Don't expect to see that Fake FG play again

Enuratique

Enuratique

Jolly Good Fellow
Joined
Oct 10, 2008
Messages
1,743
http://espn.go.com/blog/acc/post/_/id/3589/both-clemson-gt-used-illegal-plays

Whiney Douchebag in Clemson, S.C., writes: Heather, I was reading your noon headlines and read the article in The State about Swinney finding positives in our loss to GT. But at the bottom of the article it talked about Swinney discussing with the ACC if GT's fake field goal wasd legal. I was wondering if the ACC determined it was not legal, could the ACC give that win to Clemson since the play scored a touchdown and without it GT would have lost the game?
Click to expand...

Long story short both teams used an "illegal" play. Either way I don't think they'd change the outcome of the game (in much the same way acknolwedged blown penalties don't affect the final outcome after the fact).
 
No of course they won't change it.

If it was "illegal", it would be nothing more than a blown penalty call, as you said.
 
Maybe I don't know enough about football, but we didn't run someone on the field and then off that was 'supposed to be' substituting Thomas. We ran 10 guys off and 10 guys on. Seems straightforward to me. :) What did we do that was "No simulated replacements or substitutions may be used to confuse opponents"? Was it because Thomas ran to the sideline at the same time that the other guys ran off the field? That's the only thing I could see to be questionable. But he didn't run off then back on, and no one ran on that was 'replacing him' only to step back off.

Seems like it could have gone either way in my book, and as was stated in other threads, he was CLEARLY standing there before the snap and a timeout could have been taken.
 
Well that's great. Not only were other ACC fans talking about how we should've lost the game because of the holding penalty but now with this that crap will never end. (Note I said other ACC fans, meaning I've seen both VPI and Miami fans degrade the win because of that penalty, not just Clemson fans, this is why I can't root for those two teams).
 
Exactly, the play wasn't illegal since Thomas stayed on the field while others were substituted.
 
Bullcrap. Our play was legal, it was determined to be legal numerous times. The ref stood over the football while we subbed in and gave Clemson time to do the same, they didn't. We didn't have Bebe run out of bounds and then back in, he simply stood there while we subbed 10 in/out. It was legal. This is the same Dinich that has said 800 other things that were absurd...

I'm curious as to what the "illegal" Clemson play she's referring to...
 
IIRC the umpire held the snap up to allow the defense to substitute as well but they didn't try. I could see if we got a quick snap while they were subbing it would be an issue but it wasn't at all.
 
After our play, the refs allowed Clemson to slip Spiller on from the sidelines at the last second for his big catch in the red zone, which was an illegal play.

I would like to see this addressed directly by the ACC, so we can find out exactly what was or wasn't illegal.
 
unforgiven108 said:
Maybe I don't know enough about football, but we didn't run someone on the field and then off that was 'supposed to be' substituting Thomas. We ran 10 guys off and 10 guys on. Seems straightforward to me. :) What did we do that was "No simulated replacements or substitutions may be used to confuse opponents"? Was it because Thomas ran to the sideline at the same time that the other guys ran off the field? That's the only thing I could see to be questionable. But he didn't run off then back on, and no one ran on that was 'replacing him' only to step back off.

Seems like it could have gone either way in my book, and as was stated in other threads, he was CLEARLY standing there before the snap and a timeout could have been taken.
Click to expand...

"No tactic associated with substitutes or the substitution process may be used to confuse opponents.”

That is what they are referring to for us. However I do agree that what we did was not the worst that could of been done to fit that description. Some trick plays could be done in BS fashion using this, but like you said Thomas was standing on the line as if he was going to run a route for a good 3 sec. If anyone had seen him and called a time out then it's all over.
 
The link from the OP reminded me that it's been a while since I sent Heather a mailblog question.

Heather,

When are you going to admit that you made a terrible comment about ACC players 'seeing a level of athleticism that they don't normally see'?

When are you going to provide support (outside of ESPN bias) for your baseless claim in this regard?

I would like to see the stats you used to determine that the defense that NCST played against at SC were better than defenses that would be seen at Clemson, Miami, GT, Wake Forest, FSU, Virginia Tech.

You made a baseless claim, and I am going to send at least one mailblog question as often as I think about it until you back down and admit you made a terrible statement, or back up your claims with unbiased (read ESPN) facts.
Click to expand...
I'm still waiting on this one.:fingersx:
 
I notice that other fans are a lot more critical of the holding/fake field goal thing than the Clemson fans are.
 
gth816f said:
I actually thought that the play should be illegal too. No clue if it actually was or not, but it's in the same vein as the fake spike play, which I also hate.

EDIT: Actually, it looks like they were both illegal, according to ACC coordinator of football officials Doug Rhoads.

http://news.tradingcharts.com/futures/4/5/129029454.html
Click to expand...

From reading that it seems like ACC officials would be happy if there were no trick plays allowed at all. I mean I get that misdirections and trick plays can confuse officials and make it harder for them to call stuff if that happens, but when the very idea of the play is to confuse the opponent, what do you expect?
 
GTLiebs said:
From reading that it seems like ACC officials would be happy if there were no trick plays allowed at all. I mean I get that misdirections and trick plays can confuse officials and make it harder for them to call stuff if that happens, but when the very idea of the play is to confuse the opponent, what do you expect?
Click to expand...

I think the issue is that this wasn't a trick play at all. It was a trick substitution pattern. All the deception occurred before the play, and really didn't have anything to do with the game of football at all.
 
gth816f said:
I think the issue is that this wasn't a trick play at all. It was a trick substitution pattern. All the deception occurred before the play, and really didn't have anything to do with the game of football at all.
Click to expand...

I still haven't heard what was the 'trick substitution'. They ran 10 guys off and 10 guys on. Thomas lined up like normal (didn't stand at the sideline like he was walking off or go off the field then back on).

The ONLY thing that I saw that could have been 'wrong' was that he ran to the sideline, when everyone else ran off. Doesn't seem that big of a deal to me, the ref even delayed the snap for a good 5~7 seconds with Thomas lined up like he was running a route.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top