MIAC in-game updates board

[Teamski]

If ST wins this game, you had better hope that they don't stall next week like they did today in the second quarter.  If MU solves their running game, it will be a long game indeed.  I don't see ST's defense stopping MU outright and ST doesn't seem to have a very diversified offense.  Yeah, this is all early, but seeing how the game transpired with the Linfield defense stopping the Tommies run, it has me concerned. 

-Ski

[SJUrube]

Re: sideline catch

RoyalsFan, I'll take your word for it. What I don't get is how that play, and rule, differs from a catch where the receiver drags a foot before going out of bounds - and occasionally landing on the drag foot.

The difference is that when a receiver drags his foot (which usually means he drags his toes), then in that case his entire foot doesn't come down, just his toes. In that case, it is a catch. That wasn't the case on the play in question.

It's probaly semantics but a dragged foot can end up on the heel w/out the other foot coming down but I see what you mean. I still say i don't understand how toes first, heel second, doesn't count as a catch. Seems like a silly rule, designed to give the refs an easier call.

[RoyalsFan]

If ST wins this game, you had better hope that they don't stall next week like they did today in the second quarter.  If MU solves their running game, it will be a long game indeed.  I don't see ST's defense stopping MU outright and ST doesn't seem to have a very diversified offense.  Yeah, this is all early, but seeing how the game transpired with the Linfield defense stopping the Tommies run, it has me concerned. 

-Ski

Like you said, it is still early and it was just 1 quarter. We will see how UST responds in the second half. If Linfield shuts down UST's offense in the 2nd half then there would be reason for concern, but not right now.

[RoyalsFan]

It's probaly semantics but a dragged foot can end up on the heel w/out the other foot coming down but I see what you mean. I still say i don't understand how toes first, heel second, doesn't count as a catch. Seems like a silly rule, designed to give the refs an easier call.

I'm all in favor of any rule that makes it easier for refs to call. I don't want the refs having to make any more judgement calls than necessary. 

[Teamski]

Probably would be prudent to pull Roberts at this point.  He will be needed next week.

-SKi

[sju56321]

Reminds me of SJU v Dayton-all the turnovers

[D O.C.]

Some program is going to remember that going for two with the game in hand for a long time.

[RoyalsFan]

Some program is going to remember that going for two with the game in hand for a long time.

UST has been going for 2 quite often this year, no matter the score. At least it wasn't a trick play. 

[ExTartanPlayer]

Some program is going to remember that going for two with the game in hand for a long time.

Come on now.  This isn't the same as going for 2 against a Carleton team you're going to beat by 80.  Linfield had scored TD's on two straight drives and was building some momentum; you guys just had a crazy come-from-behind win last week, too.  UST was guarding against the (admittedly long shot but not yet out of bounds) scenario that Linfield would continue the furious rally.  It's a one in a million shot, but imagine how you feel if Linfield scores a couple more times and it's 37-31 with Linfield lining up for one more onside kick...you'd start wondering "Damn, why didn't I go for 2 on that last touchdown?"

Look, I understand that any fan is going to be salty about stuff done against their own team, but as a completely neutral fan with zero dog in this fight who usually keeps a pretty close eye on "sportsmanship" I have zero problem going for 2 there to make your lead an even three touchdowns.

Basically, unless Linfield is going to concede the game and stop trying to come back, St. Thomas is within their rights to continue scoring and secure the win.  If you're going to get pissy about the other team scoring to make sure you don't come back, you have to agree to stop trying to come back.  Take it as a compliment.  The UST staff considered Linfield enough of a threat that they didn't feel safe with a 20-point lead and 5 minutes to play, so they wanted to make it an even 21.

[MIAC23]

Some program is going to remember that going for two with the game in hand for a long time.

Wow, be a little more sensitive. Good move to go for two. Puts you up three TDs. What if by some fluke they need it? And like Royals fan said, they go for two quite a bit.

[Tom Thumb]

Some program is going to remember that going for two with the game in hand for a long time.

Come on now.  This isn't the same as going for 2 against a Carleton team you're going to beat by 80.  Linfield had scored TD's on two straight drives and was building some momentum; you guys just had a crazy come-from-behind win last week, too.  UST was guarding against the (admittedly long shot but not yet out of bounds) scenario that Linfield would continue the furious rally.  It's a one in a million shot, but imagine how you feel if Linfield scores a couple more times and it's 37-31 with Linfield lining up for one more onside kick...you'd start wondering "Damn, why didn't I go for 2 on that last touchdown?"

Look, I understand that any fan is going to be salty about stuff done against their own team, but as a completely neutral fan with zero dog in this fight who usually keeps a pretty close eye on "sportsmanship" I have zero problem going for 2 there to make your lead an even three touchdowns.

Basically, unless Linfield is going to concede the game and stop trying to come back, St. Thomas is within their rights to continue scoring and secure the win.  If you're going to get pissy about the other team scoring to make sure you don't come back, you have to agree to stop trying to come back.  Take it as a compliment.  The UST staff considered Linfield enough of a threat that they didn't feel safe with a 20-point lead and 5 minutes to play, so they wanted to make it an even 21.

Exactly. UST in no way disrespected Linfield by going for two. It just made sense.

[wally_wabash]

Some program is going to remember that going for two with the game in hand for a long time.

The chart says go for two!   

In all seriousness, that wasn't an awful move.  Made some sense actually.  Now, had they play faked for a TD on 4th and goal with 10 seconds left, well, that would have been a reason to go. 

[D O.C.]

OK, OK, you folks that got an A in Football Theory.
Why did they have 20 points after scoring 3 touchdowns?
They went for 2 because they screwed up earlier.
That's why. They screwed up earlier.

[jamtod]

OK, OK, you folks that got an A in Football Theory.
Why did they have 20 points after scoring 3 touchdowns?
They went for 2 because they screwed up earlier.
That's why. They screwed up earlier.

You can call it screwing up, but everyone knows it's a higher risk to go for 2. We've had good luck with it and the coaches make the decision based on the risk-reward.  I'm very happy with my team going for 2 and playing aggressively on the regular, even knowing that it's not going to be successful as often as the kick.  If we can be better than 50% consistently, we're in good shape.

[bluenote]

Why did DOC take hostages?