Sold out to stop the run but didn't quite get it done
- Thread starter jlb321
- Start date
They tried something new last night according to Chryst, it apparently caught our staff off guard.
Only Michigan held Wisconsin to less total offense than Nebraska. The defense got the job done last night for the most part. Keep grasping at straws tho...
my point is our pass defense is so good that had we done a better job containing the run would have won ... they exposed our ends
interested what was ... curious .. thanks
agree with above the defense played great but we got gashed on a few plays and that hurt us
We did get gashed for a few long runs. It hurt. However, our decimated O-line was our Achilles. Now, I swear on the fake jet sweep where the Badgers got the run up the middle to score that the Wisky lineman blocked in the back. Anyone else see that?
The shotgun handoff to the backup, which we couldn't seem to stop any time he came on the damn field.
Probably the thing that pissed me off the most...6 r so 3rd and longs and Wiscy runs a simple Off Tackle, conceding the play and we let it go for 20+. They probably had 150+ yards on those plays or we had them totally shut down.
Massively frustrating.....and how hard can it be to cover a 2 man pattern. Wheelwright was their only receiver and we couldn't account for him??
Massively frustrating.....and how hard can it be to cover a 2 man pattern. Wheelwright was their only receiver and we couldn't account for him??
Those run plays, they were pulling lineman if i remember correctly. And i think they may have been counters.
Saw the block in the back clear as day live, and it was literally shown front and center on the replay, and the commentators didn't even mention it.
So, good. That makes two of us that saw that. Is that not illegal? My thoughts were that a flag should have been thrown and the TD brought back.
I didn't see the block or where it was on the field. So I say this with that caveat. But typically linemen won't get called for blocks in the back near the LOS. With stunts and blitzes and twists and spin moves impossible to call. Also on a play where the LB may change direction in flowing the ball, OL may be about to engage block and LB can turn back to OL to pursue. Be interested to see a photo or short video of the block to verify.
If memory serves.... There is no such thing as a block in the back if both are lined up within two yards of the Lin of scrimmage and they don't leave the box.
I have been wrong several times today however.
I have been wrong several times today however.
Maybe so. I just saw our guys bite on the misdirection, the Wisky linemen step into the created gaps and push our guys in the back, creating the huge hole that their RB scored the touchdown. I always thought that blockers had to keep their blocks to the front of the defenders.
To try and clear it up a little bit, here is the rule:
So, based on that rule, the two blocks in the back I saw were technically legal, as both were made by lineman, who were on the LOS at the start of the play, and both occured in the "blocking zone". The "blocking zone" is defined elsewhere as an area 5 yards to either side of the ball, leff to right; and 3 yards to either side front to back. Kevin Maurice and Marcus Newby are both blocked in the back, but both in this zone (though Newby is borderline) and by offensive players on the LOS at the start. To me, this rule is a little too broad. I understand what it's trying to prevent, blocks in the back called on stunting d-lineman and such, but it's too broad. In Maurice's case, he beats his blocker, and is moving past him, to try and go around to get to the ball carrier, and the guy just shoves him down from behind. Technically legal based on the rules, but that seems kind of ridiculous. Newby is similar, he's moving past a guy who started to block him, and might either get the ball carrier, or at least force him a different direction, and the guy does the same thing, shoves him over. Too broad, as that is not what I would think the rule intended to prevent being called a block in the back, but still does.
However, those weren't the only questionable blocks on the play. Josh Banderas on the play initially flows toward the motion of the WR, but fairly quickly recognizes who has the ball, and moves toward him. A Wisconsin blocker comes toward him, but because Bando is starting to move laterally and away from him, has to loop his arm around him and hold him to keep him out of the play. Here is a GIF of the hold from the replay of the run, it's harder to see the hold from the normal TV view, but there is a ref clearly just behind this that should have seen the hold.
It's a little difficult to see where the running back is, depth wise, in comparison to Bando in this, so I took a screenshot of when this occured from the TV view to give a better idea. Bando and his blocker, and the running back, are circled in yellow to make them easier to see.
Clearly, if Bando hadn't been held by the Wisconsin player, he would have had a good chance to make a play, or at least change the ball carrier's direction to another defender.
One last thing about this play. This isn't anything illegal done by anyone, just proof of the incompetence of the officiating crew. Now, normally when I see a play like this heading in the direction of a ref, the ref will move to stay out of the way. You can already kind of see it happening in the image above, the ref standing at the 15-yard line and Josh Kalu look to be on a possible collision course. As you can see a little later, they don't collide, but the ref does serve as an excellent blocker, forcing Kalu to cut upfield to get around him and eliminating any chance he has of making the play.
By this point, the ref has barely moved at all, except maybe taking one step to his right (towards Kalu). You can see here, if the ref isn't there, Kalu looks to have a very good shot of making a play on the runner. However, you'll see just a few frames later, because of the ref, Kalu has to slow down and cut up field.
By this point, the ref has still barely moved, but you can see Kalu starting to make his cut upfield, because of the ref. If the ref was not located there, Kalu would not have had to slow down, and would most likely be in position already to make a tackle.
In this final image, you see the result. The ref still has barely moved, and now, having served as the perfect blocker; Kalu is now forced to chase Clement, rather than cut him off. Kalu is starting from a near dead stop, since he had to stop and change directions to avoid the ref; and Clement is already at full speed, and now past his ref blocker, is able to angle away from Kalu. Kalu still nearly gets him, even after all that.
As I stated above, I realize none of what happened in that sequence above is illegal, just proof of incompetence. Most refs you see in these circumstance start back pedaling away, to avoid the play, but this ref inexplicably stays rooted in his spot, watching and somehow missing Bando getting held.
Thanks Jedi. I know I saw that block in the back. So, it's legal. Hmmph. Didn't see the hold. In real time all I saw was the block in the back and then boom up the middle. I was like, "Really?!" That was after the big pass to their TE I believe. Kind of set the tone for the game. And yet we were still in it. Good post my friend!
Similar threads
