Advertising

Bama vs Clemson
Bama in a blow out
2
25%
Bama, but it's close
2
25%
Clemson in a romp
0
No votes
Clemson, but it's close
1
13%
F 'em both!
3
38%
 
Total votes : 8

Re: Clemson vs Bama

Postby auroraave on Tue Jan 10, 2017 11:11 am

Was anyone else happy to see Sark back in the saddle? I thought he called a pretty good game. He looks healthier, too - not all drunk-bloated.
 
Posts: 4362
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 4:19 pm
Location: Beverly Hills, CA

Re: Clemson vs Bama

Postby D-Trains on Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:09 pm

kc26 wrote:
D-Trains wrote:
kc26 wrote:Question .............. While it had no ultimate affect on the outcome of the game .......... when an onside kick is performed with one second remaining in the game, how is it possible that time does not run out?

Only possible thing I can think of is that it is being ruled that the touching of the ball and full control/possession happened instantaneously (which I find very hard to believe). Anyone else have a clue?


If a players knee is down when they gain possession it is a dead ball and the clock doesn't start. btw I posed these questions on the Hawks forum earlier.

Leaving 1 second on the clock sure made for an anti climactic finish. And if dude would have dropped the ball in the end zone would have time run out and Clemson lost? :shock: Also wtf was the Alabama kickoff team doing on the subsequent onside kick?? If they recover it they have a hail Mary shot with 1 second left from the 46 yard line. Oh wait Hail Mary's never work, just ask Aaron Rodgers.


The key being "gains possession". Not sure how you can say the instant the ball was touched full possession existed.

I suppose on a fair catch assuming no bobble I could imagine it. Not so much on a bouncing onside kick though.


Well that is obviously the rule since they reviewed and didn't start the clock. Hard to believe they don't know the rule.

dt
 
Posts: 48720
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2013 9:31 am
Location: Kirkland, WA

Re: Clemson vs Bama

Postby Michael K 2 on Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:22 pm

You have to feel for Scarborogh. The guy was about to burst on the scene, only to break his leg in the middle of the 3rd quarter. The entire game changed. I am still left to wonder "what if?"

Bo broke our back....down 17 to 7 he was the one that clawed them out of the shadow of their own goal. Without him, in the same situation, Bama punted it back to Clemson, it was a terrible punt, and the next thing you know it was 17-14 and the momentum had shifted. In our game? The next thing we knew, Bo was running wild and we were down 24-7.

Clemson, while a good team, probably better than us, losses last night if Bo doesn't break his leg. That defense was on the field too long. That wouldn't have been the case because they would have continued to feed Bo. It was interesting watching the Channel with all the coaches and the All 22 view. They kept talking about Bo, and how things would change without him. It sure did.

Which leads me to this....is it time to stop all the stoppages? Does the clock really need to stop on EVERY 1st down? I get it inside the 4 minute mark or so of each half, but Clemson ran 90 plays and the game took over 4 hours! In the Pro game they don't even stop the ball ever time you go out of bounds until late in the 2nd and 4th quarters. On every first down!? That was a great game, but for a non OT game to last over 4 hours?

The clock stoppage is a HUGE disadvantage for teams like Bama and us, I think.
 
Posts: 6444
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Wenatchee, WA

Re: Clemson vs Bama

Postby kc26 on Tue Jan 10, 2017 1:17 pm

Which leads me to this....is it time to stop all the stoppages? Does the clock really need to stop on EVERY 1st down? I get it inside the 4 minute mark or so of each half, but Clemson ran 90 plays and the game took over 4 hours! In the Pro game they don't even stop the ball ever time you go out of bounds until late in the 2nd and 4th quarters. On every first down!? That was a great game, but for a non OT game to last over 4 hours?


I like the first down clock stoppages and wish they did it in the NFL, but I also agree that it could be just in the last 4 minutes of each half. As far as the NFL goes, I would say get rid of the 2 minute warning and then have clock stopping on first downs inside of 4 minutes. Only problem with that is the loss of money making commercial time.
 
Posts: 10392
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 12:48 am
Location: bothell, WA

Re: Clemson vs Bama

Postby Michael K 2 on Tue Jan 10, 2017 1:40 pm

kc26 wrote:
Which leads me to this....is it time to stop all the stoppages? Does the clock really need to stop on EVERY 1st down? I get it inside the 4 minute mark or so of each half, but Clemson ran 90 plays and the game took over 4 hours! In the Pro game they don't even stop the ball ever time you go out of bounds until late in the 2nd and 4th quarters. On every first down!? That was a great game, but for a non OT game to last over 4 hours?


I like the first down clock stoppages and wish they did it in the NFL, but I also agree that it could be just in the last 4 minutes of each half. As far as the NFL goes, I would say get rid of the 2 minute warning and then have clock stopping on first downs inside of 4 minutes. Only problem with that is the loss of money making commercial time.


That is pretty much what I said. Do they really need to stop the clock to set the chains after a first down with 12 minutes left in the first quarter?
 
Posts: 6444
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Wenatchee, WA

Re: Clemson vs Bama

Postby Michael K 2 on Tue Jan 10, 2017 1:41 pm

auroraave wrote:Was anyone else happy to see Sark back in the saddle? I thought he called a pretty good game. He looks healthier, too - not all drunk-bloated.


I was surprised to realize I was happy for him. And yes, he did look much healthier. I wonder if it will continue? I would imagine if you are used to dealing with stressful situations by drinking....coaching for Nick Saben and NOT drinking might be a challenge! :lol:
 
Posts: 6444
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Wenatchee, WA

Re: Clemson vs Bama

Postby kc26 on Tue Jan 10, 2017 10:42 pm

Michael K 2 wrote:

That is pretty much what I said. Do they really need to stop the clock to set the chains after a first down with 12 minutes left in the first quarter?


And I totally agree with that.

I guess I was unclear on whether you like stopping the clock after first downs inside of 4 minutes or were just willing to accept that. I like it because it puts more control in the hands of the offense and takes it away from the referees speed in setting the ball and moving the chains. There should be no need to stop the clock on first downs outside of 4 minutes, and I think that is a good number you came up with. If you are in hurry up mode before four minutes, it is because you did not take care of business prior to that and are down by more than one score.
 
Posts: 10392
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 12:48 am
Location: bothell, WA

Re: Clemson vs Bama

Postby auroraave on Wed Jan 11, 2017 10:31 am

Michael K 2 on Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:22 pm

You have to feel for Scarborogh. The guy was about to burst on the scene, only to break his leg in the middle of the 3rd quarter. The entire game changed. I am still left to wonder "what if?"


While I feel for Bo, there is no reason it should have affected Bama - I mean, c'mon, is thre a team in college football that has a deeper roster, better recruiting classes than they do? They have a ridiculous stable of backs to draw from - if they cannot overcome that - they don't deserve to win. They have more talent on that roster than any other team in college - possibly even Cleveland/SF. can't make excuses for Bama - UW lost top two defensive players on a much less talented roster - no one cried for them.

Clemson simply took it to bam - challenged them, and won. They went vertical - a necessity vs a team that has thesideline-to sideline speed like they do.
 
Posts: 4362
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 4:19 pm
Location: Beverly Hills, CA

Re: Clemson vs Bama

Postby Captain 97 on Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:31 pm

auroraave wrote:
Michael K 2 on Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:22 pm

You have to feel for Scarborogh. The guy was about to burst on the scene, only to break his leg in the middle of the 3rd quarter. The entire game changed. I am still left to wonder "what if?"


While I feel for Bo, there is no reason it should have affected Bama - I mean, c'mon, is thre a team in college football that has a deeper roster, better recruiting classes than they do? They have a ridiculous stable of backs to draw from - if they cannot overcome that - they don't deserve to win. They have more talent on that roster than any other team in college - possibly even Cleveland/SF. can't make excuses for Bama - UW lost top two defensive players on a much less talented roster - no one cried for them.

Clemson simply took it to bam - challenged them, and won. They went vertical - a necessity vs a team that has thesideline-to sideline speed like they do.


And used illegal pick plays.
 
Posts: 6966
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:10 am
Location: stanwood, WA

Re: Clemson vs Bama

Postby Captain 97 on Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:32 pm

auroraave wrote:Was anyone else happy to see Sark back in the saddle? I thought he called a pretty good game. He looks healthier, too - not all drunk-bloated.


Really,
I thought it was his play calling that let Clemson back in the game. They should have been controlling clock in the second half and for some reason he was taking shots 30 yards down the field.
 
Posts: 6966
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:10 am
Location: stanwood, WA

PreviousNext

Return to Husky Football

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Advertising