PI calls) even if there is a different persepctive, but to infuse moral relativism with respect to it evening out (which I don't think is the case considering 23 yards to 103 yards of calls and a picked up flag on that same series) and even bring up a game from 2004 only dilutes the case that the outcome was fairly apportioned and leaves an even worse taste in my mouth.  I knew someone would defend the officiating and didn't want to debate this, because frankly, Hobart made some critical mistakes, which if they hadn't they still would have won the game, but I still hate reading this stuff.  I've been a big critic of this type of debating forever (I always argued that the defenders of Clinton screwewd bu by saying, "well others do it too", as opposed to not dignifying the reaction with a response), so its a pet peeve.  Bottom line, Union won.  They sure will have to improve a ton on defense if they want to win a first round playoff game.  Hobart's running game, which everyone thought was garbage (I don't, personally think Marlier can be every bit as good as Coney, Paveletz and Onyriuka with reasonable playcallinng, but expect that I'm  in the minority), completely shredded Unions Dline right up the gut.  Practically 5 yards per play on order even wen they knew it was coming.  Hobart needs to have someone else calling the plays, bottom line.  DeWall's to smart by a mile and it's hurting the team.  

[dlippiel]

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, "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.

You should have left it with your technical analysis, which is hard to argue with (regarding the PI calls) even if there is a different persepctive, but to infuse moral relativism with respect to it evening out (which I don't think is the case considering 23 yards to 103 yards of calls and a picked up flag on that same series) and even bring up a game from 2004 only dilutes the case that the outcome was fairly apportioned and leaves an even worse taste in my mouth.  I knew someone would defend the officiating and didn't want to debate this, because frankly, Hobart made some critical mistakes, which if they hadn't they still would have won the game, but I still hate reading this stuff.  I've been a big critic of this type of debating forever (I always argued that the defenders of Clinton screwewd bu by saying, "well others do it too", as opposed to not dignifying the reaction with a response), so its a pet peeve.  Bottom line, Union won.  They sure will have to improve a ton on defense if they want to win a first round playoff game.  Hobart's running game, which everyone thought was garbage (I don't, personally think Marlier can be every bit as good as Coney, Paveletz and Onyriuka with reasonable playcallinng, but expect that I'm  in the minority), completely shredded Unions Dline right up the gut.  Practically 5 yards per play on order even wen they knew it was coming.  Hobart needs to have someone else calling the plays, bottom line.  DeWall's to smart by a mile and it's hurting the team.  

dlip thinks all they needed to do pa is continue running the ****in ball. dlip and his posse on the hill were smiling like slicked piggies when the play calls went away from the run. dlip does not feel Marlier is on Coney's level but feels he is very good and consistent. Hats off to Barts O-line as well. The push and holes they created were fantastic. dlip feels you are very right about Union's D. They must improve for this team to grow and be successful throughout the rest of the 09 campaign and possible post season. After the game dlip was very critical of Union's performance (back a few posts) for the reason of looking at the Dutch as a potential NCAA team. Lots of improvement needed but in any case it was a big W for the U and a very hard fought game for Bart. dlip's respect for Bart is very high and always has been. Also have to say that Frank's reference to the 04' game is (in dlips mind) appropriate when looking at the officiating. If one was to blame the outcome of Sat on officiating alone than 04 was clearly highway robbery and an applicable response. dlip was also very critical of the officiating on Sat and agrees that Bart got the worst of it. Bottom line the officiating in the LL is many times, poor and unorganized, so teams MUST make proper adjustments. We have all lived and died by it.

[pumkinattack]

Dlip (already threw you a K earlier, but would give you one for this),

I didn't blame the loss on the officiating, but did feel like it took away Bart's opportunity to have the ball with +/- 4min in a 3pt game to TRY to tie or go ahead.  They were behind, and made too many mistakes and that's why Bart lost (plus sh***y playcalling).  That being said, I don't believe it's ever right to justify one f**kup by pointing to another one that went the other way.  My point was that I can't necessarily argue with perspective (e.g. did contact justify PI?), but when you hear someone saying (not explicitly, but this is the implication) "well, it's ok if that was a bad call because there were bad calls that went against us".  A bad call is a bad call.  Union isn't going to give back this game just like Bart won't give '04's back (if that's the case, I was at the game in the stands, but couldn't see the goal line from the stands in midfield, so I took our cheering as meaning we stopped them), but that doesn't excuse either call(s). 

[bart37]

Dlip (already threw you a K earlier, but would give you one for this),

I didn't blame the loss on the officiating, but did feel like it took away Bart's opportunity to have the ball with +/- 4min in a 3pt game to TRY to tie or go ahead.  They were behind, and made too many mistakes and that's why Bart lost (plus sh***y playcalling).  That being said, I don't believe it's ever right to justify one f**kup by pointing to another one that went the other way.  My point was that I can't necessarily argue with perspective (e.g. did contact justify PI?), but when you hear someone saying (not explicitly, but this is the implication) "well, it's ok if that was a bad call because there were bad calls that went against us".  A bad call is a bad call.  Union isn't going to give back this game just like Bart won't give '04's back (if that's the case, I was at the game in the stands, but couldn't see the goal line from the stands in midfield, so I took our cheering as meaning we stopped them), but that doesn't excuse either call(s). 

Excellent analogy pumpkinattack...and I agree w/you totally.Bad calls are just bad calls PERIOD!!!We`ll meet again @ the `Boz next season.Meanwhile ,look for the pumpkin` heads to roll against their remaining opponents.Those boyz have too much class and pride for any other outcome than winning out.Go `Bart!!!

[PBR...]

anyone else notice that denvers throw back uni's yesterday kinda looked like rowan? phew they were some f'ugly uni's and color the broncos had on...

[AUPepBand]

anyone else notice that denvers throw back uni's yesterday kinda looked like rowan? phew they were some f'ugly uni's and color the broncos had on...

Pep doesn't remember those throwback uni's...they should have left them in the trash. Pep is wondering if the color could best be described as "Bronco Dung"?

Nevertheless, the Broncos played like Rowan when the Profs were the Beast of the East...great win for 5-0 Denver!