The infamous holding call

[Gitwitit]

4th and 13 is such a high percentage play. Lol

Driving 50 yds with no timeouts in 90 seconds is for sure though

 

[Gonzo]

Good thing CMC practiced this game plan against UNI...

Not sure if they doubled UNI's DL or not but yeah, the passing attack was very much the same as vs. UNI with pretty much everything being 5ish yard routes at most, and just a small handful being passes downfield.

BTW, what's up with McDonald? I'd heard he was pretty beastly in camp, thought for sure he'd play a lot. Is he hurt? I don't remember seeing him out there much.

 

[CyTwins]

Driving 50 yds with no timeouts in 90 seconds is for sure though

I mean do any Hawk fans out there think that doesn't happen vs your secondary? Seems like the consensus is from Iowa fans that ISU would have had no problem getting into FG range

 

[Thinker]

as was stated and I was corrected on it, hypothetical as this thread is, If Iowa takes the illegal hands to the face call on the play before it takes all of this out of the equation. So really think about this for a minute. A football game has so many variable and can change quickly. 1 play does not make or break the game.

 

[GTO]

as was stated and I was corrected on it, hypothetical as this thread is, If Iowa takes the illegal hands to the face call on the play before it takes all of this out of the equation. So really think about this for a minute. A football game has so many variable and can change quickly. 1 play does not make or break the game.

I would like to give you an award for the most ironic username on CF.

 

[CyTwins]

as was stated and I was corrected on it, hypothetical as this thread is, If Iowa takes the illegal hands to the face call on the play before it takes all of this out of the equation. So really think about this for a minute. A football game has so many variable and can change quickly. 1 play does not make or break the game.

I was hoping Iowa took that penalty and gave ISU another down. Instead we get the phantom holding call. Oh well

 

[JP4CY]

Driving 50 yds with no timeouts in 90 seconds is for sure though

Apparently is:

ISU would have won if they did not botch that punt return.

 

[Gitwitit]

I mean do any Hawk fans out there think that doesn't happen vs your secondary? Seems like the consensus is from Iowa fans that ISU would have had no problem getting into FG range

I guess I don't understand why ISU didn't score more points then. I mean if it's "for sure", they should have scored more earlier in the game. If they drive 50 yds in 90 seconds with no timeouts, that leaves a 45-50 yds fg attempt. It's far from "for sure".

 

[flycy]

Then they got the call wrong. Here it is from the official NFL rule book.

RULE SUMMARY VIEW OFFICIAL RULE
INTENTIONAL GROUNDING

It is a foul for intentional grounding if a passer, facing an imminent loss of yardage because of pressure from the defense, throws a forward pass without a realistic chance of completion. A realistic chance of completion is defined as a pass that is thrown in the direction of and lands in the vicinity of an originally eligible receiver.

Item 1. Passer or Ball Outside Tackle Position. Intentional grounding will not be called when a passer, who is outside, or has been outside, the tackle position,throws a forward pass that lands at or beyond the line of scrimmage, even if no offensive player(s) have a realistic chance to catch the ball (including when the ball lands out of bounds over the sideline or endline). If the ball crosses the line of scrimmage (extended) beyond the sideline, there is no intentional grounding. If a loose ball leaves the area bordered by the tackles, this area no longer exists; if the ball is recovered, all intentional grounding rules apply as if the passer is outside this area.

Item 2. Physical Contact. Intentional grounding should not be called if:

1. the passer initiates his passing motion toward an eligible receiver and then is significantly affected by physical contact from a defensive player that causes the pass to land in an area that is not in the direction and vicinity of an eligible receiver; or
2. the passer is out of the pocket, and his passing motion is significantly affected by physical contact from a defensive player that causes the ball to land short of the line of scrimmage.

a. This wasn't an NFL game.
b. According to this, it was intentional grounding. Clearly did not meet item 2.1 criteria.

 

[CyTwins]

I guess I don't understand why ISU didn't score more points then. I mean if it's "for sure", they should have scored more earlier in the game. If they drive 50 yds in 90 seconds with no timeouts, that leaves a 45-50 yds fg attempt. It's far from "for sure".

As Kirk Ferentz says, we have a really clutch quarterback. If you felt comfortable giving Purdy the ball with a minute and a half left I guess I don't know what to tell ya

 

[mj4cy]

As Kirk Ferentz says, we have a really clutch quarterback. If you felt comfortable giving Purdy the ball with a minute and a half left I guess I don't know what to tell ya

I just knew if he had one more chance, ISU Wins....and then we Iowa State ourselves.

 

[Thinker]

As Kirk Ferentz says, we have a really clutch quarterback. If you felt comfortable giving Purdy the ball with a minute and a half left I guess I don't know what to tell ya

I agree with Kirk, I wanted no part of Purdy having the ball back and 1:30 on the clock to drive down for a winning score. Iowa got a gift. ISU just got unlucky.

 

[Cyclone.TV]

As Kirk Ferentz says, we have a really clutch quarterback. If you felt comfortable giving Purdy the ball with a minute and a half left I guess I don't know what to tell ya

It doesn’t matter anyway. I’d rather see the yardage and the eye test for proof of one team being better than the other. W/L can be affected by outside factors, like the refs and super bowl emotions, as we all saw on Saturday.

 

[TRYHARDER]

I mean do any Hawk fans out there think that doesn't happen vs your secondary? Seems like the consensus is from Iowa fans that ISU would have had no problem getting into FG range

I say less than 50% chance. Would it have made us nervous? Absolutely but I'm sure Clones fans would have been as well. Clones have scored 30 points in regulation of their 1st two games. Scoring has been an issue. Special teams and kicker are questionable at best.

 

[Thinker]

Apparently is:

Iowa was not going to stop Purdy and crew with their base 4-3 being picked apart all game. Just wasnt going to happen. But ISU messed that up with special teams play.

 

[flycy]

LOL, this is a bad take from you. I'm not sure if I can trust your analysis much anymore. He was only like 4 yards past it.

Now that I have read the COLLEGE rules, and rewatched this, intentional grounding 100 out of 100 times. He clearly was throwing at the tackle the entire time with no one in the area code.

 

[Gonzo]

It doesn’t matter anyway. I’d rather see the yardage and the eye test for proof of one team being better than the other. W/L can be affected by outside factors, like the refs and super bowl emotions, as we all saw on Saturday.

Well done.

 

[CyTwins]

I say less than 50% chance. Would it have made us nervous? Absolutely but I'm sure Clones fans would have been as well. Clones have scored 30 points in regulation of their 1st two games. Scoring has been an issue. Special teams and kicker are questionable at best.

Our kicker has been fine

 

[moores2]

as was stated and I was corrected on it, hypothetical as this thread is, If Iowa takes the illegal hands to the face call on the play before it takes all of this out of the equation. So really think about this for a minute. A football game has so many variable and can change quickly. 1 play does not make or break the game.

Except then it is 3rd and 28 rather than 4th and 13. 2 Plays to get the yardage.

 

[iahawks]

Yep. Would have won if they wouldn't have gotten the phantom holding call against them too. Oh well

Here comes the asterisk. I was a few weeks off on my initial prediction.