Will be interesting to see how richmond (and UNH) do losing two senior QBs

The "other" UNH QB is a junior.

Forgot that. Well hopefully with losing their senior RB and stud WR we can get back to beating them at Zable. They should do well getting to play at home through the playoffs.

Yeah, RJ Harris and Sterriti(sp.) will be big losses for them.

I'm also worried about Stony Brook next year. And if Towson can build around Victor they could be dangerous

Stony Brook was physical, do not remember the class specifics, but they seem to like transfers, as does the also noted Towson.

I think offense under RFR QB is about what I expected. However, I thought defense would be better with many of starters returning.

(11-23-2014 10:17 PM)tribeintexas Wrote:  I think offense under RFR QB is about what I expected. However, I thought defense would be better with many of starters returning.

Clueley is a SO so 3rd year in the system; first year to play.

Question for folks. Did anyone get a good look at the play where Dedmon was streaking for the endzone and had what looked like a no pass-interference call? I don't care about the penalty (or lack thereof), but it looked like the ball hit Dedmon in the hands. That's a tough play to make down there, even more so if the defender got in the way. I want to know if the ball hit him in the hands as a gauge of Cluley's throwing. His deep ball to Ballard earlier in the game was spot on and hit him almost perfectly in stride.

(11-24-2014 01:50 PM)hktribefan Wrote:  Question for folks. Did anyone get a good look at the play where Dedmon was streaking for the endzone and had what looked like a no pass-interference call? I don't care about the penalty (or lack thereof), but it looked like the ball hit Dedmon in the hands. That's a tough play to make down there, even more so if the defender got in the way. I want to know if the ball hit him in the hands as a gauge of Cluley's throwing. His deep ball to Ballard earlier in the game was spot on and hit him almost perfectly in stride.

Perfect throw from Cluley. Dedmon was interfered with, but I wouldn't put it in the egregious category. Ball still could have been caught even with the PI.

The PI call on Swinton was one of the worst PI call I've ever seen. He was in perfect position, had his head turned to see the ball, and the receiver came over his back to attempt a catch on an underthrown ball. If anything, it should have been offensive PI. That call made the no call on the Dedmon deep ball all the worse.

Agreed that was a horrible call.

(11-24-2014 01:50 PM)hktribefan Wrote:  Question for folks. Did anyone get a good look at the play where Dedmon was streaking for the endzone and had what looked like a no pass-interference call? I don't care about the penalty (or lack thereof), but it looked like the ball hit Dedmon in the hands. That's a tough play to make down there, even more so if the defender got in the way. I want to know if the ball hit him in the hands as a gauge of Cluley's throwing. His deep ball to Ballard earlier in the game was spot on and hit him almost perfectly in stride.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NBCS announcers commented that the Richmond defender "got away with" something on that play - I forget the exact wording. On TV, the pass appeared to be on target and very catchable.

We get hosed very often at home on calls. Swinton had perfect position, he actually played the ball. Refs not always on, they were off on Saturday.

TV had a good shot of the Dedmon pass. It was definitely PI, as the defender pushed Dedmon in the chest just as he was ready to reach for the pass. The official was in position to see it, too. Just didn't make the call.

I didn't get a great look at this, but I thought the fumble by MAS could've been reviewed. Arguably, MAS was down by forward contact, and I wasn't entirely sure the recovery by Richmond was inbounds.

Though it doesn't really matter at this point, really.

(11-24-2014 06:42 PM)TDenverFan Wrote:  I didn't get a great look at this, but I thought the fumble by MAS could've been reviewed. Arguably, MAS was down by forward contact, and I wasn't entirely sure the recovery by Richmond was inbounds.

Though it doesn't really matter at this point, really.

FWIW, fumble and recovery were both legit looking at the TV replays.

(11-24-2014 07:18 PM)WMTribe90 Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 06:42 PM)TDenverFan Wrote:  I didn't get a great look at this, but I thought the fumble by MAS could've been reviewed. Arguably, MAS was down by forward contact, and I wasn't entirely sure the recovery by Richmond was inbounds.

Though it doesn't really matter at this point, really.

FWIW, fumble and recovery were both legit looking at the TV replays.

Allright, I didn't really have a great view. But as I said it's all irrelevant now, we lost

The announcers had good football knowlege and made interesting observations about some of the plays. For example, in the end around fumble by Dedman in the backfield; they observed that the cause of the fumble was a poor/high snap from the center that threw Cluely up and out of rhythm, and that Dedman was already past Cluely when our QB attempted the handoff.

There were a lot of high snaps that threw off the rhythm of plays. Part of the problem with backups instead of starters, I would think.