(10-06-2014 11:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: Now I have a real question for all you know-it-alls. What should Rice have done differently to handle their punting? More rushers? Less? What?
IMHO, I'd make sure you have the fake covered and sell out to rush the punter. To me, it's not worth the risk to field those punts.
(10-07-2014 12:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: On a different subject. Does anyone know how it came to be called rugby punt? I coach rugby, and that's not how we kick the ball.
True rugby punts are on the 1/2 volley, right? I wouldn't try that with an American football... maybe the idea derived from Rugby, but they modified it so as not to rely on the bounce.
Don't go telling this guy not to try the 1/2 volley in American football.
eh... forgot that was a thing. What would happen if you tried to kick on the 1/2 volley from your own 30? Would it be like a failed FG attempt, or would the other team take over where the ball dies? It seems to me that the rules are ambiguous (rule 9, rule 11)
Regardless, I try not to make a practice of telling successful people what they can or can't do.
(10-07-2014 01:21 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: I think we DID practice them which is why Callahan came up to field that one... but he was hit as he tried to field it and lost the ball.
In other words, it seems they may have practiced against teams that practice against their punting.... so we adjusted and let a few bounce... and then adjusted again and put as I recall 2-3 guys back there to field them without bouncing.
Notice that we didn't give up a fake OR just let him stand back there either... I'd say we practiced against it.... but so did they.
I think they did fine on that.
We had two returners back there from the very first punt. It is a little insulting to the staff to suggest that we did not practice for it, given that he has been their punter all year and that is what they do. Some of those are tough to call as a returner- you want to field it so it doesn't bounce forever but it is taking tricky bounces (not to mention that the punt team is on you quickly because of how long he holds it).
I don't blame Callahan for trying to make a play. He was being aggressive and just got burned.
It would seem a reasonable approach for these Aussie style punts would be to position the returners up, as we did after the first punt, with instructions to fair catch the punt if possible, which I believe we did once or maybe that was another game I watched this weekend? Who knows, I've slept since then. Anyway, if the fair catch is made, you should have relatively good field position since the flight distance isn't that far. You also have the possibility of a defender interfering with the fair catch and drawing a flag.
If the fair catch is not possible stay away from it with all the defenders already downfield in your face.
Do/can these types of punters alternate styles? In other words, if they see the returners up, do/can they just punt it away straight on?
(10-07-2014 04:46 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote: Do/can these types of punters alternate styles? In other words, if they see the returners up, do/can they just punt it away straight on?
I think we do this. Farrimond can certainly do both.
I think the Hawaii guy does not... but he probably runs longer or different directions if you don't come after him.
(10-07-2014 04:46 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote: It would seem a reasonable approach for these Aussie style punts would be to position the returners up, as we did after the first punt, with instructions to fair catch the punt if possible, which I believe we did once or maybe that was another game I watched this weekend? Who knows, I've slept since then. Anyway, if the fair catch is made, you should have relatively good field position since the flight distance isn't that far. You also have the possibility of a defender interfering with the fair catch and drawing a flag.
I think there was one muffed punt and one fair catch, and that was when the punter kicked the ball straight to the returner.
To me, it is not worth the risk of having someone back there at all. I'd rather send an extra player after the punter to try to disrupt or contain him on the line.
(10-07-2014 05:01 PM)Pan95 Wrote: Regarding the ambidextrous rugby punter: he is a great weapon and will probably win a game or two for Hawaii.
Also I don't think that the Hawaii team is awful. They have talent and good coaching.
If he's really ambidextrous in his kicking, he didn't show it to us. In our game, he rolled out to his right on every single punt, and punted with his right foot.
(10-07-2014 05:01 PM)Pan95 Wrote: Regarding the ambidextrous rugby punter: he is a great weapon and will probably win a game or two for Hawaii.
Also I don't think that the Hawaii team is awful. They have talent and good coaching.
If he's really ambidextrous in his kicking, he didn't show it to us. In our game, he rolled out to his right on every single punt, and punted with his right foot.
Not true. He punted left-footed one time.
And my strategy against rugby punts would be to put two sure-handed/football savvy players back there (like we did) and have them go get the ball safely (no in-between hops). You're saving 10 or 20 yards of field position - rules 1-9 would be not to fumble. Rule 10 would be to gain some yards if you can. I realize we fumbled on our first try, but I loved the fact that we were actually trying to be aggressive. Since it didn't work out, of course we went back to our normal ultra-conservative mode and let the ball roll 10-20 yards each time.
(10-07-2014 05:01 PM)Pan95 Wrote: Regarding the ambidextrous rugby punter: he is a great weapon and will probably win a game or two for Hawaii.
Also I don't think that the Hawaii team is awful. They have talent and good coaching.
If he's really ambidextrous in his kicking, he didn't show it to us. In our game, he rolled out to his right on every single punt, and punted with his right foot.
Umm - no. His first punt of the second half was done rolling to the left. The commentators even said that was his first to the left in the game.
(10-06-2014 03:23 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote: Put a bit differently, despite winning the past two games, we are performing below expectations (or at least the expectations of most fans and pundits alike)...and that home loss to ODU was almost as bad as the Nichols State debacle. Consequently, why should we be "happy" with eking out a win at home against a team we are signficantly superior to talent wise? This team has underperformed badly the past 3 weeks, and the reality that we won two of those games does not change that fact. Certainly, from the quotes coming out of today's presser, the players recognize they have a long way to go to play at the standard expected of them and which they set for themselves.
One of the reasons I came up with the Massey performance rating schtick was to answer questions about how good (or bad) a win (or loss) was, using a standard evaluation procedure rather than relying on one's vivid impressions which could be colored by all sorts of emotional reactions. I crunched the numbers for last weekend's action, and here's what comes up: the Hawai'i game was the second-best of the season, just trailing the preceding game against Southern Mississippi (51.12 and 51.90, respectively). It would seem that the Owls' performance is improving as of late. Also, if you use the Massey ratings themselves to calculate the probability of winning games, as of now Rice is predicted to have won 2.49 games, so we're about half a game behind where we should be (we should've held Old Dominion to a tie!).
Incidentally, in the David Bailiff era there are 11 games below the rating of 15.44 that the Nicholls State game of 2007 got and 30 below the 29.38 that this year's ODU game got.
(10-07-2014 11:20 PM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote: One of the reasons I came up with the Massey performance rating schtick was to answer questions about how good (or bad) a win (or loss) was, using a standard evaluation procedure rather than relying on one's vivid impressions which could be colored by all sorts of emotional reactions. I crunched the numbers for last weekend's action, and here's what comes up: the Hawai'i game was the second-best of the season, just trailing the preceding game against Southern Mississippi (51.12 and 51.90, respectively). It would seem that the Owls' performance is improving as of late. Also, if you use the Massey ratings themselves to calculate the probability of winning games, as of now Rice is predicted to have won 2.49 games, so we're about half a game behind where we should be (we should've held Old Dominion to a tie!).
Incidentally, in the David Bailiff era there are 11 games below the rating of 15.44 that the Nicholls State game of 2007 got and 30 below the 29.38 that this year's ODU game got.
What is the worst game? Heck, what are the 11 worse?
(10-07-2014 12:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: On a different subject. Does anyone know how it came to be called rugby punt? I coach rugby, and that's not how we kick the ball.
True rugby punts are on the 1/2 volley, right? I wouldn't try that with an American football... maybe the idea derived from Rugby, but they modified it so as not to rely on the bounce.
You have a number of different kicks in rugby. Remember, there is no forward passing, but a kick is a free ball for every player who is onside, so kick and chase replaces the forward pass.
The drop kick (what I think you mean by half volley) is used two places--1) restarts, including the kickoff to start the half and after each score, and from inside your own 22-meter line following what would be a touchback in football, and 2) to kick a field goal in open play. In 7s (seven players on a team), the drop kick is also used for conversions and attempts at penalty goals (those are place kicks in 15s).
There is a running punt, but you run forward, not sideways before punting it. You would typically either boom it for distance or kick it high enough to give the kicker time to run down and catch. You can also kick it into a gap in the defensive secondary and give your team an opportunity to chase. That's the one rugby kick that this may resemble, but obviously the tactical objective is different. And you have what is called the grubber kick, where you just kick it along the ground into open space for you and your teammates to chase.
Something like what football calls the rugby kick would most likely get run back down your throat in rugby. Particularly since anybody ahead of the punter is offside and can't take part in play until either the punter or another onside player puts them back onside (by running past them).
(This post was last modified: 10-07-2014 11:51 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
(10-07-2014 11:20 PM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote: One of the reasons I came up with the Massey performance rating schtick was to answer questions about how good (or bad) a win (or loss) was, using a standard evaluation procedure rather than relying on one's vivid impressions which could be colored by all sorts of emotional reactions. I crunched the numbers for last weekend's action, and here's what comes up: the Hawai'i game was the second-best of the season, just trailing the preceding game against Southern Mississippi (51.12 and 51.90, respectively). It would seem that the Owls' performance is improving as of late. Also, if you use the Massey ratings themselves to calculate the probability of winning games, as of now Rice is predicted to have won 2.49 games, so we're about half a game behind where we should be (we should've held Old Dominion to a tie!).
Incidentally, in the David Bailiff era there are 11 games below the rating of 15.44 that the Nicholls State game of 2007 got and 30 below the 29.38 that this year's ODU game got.
What is the worst game? Heck, what are the 11 worse?
Well, remember to throw in the 11 best as well. (not you) I'd rather not provoke some Parliamentarians to continue to wallow in misery from games from 5 or 7 years ago.
(10-07-2014 11:20 PM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote: One of the reasons I came up with the Massey performance rating schtick was to answer questions about how good (or bad) a win (or loss) was, using a standard evaluation procedure rather than relying on one's vivid impressions which could be colored by all sorts of emotional reactions. I crunched the numbers for last weekend's action, and here's what comes up: the Hawai'i game was the second-best of the season, just trailing the preceding game against Southern Mississippi (51.12 and 51.90, respectively). It would seem that the Owls' performance is improving as of late. Also, if you use the Massey ratings themselves to calculate the probability of winning games, as of now Rice is predicted to have won 2.49 games, so we're about half a game behind where we should be (we should've held Old Dominion to a tie!).
Incidentally, in the David Bailiff era there are 11 games below the rating of 15.44 that the Nicholls State game of 2007 got and 30 below the 29.38 that this year's ODU game got.
What is the worst game? Heck, what are the 11 worse?
Navy in 2009 was (if I'm mathing correctly) a -5.56. Losing by 49 will do that.
No idea if that's the worst; that's just the one that came to mind off-hand.
ETA: and just like that, I thought of another couple...@Houston in 2009 was a -11.53. And home to UCF was a -7.13.
Really, the answer would just seem to be "2009."
(This post was last modified: 10-08-2014 12:22 AM by baker-'13.)
(10-07-2014 11:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: Something like what football calls the rugby kick would most likely get run back down your throat in rugby. Particularly since anybody ahead of the punter is offside and can't take part in play until either the punter or another onside player puts them back onside (by running past them).
oops. I was expecting they may have used "rugby punt" because it seems to allow more people downfield before the kick. The kick wouldn't work very well in football either if all of the team had to be behind the punter.
edit: which leaves my best guess as to the real answer to your question ... because they could get away with it because of general ignorance about what rugby actually looks like amongst American Football fans, coaches, and commentators. It was probably misnamed because the play more superficially resembles the dynamic play of rugby than do other football plays, which are generally scripted and rehearsed.
(This post was last modified: 10-08-2014 12:38 AM by I45owl.)
(10-07-2014 11:20 PM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote: One of the reasons I came up with the Massey performance rating schtick was to answer questions about how good (or bad) a win (or loss) was, using a standard evaluation procedure rather than relying on one's vivid impressions which could be colored by all sorts of emotional reactions. I crunched the numbers for last weekend's action, and here's what comes up: the Hawai'i game was the second-best of the season, just trailing the preceding game against Southern Mississippi (51.12 and 51.90, respectively). It would seem that the Owls' performance is improving as of late. Also, if you use the Massey ratings themselves to calculate the probability of winning games, as of now Rice is predicted to have won 2.49 games, so we're about half a game behind where we should be (we should've held Old Dominion to a tie!).
Incidentally, in the David Bailiff era there are 11 games below the rating of 15.44 that the Nicholls State game of 2007 got and 30 below the 29.38 that this year's ODU game got.
What is the worst game? Heck, what are the 11 worse?
Navy in 2009 was (if I'm mathing correctly) a -5.56. Losing by 49 will do that.
No idea if that's the worst; that's just the one that came to mind off-hand.
ETA: and just like that, I thought of another couple...@Houston in 2009 was a -11.53. And home to UCF was a -7.13.
Really, the answer would just seem to be "2009."
You are correct on all counts. Think about it this way: the losses to Nicholls State and Old Dominion were depressing, to be sure, but at least the Owls were in those games right to the end and might even had won them, desultory as those victories would've been, despite the flukey circumstances involved in both games. The three games in 2009 that you mentioned (and which are in fact the three worst of the Bailiff era) were complete disasters from the kickoff, and while those three opponents all went to bowl games, none of them could be fairly described as top 25 teams that routinely administered 40+ point beatdowns to opponents. Looking at the numbers now, I'd say the 2009 team would be even money to go winless against this season's schedule, and yet four years later Rice was C-USA champs - Bailiff must be doing something right....
So as to make Rich happy, the best game of the Bailiff era was the 77-20 wipeout of North Texas in 2008, followed by the Texas Bowl and Marshall games that season. Fourth is last season's C-USA championship game, followed by the 2008 Houston game. As you can see, as bad as 2009 was, 2008 was that good.
(10-07-2014 11:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: Something like what football calls the rugby kick would most likely get run back down your throat in rugby. Particularly since anybody ahead of the punter is offside and can't take part in play until either the punter or another onside player puts them back onside (by running past them).
oops. I was expecting they may have used "rugby punt" because it seems to allow more people downfield before the kick. The kick wouldn't work very well in football either if all of the team had to be behind the punter.
edit: which leaves my best guess as to the real answer to your question ... because they could get away with it because of general ignorance about what rugby actually looks like amongst American Football fans, coaches, and commentators. It was probably misnamed because the play more superficially resembles the dynamic play of rugby than do other football plays, which are generally scripted and rehearsed.
I think you are correct in your analysis.
You would see that kind of kick sometimes in Aussie rules or Gaelic football, where you have limited ability to run the ball, so the big advances typically come from kicking the ball ahead to a teammate (don't have the same offside concern as in rugby). To be technically correct you don't have to be behind the punter, being offside itself is not a violation, but if you try to play from an offside position (like running to cover the punt before you are passed by the punter and put back onside) that is a penalty.
