(10-03-2017 01:26 PM)hktribefan Wrote:  We did try going for the win from the 21 yard line. Mague (I think) was by the sideline and seemed to be a missed PI. The next down was the run play, which the way Evans was running and the defense expecting a run could have looked like a genius move if it payed off. At that point they are going to have a lot of people in the endzone on defense, so it's a risky move tossing it there from over 20 yards.

First down at just past the 10 yard line with 29 seconds to go is a whole different ball game. That's easily three passes to guys like Mague, Conlin, Klaus, or Caskin, and then figure each play is 5 seconds or so, that's more than enough time for a FG attempt to tie it. It sucks, we move on. I like what McKee said in the post game presser about moving on and having a short memory. Focus on Elon and a chance to knock off a team that is getting some love in the polls.

It didn't look PI to me, but Mague might have gotten a flag if he sold it better. Let's put it this way- if that call went against W&M I'd have been livid and this board would be rife with conspiracy theories about how the CAA is holding W&M back.

If the ball is at the 10 you have more options, plus with 29 seconds left you can still get a play off if you're tackled in bounds (in theory, as we saw on Saturday). How many shots JL takes depends on a)how he feels about his kicker on the right hash and b) how much he trusts his QB to not throw a pick or run into a 20 yard sack.

(10-03-2017 12:57 PM)TheTribeNeverSurrenders Wrote:  Would anyone here have gone for the win instead of the tie? ...

I see it, and I agree.

As the overseer of the program, JL is the best. He can stay forever, as far as I'm concerned.

However, I want the 80's and 90's offensive game coach back ... aggressive, playing for the win. The past ten plus years, with a couple of exceptions, have been dreadful from an offensive game coach perspective.

My jaw dropped when the run happened. SB was on their heels. They were handing us the game. JL would've thrown the ball on all four downs in the 80's and 90's, and said to heck with OT.

If there is no confidence that the QB, in his fourth game, can't get it done, or the line can't get it done, or there isn't a play in the play book that will work, ... well, that's not a good deal.

(10-03-2017 02:51 PM)nj alum Wrote:  

(10-03-2017 12:57 PM)TheTribeNeverSurrenders Wrote:  Would anyone here have gone for the win instead of the tie? ...

I see it, and I agree.

As the overseer of the program, JL is the best. He can stay forever, as far as I'm concerned.

However, I want the 80's and 90's offensive game coach back ... aggressive, playing for the win. The past ten plus years, with a couple of exceptions, have been dreadful from an offensive game coach perspective.

My jaw dropped when the run happened. SB was on their heels. They were handing us the game. JL would've thrown the ball on all four downs in the 80's and 90's, and said to heck with OT.

If there is no confidence that the QB, in his fourth game, can't get it done, or the line can't get it done, or there isn't a play in the play book that will work, ... well, that's not a good deal.

+1

(10-03-2017 02:51 PM)nj alum Wrote:  

(10-03-2017 12:57 PM)TheTribeNeverSurrenders Wrote:  Would anyone here have gone for the win instead of the tie? ...

I see it, and I agree.

As the overseer of the program, JL is the best. He can stay forever, as far as I'm concerned.

However, I want the 80's and 90's offensive game coach back ... aggressive, playing for the win. The past ten plus years, with a couple of exceptions, have been dreadful from an offensive game coach perspective.

My jaw dropped when the run happened. SB was on their heels. They were handing us the game. JL would've thrown the ball on all four downs in the 80's and 90's, and said to heck with OT.

If there is no confidence that the QB, in his fourth game, can't get it done, or the line can't get it done, or there isn't a play in the play book that will work, ... well, that's not a good deal.

So, uh, who wants to be the pedant and point out why 80's JL wouldn't have played for overtime?

(10-03-2017 04:52 PM)Rocco Wrote:  

(10-03-2017 02:51 PM)nj alum Wrote:  

(10-03-2017 12:57 PM)TheTribeNeverSurrenders Wrote:  Would anyone here have gone for the win instead of the tie? ...

I see it, and I agree.

As the overseer of the program, JL is the best. He can stay forever, as far as I'm concerned.

However, I want the 80's and 90's offensive game coach back ... aggressive, playing for the win. The past ten plus years, with a couple of exceptions, have been dreadful from an offensive game coach perspective.

My jaw dropped when the run happened. SB was on their heels. They were handing us the game. JL would've thrown the ball on all four downs in the 80's and 90's, and said to heck with OT.

If there is no confidence that the QB, in his fourth game, can't get it done, or the line can't get it done, or there isn't a play in the play book that will work, ... well, that's not a good deal.

So, uh, who wants to be the pedant and point out why 80's JL wouldn't have played for overtime?

Pedantry by paralepsis

(10-03-2017 04:52 PM)Rocco Wrote:  

(10-03-2017 02:51 PM)nj alum Wrote:  

(10-03-2017 12:57 PM)TheTribeNeverSurrenders Wrote:  Would anyone here have gone for the win instead of the tie? ...

I see it, and I agree.

As the overseer of the program, JL is the best. He can stay forever, as far as I'm concerned.

However, I want the 80's and 90's offensive game coach back ... aggressive, playing for the win. The past ten plus years, with a couple of exceptions, have been dreadful from an offensive game coach perspective.

My jaw dropped when the run happened. SB was on their heels. They were handing us the game. JL would've thrown the ball on all four downs in the 80's and 90's, and said to heck with OT.

If there is no confidence that the QB, in his fourth game, can't get it done, or the line can't get it done, or there isn't a play in the play book that will work, ... well, that's not a good deal.

So, uh, who wants to be the pedant and point out why 80's JL wouldn't have played for overtime?

I know, I know ... There was no OT in the 80's. I just didn't feel like getting in to the minutia.

All I know ... Game at Delaware in the 80's ...fourth down...fourth qtr... JL eschewed the FG for the tie, and went for the win. Never forgot it, and he earned a lifetime of respect from me for that one call. He could have played it safe, but he went for the win.

I refuse to say that there's a special place in Hell for apologists, for that would be a most unkind thing for me to say.

Let's say that Jimmye Laycock retired after the 2010 season and W&M hired a new coach named Jimmy (no "e") Playclock. This Jimmy has had six full seasons (plus four games this year) and he has a .500 record (37-37). He has one playoff appearance (1-1). Are we happy with this new coach who replaced the great Jimmye Laycock? How long do we stick with him?

In other words, is Jimmye just coasting? Does he still have the fire? Are the gunslinger days gone for good?

W&M's average points per game contrasted with the rest of the A-10/CAA since 1999:



JL keeps trying to recapture the magic of 2009 only without a car shredder of a defensive line and it's just not working. It's a bit of a shame that he's accepted Tresselball as the true path about 5 years too late. Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised and this offense will explode down the stretch.

So, we're done talking about SBU? On to dragging JL through the mud on this thread, too?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Let me put it another way.

On January 1, 2017, we had an experienced OC with a highly recruited high school QB, and we were facing a year where the team was playing with house money as the outside expectations were low. In other words, all of the ingredients were there for some offensive fun.

On October 1, 2017, ten months later, there is zero offensive fun.

Conversely, on the defensive side ... what a pleasant surprise!

While I have no idea how we got to this spot, the fact remains ... we're at this spot.

And for those of us who saw that during game #1, and were called out for it, and see it during game #4 and are called out for it, it gets a little old.

Oh, it will get fixed against Norfolk and Bucknell. Oh, it will get fixed during the bye week.

Well, it ain't fixed, and the meat grinder that is the CAA schedule is about to begin.

I want to be wrong. I want the switch to flip. I don't like walking out of Cary/Zable grumbling like a lunatic after games like 2016 Elon and 2017 SB. I'm so thankful I missed the earlier Lafayette disaster.

Go Tribe!

Good gawd, 3 different threads on the officiating error. I cut and pasted both threads started by Big Green on this issue. I think we're all tracking...the zebras screwed up.








+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Thread 2

http://www.dailypress.com/sports/william...story.html

The whole screwup with spiking the ball never should have happened!!!

DP (see major article above) in this morning's paper announces officials
made a major error in the last 36 seconds of the game that most likely would have, at worst, given us a field goal attempt from the 15 yardline and two, possibly, three pass attempts from the SB 10-yardline with 29
seconds remaining in the game.

However, there was a double penalty on SB--a personal foul for hitting Tyler Klaus when he was down plus a targeting foul on another SB player for hitting Tommy McKee in the face with his helmet. They ejected
the SB player but enforced only ONE of the two fould.

Laycock brought this to their refs' attention but they wouldn't listen to him. Jimmye is steaming.

Cost us 15 yards, ball on the SB 10 and still 29 seconds to play. Wow,
what a mistake.

The CAA's director of officiating reviewed the films and announced the referee's error yesterday.

Read the article..we got screwed big time.





Thread 3

http://www.dailypress.com/sports/william...story.html


Not sure the entire DP web story address went through. Previously.

See above for full reference address.


Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Definitely not trying to stir anything else up and ready to move on. But, I had a question Saturday night and do not know the answer(not looking at motives by anyone on our side). With about 6-7 minutes left, the SB left tackle began to perhaps intentionally false start. The refs would assess the 5 yard penalty and then re-set the 40 second play clock and wind the clock again. The false start would occur with less than 5 seconds left on the play clock. This effectively cost us about 2 minutes of extra time. My question is: Should the clock be re-started after such a penalty? Is the only thing the opposition can do to prevent it is burn a timeout? Seems like an effective strategy for using more time without getting a first down.

(10-04-2017 07:40 AM)TribePride91 Wrote:  Definitely not trying to stir anything else up and ready to move on. But, I had a question Saturday night and do not know the answer(not looking at motives by anyone on our side). With about 6-7 minutes left, the SB left tackle began to perhaps intentionally false start. The refs would assess the 5 yard penalty and then re-set the 40 second play clock and wind the clock again. The false start would occur with less than 5 seconds left on the play clock. This effectively cost us about 2 minutes of extra time. My question is: Should the clock be re-started after such a penalty? Is the only thing the opposition can do to prevent it is burn a timeout? Seems like an effective strategy for using more time without getting a first down.

I noticed that too! I thought I knew clock rules but this game made me rethink that.

Sent from my VS500 using Tapatalk

Yeah, we noticed this too. I believe they did this two times in a row when they were already in a long third down. If intentional, it was effective.

(10-04-2017 07:43 AM)zablenoise Wrote:  I thought I knew clock rules but this game made me rethink that.

The refs were also very quick to restart the clock after first downs, often not waiting for the chains to be set.

(10-04-2017 07:51 AM)Mrs. Got Ribe Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 07:43 AM)zablenoise Wrote:  I thought I knew clock rules but this game made me rethink that.

The refs were also very quick to restart the clock after first downs, often not waiting for the chains to be set.

Also out of bounds. I know that is left to the ref's discretion now but there was almost no time saved by going out of bounds.

Sent from my VS500 using Tapatalk

(10-04-2017 07:40 AM)TribePride91 Wrote:  Definitely not trying to stir anything else up and ready to move on. But, I had a question Saturday night and do not know the answer(not looking at motives by anyone on our side). With about 6-7 minutes left, the SB left tackle began to perhaps intentionally false start. The refs would assess the 5 yard penalty and then re-set the 40 second play clock and wind the clock again. The false start would occur with less than 5 seconds left on the play clock. This effectively cost us about 2 minutes of extra time. My question is: Should the clock be re-started after such a penalty? Is the only thing the opposition can do to prevent it is burn a timeout? Seems like an effective strategy for using more time without getting a first down.

It's correct, though the ref has discretion to stop the clock if he deems the other side is using unfair tactics to burn the clock. Page 57, under "unfair clock tactics".

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productd...pdated.pdf

Mike Leach noted the same on our broadcast. Did seem like the Ref's needed to get home early Saturday night.

(10-04-2017 07:40 AM)TribePride91 Wrote:  Definitely not trying to stir anything else up and ready to move on. But, I had a question Saturday night and do not know the answer(not looking at motives by anyone on our side). With about 6-7 minutes left, the SB left tackle began to perhaps intentionally false start. The refs would assess the 5 yard penalty and then re-set the 40 second play clock and wind the clock again. The false start would occur with less than 5 seconds left on the play clock. This effectively cost us about 2 minutes of extra time. My question is: Should the clock be re-started after such a penalty? Is the only thing the opposition can do to prevent it is burn a timeout? Seems like an effective strategy for using more time without getting a first down.

Whether one is "stirring up" things is often in the eye of the beholder. So, post away! And who says that you must "move on?"

The refs made an error, yes. But the coaching staff and players play the game that they're given at the time. Therefore, each and every error that any actor may have made still stands.