Toggle sidebar

Dear Dan Mullen, can you fire up your football team like this...

D

DamnitDog

Redshirt
Aug 7, 2008
1,123
0
0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXE-Wc9pUZQ

This is coach Mark Hudspeth pre-game speech minutes before ULL kick off last year against SDSU, in which they won the game on a last second 50 yard field goal. Does Mullen have the balls to talk, motivate and be intense like this? I hope I'm proven wrong but I doubt it, but we shall see tomorrow night versus LSU.

Sadly, I'm expecting another loss by Mullen and his coaching staff who have become fat and happy with mediocre football. Plus, we are on the verge of becoming worse than mediocre and gradually headed to the bottom of the SEC West yet again and maybe the bottom of the SEC with Kentucky. Again, I hope I am wrong.
 
W

WrapItDog

Senior
Aug 23, 2012
4,300
715
113
I would like to see Dan get a little fired up on the side line as well, like the Iowa State coach**


 
Last edited:
DawgatAuburn

DawgatAuburn

All-Conference
Apr 25, 2006
11,007
1,865
113
You didn't think it was clear that the RB was not down, he had not been ruled down, and the play had not been blown dead prior to the ISU player gaining possession?

 
D

DAWG61

Redshirt
Feb 26, 2008
10,111
0
0
DawgatAuburn said:
You didn't think it was clear that the RB was not down, he had not been ruled down, and the play had not been blown dead prior to the ISU player gaining possession?
Click to expand...

I would of overturned it but I also wouldn't have blown the whistle and I would of let the defender score. The problem was they stopped the play. The call was that his progress had been stopped and there wasn't enough to say it was "indisputable evidence". It's a ****** call but ISU had plenty of chances to beat the worst Texas team I've ever seen. To get on the podium and throw a temper tantrum about the call is weak sauce imo.
 
D

drt7891

Redshirt
Dec 6, 2010
6,727
0
0
Ok, here's my thoughts. It is clear the ball comes out, no one disputes that. Honestly, he most likely lost control of the ball before he was tackled and went to the ground. HOWEVER, there is no clear point where you can 100% tell when the RB lost control of the ball. The ISU guy could be pulling on it all day but until the RB fully loses possession, it's not a turnover. The running back was clearly on his way to the ground when the ball supposedly came out, but you cannot see him lose control of the ball and determine exactly when that point is relative to the point the RB is declared down by rule. Much like a crime, this ruling carries a precedent of overturning the call... and that precedent is indisputable evidence. The evidence here is unfortunately disputable.

I would not have reversed the call and actually said during the game "this call will stand" based on those reasons... and the call did stand on those reasons (the call was not confirmed... it stood as ruled on the field). Iowa State is the victim of poor camera angles.
 
Last edited:
D

drt7891

Redshirt
Dec 6, 2010
6,727
0
0
They reviewed the play. If there was a whistle to stop forward progress, they would not have even looked at the call.

The example below is from the NFL, but the rule is the same for NCAA. There was a whistle in this example that stopped forward progress, so the play could not be reviewed... there was no whistle in the game last night.

 
Last edited:
D

DAWG61

Redshirt
Feb 26, 2008
10,111
0
0
There was a whistle. You could hear it during the replay and the announcers made a point of it. It didn't get reversed because like you said for the refs to reverse it they MUST stay with the call on the field if its anything less than 100% indisputable evidence. This happens on atleast 25% of all reviews. The reversal carries the burden of 100% proof. Maybe there's a better way but until they figure that out we'll continue to see nonreversals on plays that still leave some doubt.
 
D

drt7891

Redshirt
Dec 6, 2010
6,727
0
0
I didn't hear the whistle, but if it was in fact blown, then that play should not have even been reviewed. Just like in the example video, the NCAA does not allow reviews (and shouldn't allow reviews) of plays where forward progress is stopped and a whistle is blown.
 
D

DAWG61

Redshirt
Feb 26, 2008
10,111
0
0
drt7891 said:
I didn't hear the whistle, but if it was in fact blown, then that play should not have even been reviewed. Just like in the example video, the NCAA does not allow reviews (and shouldn't allow reviews) of plays where forward progress is stopped and a whistle is blown.
Click to expand...

That's what made the review even more confusing. About one second after the ISU player has the ball you can clearly hear two whistles in the replay. I thought the refs were supposed to swallow their whistles during potential turnovers for this reason. I think they've tweaked that rule. I did learn a new rule on the 2nd to last play where the ISU recievers foot knocked over the pylon before going out of bounds. He was ruled out of bounds. Had he touched the pylon with the ball it would've been a touchdown. Makes me want to look at the Ballard leap vs Auburn again. On second thought, no thanks.
 
D

drt7891

Redshirt
Dec 6, 2010
6,727
0
0
No, to my knowledge (at least in high school), we are not taught or told to not blow the whistle on potential turnovers, in fact, it's the opposite. They tell us for player safety, once forward progress has been clearly stopped, blow the play dead and rush in with the spot and help stop the play to prevent injury. If there was a whistle stopping forward progress, the play should have never been reviewed because it is causes too much confusion over when the play actually stops (because players will naturally let up when the whistle is blown) and trying to determine the point of a fumble/recovery around the time the whistle's blown is almost impossible.

Now, with that said, the RB was still somewhat falling forward and I probably would not have blown my whistle there. If he was clearly stuffed and his forward momentum was beyond neutralized, yes, but he was still fighting to move forward and I probably would have let play continue. Even then, they still wouldn't have gotten around the issue of the camera angles, so I don't know that it could have been reversed.
 
ChinaDogSunflower

ChinaDogSunflower

Junior
Aug 26, 2012
1,659
219
63
Wow! Great speech!

I find it funny that your thread got derailed about the forward progress rule. That is why we settle for (less than) mediocrity. You bring up a great point and people get caught up talking about a past game that didn't involve OUR team.

Dan cannot be that intense, judging by OUR on-field product. He speaks calmly, "Trust yourself and trust the man next to you..." I sure hope we win tonight, but the cynic in me is thinking Mullen will yet again find a way to lose one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.