Didnt he come back for a few plays after the initial injury? Or they just showed him walking back from the locker room?
If he came back that is impressive.
If he came back that is impressive.
Yeah I think you are correct after I looked. Disregard my claim of foul.I don't think the half-the-distance rule applies to DPI.
Edit: This site confirms my interpretation, but I'm not sure how reliable it is.
From the NCAA RuleBook:I don't think the half-the-distance rule applies to DPI.
Edit: This site confirms my interpretation, but I'm not sure how reliable it is.
We're not talking about awarding a TD on a single DPI. I don't think there'd be all that much uproar (I mean, some, yeah, but fairly normal amounts) if Alabama was repeatedly mugging all Clemson's receivers. Or if they committed more normal-looking DPI a couple of times, were warned by the refs, and did it again.Great point. I didn't know about that rule. Have you (or anyone) ever seen it implemented? Doesn't seem "automatic" though if it's at the discretion of the officials to determine whether the fouls are deliberate and repeated. Can you imagine the uproar if the officials awarded a TD on a DPI?
Bill Sattler, director of specialty games for Caesars Entertainment, said Clemson winning in a high-scoring game produced "the worst loss in any college football game I can remember."
Well, I was talking a bout once. And it wouldn't necessarily require "mugging."We're not talking about awarding a TD on a single DPI. I don't think there'd be all that much uproar (I mean, some, yeah, but fairly normal amounts) if Alabama was repeatedly mugging all Clemson's receivers. Or if they committed more normal-looking DPI a couple of times, were warned by the refs, and did it again.
I know.Automatic isn't in the rule...
Gaslighting is ineffectual when there's good documentation.Well, I was talking a bout once.
Alabama could do the DPI thing again. And again.
How can a subjective decision, one that requires an official to decide an act is intentional, no matter how "obvious," be automatic? Seems to me that's like saying holding results in an automatic 10-yard penalty.[/QUOTE]I know.
[QUOTE}...it's in Sumner's post and it's used correctly. Once awarded, as it should've been, it's an automatic TD.
Oh brother. I was originally talking about Alabama doing it once. My "again" comment was in response to someone asking a "what if" about it maybe being necessary twice. I'm not gaslighting. You're taking comments out of context. Go away.Gaslighting is ineffectual when there's good documentation.
Semantic swamp. What's the difference between an automatic and non-automatic TD?No, automatic is modifying the TD, not the decision to award the TD, which is discretionary as the plain language of the rule makes clear. An automatic TD is one the refs, in their discretion, reward the unpenalized team even though they didn't cross the goal line.
You're right. A defensive stop wins the game right there. You'd have to weigh the probability of a defensive stop against the probability of an Alabama overtime win, assuming Clemson would go for a FG on the one-play, untimed down.I think you are discounting the likelihood of a defensive stop. There's got to be SOME probability of that-- incomplete, int, sack. If the receiver gets half a step, and the DB realizes he can't bat the ball ...
In that context? It's obvious. Nobody else had your reading. You call me out for trying to hold you to things you write in terms of odds of this or that, but then turn around on the smartest guy in the room to impose your own idiosyncratic interpretation on something that he didn't write at all.
You talkin' to me?In that context? It's obvious. Nobody else had your reading. You call me out for trying to hold you to things you write in terms of odds of this or that, but then turn around on the smartest guy in the room to impose your own idiosyncratic interpretation on something that he didn't write at all.
You're making a mountain out of a semantic mole hole.This is absurd, you can't be this obtuse to have been as successful as you were.
I'm talking about your repeated misreading of Sumner's use of automatic. That's all. Game's over. Thread's over. Proceed on your own if you wish.
Huh? It was the entire focus of our back-and-forth, over multiple posts:Oh brother. I was originally talking about Alabama doing it once. My "again" comment was in response to someone asking a "what if" about it maybe being necessary twice. I'm not gaslighting. You're taking comments out of context. Go away.
You're missing that you're giving the offense a free chance to try and win the game once they see what's going on. With a solid decision-making QB who can run, like Watson, every time you commit DPI you're giving him a shot to run it into the endzone where nothing bad can happen to him on that play.It's not really about being cleverer. It's about being Belichickian, using the rules to your advantage.
Unless I'm missing something, with short yardage, say inside the three, and only a few seconds left in a game, it's ALWAYS a good idea for defensive backs to commit intentional defensive pass interference.
What's the downside? Half the distance and automatic first down. Half the distance is a mostly meaningless yard or yard-and-half. Automatic first down is totally meaningless if the clock runs out and the offense gets one untimed play.
I never even considered that they might have do it twice until someone else brought it up. But You win. Let it go.Huh? It was the entire focus of our back-and-forth, over multiple posts:
You [bringing up the idea of multiple infractions]: Alabama could do the DPI thing again. And again.
Me [entering to discuss that idea]: That should be an automatic TD awarded to Clemson under Rule 9 Article 3 (b)....b. A team repeatedly commits fouls for which penalties can be enforced only by halving the distance to its goal line...
Good work. Thanks for doing the math.You're missing that you're giving the offense a free chance to try and win the game once they see what's going on. With a solid decision-making QB who can run, like Watson, every time you commit DPI you're giving him a shot to run it into the endzone where nothing bad can happen to him on that play.
Run some numbers and you'll see how the calculus changes. To keep the numbers simple: Let's say that any throwing play to the endzone from inside the 8 yard line, in which the defense plays it straight, you've got a 40% chance of scoring a TD, a 50% chance of an incomplete / failed play, and a 10% chance of an INT. On a hold-everyone defensive playcall, it "works" 80% of the time (no TD, penalty called), and they score anyway 20% of the time. Also, FGs from there are 100%.
With the Tigers at the 3 with 6 seconds left (= 2 plays), against the Tide playing it straight, their odds of winning are 40% TD on this play + (50% of an Incomplete * 50% winning in OT) = 65%.
Whereas, if the Tide do a Harbaugh Hold from the 3 (or the 1, or the 0.5) then the Tigers win the 20% of the time they defeat the playcall, and the rest of the time are left with one untimed down. They can take a 50% chance of victory in overtime, or a 40% chance of winning or losing in one play. Dabo, I think, would take the FG and OT from there, giving him a net 60% of winning. Hey, an improvement for Alabama!
But suppose you're not satisfied with holding him with 6 seconds left. Instead, you go to hold them all again (and the officials don't call an Unfair Act). In fact, suppose you can hold them as many times as you want. Here are the Tigers' win chances:
1x: 20% + (80% * 50%) = 60%
2x: 20% + (80% * (20% + (80% * 50%))) = 68%
3x: 20% + (80% * (20% + (80% * (20% + (80% * 50%))))) = 74.4%
4x: 20% + (80% * (20% + (80% * (20% + (80% * (20% + (80% * 50%))))))) = 79.52%
Every play where you give them some nonzero chance of scoring, and extend the game by one play, without any chance of effective a defensive stop, you are raising the offense's overall chance of winning. And you're raising it by more if you think Clemson had a better than 50% chance to win in OT, or raising it by less if you think the chances of a TD when all receivers are being held is less than 10%, but the directionality is the same either way - better chances for Clemson to win, the more times you do it. You never have upside with that defensive strategy once you're down to the game's final play.
Compare that to the Giants' "send 12 men on the field for every play" tactic on the final drive of SB 46. There, with under a minute left but still plenty of clock to burn, Coughlin was trading 5 yards of penalty for the decreased chances of a big gain on any (unfair) play. It's devious, but it increases his team's chances to win (unless he thinks the odds the refs will call a Patently Unfair Act on the last drive of the super bowl are meaningfully different from zero, which I doubt). Here, you gain some win expectancy if you do it with clock remaining, but once you're down to one play, there's nothing left to gain from it, you can only lose.
Renfrow is a RS sophomore. He's likely to play the next 2 years in college.Amazing game obviously. Moving forward, I hope the Pats take a long look at Leggett and Renfrow as potential TE and slot receiver picks in the draft - Leggett early as a hedge against Gronk not coming back or not resigning Bennett, and Renfrow late or as an UDFA as a possible replacement for Jules expiring 2017 contract
It's a legit statement. Todd McShay posted the following tweet during the game. They were underdogs to some teams for reasons we all understand, but 2 of those below have been Oklahoma the last 2 years, and they pasted them, so they've been pretty good since that WVU OB blowout.Fowler said Clemson "thrives as an underdog". How many times have they been underdogs the last 2 years? Once or twice?
That is pretty amazing. It shouldn't bother me but the fact that the Sooners were favorites over Clemson last year made me nuts. Especially considering Clemson dismantled Oklahoma in a bowl just one year prior by the score of 40-6. And Deshaun was injured, so Cole Stoudt played.It's a legit statement. Todd McShay posted the following tweet during the game. They were underdogs to some teams for reasons we all understand, but 2 of those 6 below have been Oklahoma the last 2 years, etc.
Clemson 5th-year seniors played in 7 "bowl" games. They were underdogs in all 7. They won 6 of 7. Underrated Tigers finally get their due.
Incredibly risky. If that play developed exactly as-is except Renfro was covered and Watson had to throw it away, the clock more than likely expires.Also, in regard to the last play. Hunter told my son the play was one read. If he wasn't open immediately, Deshaun was to throw it away and they would kick the FG. So I would think he would have needed a pretty clear path to the endzone to run it in and risk losing the game.
Paid off, but shocked the first option wasn't Williams. Watching the play again though it's clear it was Hunter or bust.Incredibly risky. If that play developed exactly as-is except Renfro was covered and Watson had to throw it away, the clock more than likely expires.
I think it is when the ball lands. It reminds me of this play:I'll find out what he thinks about the play and how much time a throw away would take. I'm guessing if he throws it in the ground near the feet he has enough time. But if you just airmail it, I don't know. Does clock stop when ball leaves field of play or when it lands? If you airmail it and it has to come down, there is no time left.
The play was a roll-out towards the right. Who beats Watson to the pylon if the DBs tackle the WRs?It's a simple observation. The Alabama defensive backs could have held or hugged (or "mugged" if you prefer) all of the Clemson receivers on at the two yard line (earlier I mistakenly said three) with 00:06 to go and deprived Clemson of one of their two shots at scoring. The downside? Maybe the hug-em and mug-em trick backfires if Clemson runs.
I think that the play is dead as soon as the ball either touches the ground or goes out of bounds. I would think Watson was told to throw it straight into the dirt.I think it is when the ball lands. It reminds me of this play:
What it's like to get leftovers from a southern-school football star after he makes the national championship game winning TD pass? Hell, even I'm curious.I was talking to my son about the play today and he's hanging with Hunter and a few others tonight, so he's gonna find out a few things we're curious about.
I was telling him on the drive home that he should mess with Hunter's GF, tell her that now that Hunt's a legend forever, he'll need to upgrade the GF and that she'll have to work with the newest class of walkons. He doesn't have the heart to mess with her, but I told him it would be an upgrade on the leftovers. That got him thinking.What it's like to get leftovers from a southern-school football star after he makes the national championship game winning TD pass? Hell, even I'm curious.