FB: Liberty League

[stimulator]

I hear you stim and I think you make a valid point. There does have to come a time where an unbeaten team who has handeled buisness so far deserves respect. I do respect RPI really as much as I feel I can. I have disliked that school's athletic teams as far back as I can remember (in a rivalry sense not the players). Last season was the first time I think I ever rooted for the engineers and I felt they really lost to a team that they should have beat. I felt they kind of let down the LL as a whole and made the league look bad because of their poor showing at home. Now I am the first to say I feel Union has done this as well, especially the year before the SJF. I had thought some of my serious comments lately have been giving them more respect than usual. I think it is time where I do give the engineers the respect they deserve and if they are going to be the team to represent the LL than I should get behind them and start sending some spect their way. The have deserved it so far and have not lost their usual "trap" game to SLU or Rochesterl. I think the world of the Robertson kid, he is down right nasty. I don't however think my saying that they would lose to the number #4 team in the nation with an O line avg 300lbs is an insult. Anyway your post is well taken and I think it may be that time for RPI to get some more spect from me because they deserve it. I was just so pissed when they lost to TCNJ last year. I was so sick of hearing how good they were and then to get beat by that team that I believe was not very good at all just hurt. I am a Union guy first but a LL guy a very strong second. The rivalry is just very deep to me ya know. I am still a pumpkin head through next week but it RPI takes down the Bart in a convincing fashion then I am in. I think I will really be a believer and even a solid supporter for the NCAAS.
 

Not really meaning to pick on you dlippiel ... have heard the "who have they played"  - "wait till they play some decent teams then we'll see" argument for a while now from a few sources... .

When they finally lose this year (unless you win the whole thing you eventually will) and the season is over...then  their body of work will be available for scrutiny.  At this point they have as much of reason to brag about their program as anyone else... more than mosty in fact because they have as someone said ...taken care of business as best as they can.

If they.. in order 1) get crushed by Hobart then 2) lose horribly to MMA and finally 3) mail it in against an inferior ECAC opponent (couldn't resist at the risk of waking up that dead horse)

Then all the detractors can do a Dennis Green and all the unconvinced can tell us " they are who we thought they were"!

[Jonny Utah]

I'm guessing that the rules concerning "bad words" are simply definitions of what qualifies as unsportsmanlike conduct.

OTOH, there are specific penalties for specific types of hits.  "Illegal block in the back" comes to mind.  "Roughing the passer," and "roughing the kicker," too.  But there are no penalties that are directed solely to spewing vile racist or anti-semitic or anti-ethnic or anti-establishment speech.

Rule 9 Section 2/a/1

"no player, coach...shall use abusive, threatening or obscene language or gestures or engage in such acts that provoke ill will or are demeaning to an opponent, to game officials or to the image of the game, including but not limited to:......"

Penalty:

"15 yards from succeeding spot.....flagrant offenders, if players or substitutes, shall be disqualified......"

Sounds like its kind of up to the refs to determine what to call and what action to take.

So when the referee turns on his microphone and faces the camera, he announces

"Violation of Rule 9 Section 2/a/1, number 77 on the offense, 15 yards. Repeat first down."

Yea, he does.

No, he doesn't.  He says "unsportsmanlike conduct," just as I guessed.

Nice citation, it made it easy to look it up.

Sorry I thought it was obvious that the unsportsmanlike penalty was called.

[Reno Hightower]

Alright, I guess here comes Mr. Negative.....

Unsportsmanlike penalties are NEVER acceptable....EVER.....Union gets alot and has to get contol of them!!

Racial slurs are unacceptable, but if a an MMA uses them all game, are you going to take a penalty on every play and lose the game!!  I'm sorry my mom has been called names during a game, and I have never thrown a punch.....it's called composure, and if you don't have it....quit the game.

Daltin-Yedlin was a total stud for Union years ago, but during a game, tossed the bird at many Ithaca fans as Union closed out the game.......Utah, true??

Specials killed us again on Saturday......Unsportsmanlikes have killed and embarassed us over the passed 5 years.....cut the crap and play the game like the class program we are......

Congrats to RPI.

(As always  ), I agree wholeheartedly with U89.

It's funny, I've been thinking about all the different rules outlawing hits.  There are general rules, e.g. any hit out of bounds, or any hit after the whistle.  There are specific rules, e.g. helmet-helmet, below the waist downfield, or on the quarterback after he releases the ball.

But there are no rules about bad words.  The only one that comes close is unsportsmanlike conduct, which can properly apply to racist b.s.  But it's up to the officials to enforce all of those rules, not the players.

Im 99% sure there are rules on "bad words".  Its a 15 yard penalty.  But you are right about the officials having to enforce them.  But the rule is there.  I think I was in college when the swear rule was added too. 

I'm guessing that the rules concerning "bad words" are simply definitions of what qualifies as unsportsmanlike conduct.

OTOH, there are specific penalties for specific types of hits.  "Illegal block in the back" comes to mind.  "Roughing the passer," and "roughing the kicker," too.  But there are no penalties that are directed solely to spewing vile racist or anti-semitic or anti-ethnic or anti-establishment speech.

You 2 should be ashamed of yourselves. By the way, I have spoken to several members of the Union O now, all who confirm that it was said.

Way to recruit upstanding individuals Joe King.

[Reno Hightower]

I don't want to respond to Reno's post, however, no posters from RPI ever called anyone from Union "Classless".  Give me a break dude.....

From Lew: "Isn't it the scoreboard that matters? 

FYI - Sounds like Union players and fans turning sour, taking cheap shots.  Can hear psycho lady screaming like someone is stabbing her.  Kinda wish it were true...Audino, show some class and get a grip on your team."

Sounds like King needs to get a hold of his.....and you too.

[Frank Rossi]

And the colts just went for 2 to make it 15-12, Dungy must have Coach King on speed dial.

It's the correct call late in the third quarter -- you're not guaranteed to score again in a game that low-scoring that deep into it.  Midway through the third quarter is when coaches should begin seriously considering going for 2 -- they used to do it in the first half when the "card" existed that directed coaches.  However, people soon realized that you're chasing points too early and can get yourself on the wrong end of the 3/4 point swing if you miss the conversion.

HOWEVER... I don't understand RPI kicking the field goal late in the game, up by 10 already.  The field goal doesn't do much since Union's kicking game could not kick the ball above the front line and thus needed two touchdowns to win either way.  You have the ball on the 7... go for it on 4th down.  If you miss, Union has to drive 93 yards.  If you miss the field goal or it gets blocked, the worst-case scenario for Union is the 20, if not worse.  If you make the field goal, Union gets to run a kickoff return unabated toward midfield and maybe could break it open for a touchdown.  

With just five minutes left, I think the field goal was the wrong call since it was still a two-possession game -- the kickoff was returned to near midfield as a result.

On the other side, I was surprised when Union didn't go for 2 at 12-7.  With a suspect kicking game and late in the third, I think that was a mistake, make or miss on the PAT.

On my way onto the aeroplane back to Miami.  Catch you on the other side.

[redswarm81]

I have spoken to several members of the (unbiased) Union O now, all who confirm that it was said.

Way to recruit upstanding individuals Joe King.

You're accusing Joe King of intentionally recruiting racist a**h*les?

I think that's over the top.

[redswarm81]

Rule 9 Section 2/a/1

"no player, coach...shall use abusive, threatening or obscene language or gestures or engage in such acts that provoke ill will or are demeaning to an opponent, to game officials or to the image of the game, including but not limited to:......"

Penalty:

"15 yards from succeeding spot.....flagrant offenders, if players or substitutes, shall be disqualified......"

Sounds like its kind of up to the refs to determine what to call and what action to take.

So when the referee turns on his microphone and faces the camera, he announces

"Violation of Rule 9 Section 2/a/1, number 77 on the offense, 15 yards. Repeat first down."

Yea, he does.

No, he doesn't.  He says "unsportsmanlike conduct," just as I guessed.

Nice citation, it made it easy to look it up.

Sorry I thought it was obvious that the unsportsmanlike penalty was called.

Right, but my point was that there are rules concerned entirely with hitting--some of them even have hits in the name of the penalty--illegal chop block, for instance.  There are no rules that are concerned entirely with bad words.

I should have explained that more clearly.

[union89]

Wow, Muhlenburg wins against a decent Dickinson team and drops from 4 to 6....hmmmm

[lewdogg11]

Wow, Muhlenburg wins against a decent Dickinson team and drops from 4 to 6....hmmmm

I don't know if i'd call Dickinson 'decent'.  They lost to Hobart, Johns Hopkins, and now Muhlenburg, and Muhlenburg only won by 6.  I don't think it is necessarily Muhlenburg 'dropping', or Millsapps and Whitewater's more impressive wins moving them up.

I think Muhlenburg at 4 was WAY too high.  Honestly, I think Muhlenburg above 15 is high.  Their schedule and results are not impressive enough for top 10.

['gro]

... I don't understand RPI kicking the field goal late in the game, up by 10 already.

I for one was glad they played it safe here (visions of TCNJ in my head). They ate up a ton of clock, made Union use 2 time outs, and put the game a little further out of reach. Union only had one good scoring drive and one big break at that point in the game.

you're not guaranteed to score again in a game that low-scoring that deep into it.  

That's what King must have been thinking about Union. A TD would have really killed them, but I would feel good about a 13 point lead against a team with a horrible kicking game (make them score twice and worry about kicking XPs or going for 2, which are not gimmies).

EDIT: basically, with a 10 point lead if union scores twice you lose at least by 2 (12 points).  With a 13 point lead you get into PAT's -  a known Union weakness, and you take a game tying FG off the table.  Good call Coach King.

[theoriginalupstate]

Wow, Muhlenburg wins against a decent Dickinson team and drops from 4 to 6....hmmmm

I don't know if i'd call Dickinson 'decent'.  They lost to Hobart, Johns Hopkins, and now Muhlenburg, and Muhlenburg only won by 6.  I don't think it is necessarily Muhlenburg 'dropping', or Millsapps and Whitewater's more impressive wins moving them up.

I think Muhlenburg at 4 was WAY too high.  Honestly, I think Muhlenburg above 15 is high.  Their schedule and results are not impressive enough for top 10.

I know its been 4 years since SJF pasted the Mules in the NCAA, but watching that game it was obvious that if the Mules were ranked so highly on D (#1 in NCAA i believe) their conference must be crap.  They couldnt do a thing on offense and their defense was vastly over rated, SJF had 200yds rushing at halftime. 

Honestly the best case scenario for the east would be to have cortland slip up the next two weeks and have the Mules moved to the east for the #1 seed. 

[SJF Fan]

Honestly the best case scenario for the east would be to have cortland slip up the next two weeks and have the Mules moved to the east for the #1 seed. 

Actually no, that would be the worst thing. The NCAA I thought made it clear they want a top team to be the #1 seed in the East. If Cortland wins out, its them, if not, who knows, maybe the move MUC to our bracket again.

[Frank Rossi]

I for one was glad they played it safe here (visions of TCNJ in my head). They ate up a ton of clock, made Union use 2 time outs, and put the game a little further out of reach. Union only had one good scoring drive and one big break at that point in the game.

Not really.  My argument is based on the premise that Union wasn't going to be kicking any field goals Saturday.  Overtime relies too much on kicking and if they were able to get the ball inside the 15 (which would be field goal territory), they still aren't kicking that ball.  You know what secures a victory better than anything?  Adding a possession to your lead.

EDIT: basically, with a 10 point lead if union scores twice you lose at least by 2 (12 points).  With a 13 point lead you get into PAT's -  a known Union weakness, and you take a game tying FG off the table.  Good call Coach King.

Nope.  You're missing the key points from my original post.  First, I'd rather give the ball to my opponent at their own 7- or worse-yard line with a ten-point lead than give them the ball at the 50 with a 13-point lead.  With the state of Division 3 kicking and the new rules this year, midfield is not asking much on a kickoff return.  The field goal also wasn't a gimme -- you risked about the same percentages of having a 10-point lead and giving them the ball on the 20 and/or having it blocked and having a runback of some sort as you did in terms of the percentage of successfully making the FG.

Either way, Union has to make a kick, RPI up 10 or RPI up 13.  That doesn't change.  Up 13, they have to make two extra points to win or one to tie.  Up 10, they have to make an extra point -- and perhaps not even have to worry about the field goal whether or not they make or miss it extra point.  The point is, there will be a pivotal kick either way for Union -- and you also ignore that Union could've opted to go for two after any further touchdowns.  My thought:  Audino would've gone for the win at RPI if he had been in a position to choose between overtime and an instant win/loss.

You risked a lot more on a kickoff return than you did going for it on 4th down that deep.  It was not the "safe" call.

[lewdogg11]

I for one was glad they played it safe here (visions of TCNJ in my head). They ate up a ton of clock, made Union use 2 time outs, and put the game a little further out of reach. Union only had one good scoring drive and one big break at that point in the game.

Not really.  My argument is based on the premise that Union wasn't going to be kicking any field goals Saturday.  Overtime relies too much on kicking and if they were able to get the ball inside the 15 (which would be field goal territory), they still aren't kicking that ball.  You know what secures a victory better than anything?  Adding a possession to your lead.

EDIT: basically, with a 10 point lead if union scores twice you lose at least by 2 (12 points).  With a 13 point lead you get into PAT's -  a known Union weakness, and you take a game tying FG off the table.  Good call Coach King.

Nope.  You're missing the key points from my original post.  First, I'd rather give the ball to my opponent at their own 7- or worse-yard line with a ten-point lead than give them the ball at the 50 with a 13-point lead.  With the state of Division 3 kicking and the new rules this year, midfield is not asking much on a kickoff return.  The field goal also wasn't a gimme -- you risked about the same percentages of having a 10-point lead and giving them the ball on the 20 and/or having it blocked and having a runback of some sort as you did in terms of the percentage of successfully making the FG.

Either way, Union has to make a kick, RPI up 10 or RPI up 13.  That doesn't change.  Up 13, they have to make two extra points to win or one to tie.  Up 10, they have to make an extra point -- and perhaps not even have to worry about the field goal whether or not they make or miss it extra point.  The point is, there will be a pivotal kick either way for Union -- and you also ignore that Union could've opted to go for two after any further touchdowns.  My thought:  Audino would've gone for the win at RPI if he had been in a position to choose between overtime and an instant win/loss.

You risked a lot more on a kickoff return than you did going for it on 4th down that deep.  It was not the "safe" call.

Maybe RPI just thoguth they would give it a practice run for the playoffs this year, so they can kick the field goal instead of going for it???  Maybe it had nothing to do with Union at all...

[Frank Rossi]

Maybe RPI just thoguth they would give it a practice run for the playoffs this year, so they can kick the field goal instead of going for it???  Maybe it had nothing to do with Union at all...

Ouch -- You and RS81 love to beat that dead horse -- except you're much funnier at it.