We need to install that pick play.

[311Hog]

Let's take this further, since we're talking about how football should be played.
The game of football...as we know it...should not even exist.
People are just now, in the last five years, becoming more enlightened.
The human body is just not made to collide with others in this manner.
The game should never have been created; it's way too physical, almost barbaric.
Same goes for boxing.
I love watching football as much as the next guy, but I've become more enlightnend myself.
Wouldn't surprise me if the physical game we know today is a lot different in 25 years. It *needs* to become more like flag football.

I'm not being sarcastic either. I really believe this.
I would not let my kid play football. There are plenty of other, safer sports like basketball, golf, track, swimming, etc

I do not dissagree with your points but IMHO the game of football came about as a "as close to Gladiator" activity as possible.  We are Rome or want to be Rome, or unconsciously behave as Romans.

No one is going to pay the kind of money that is being paid to see guys in shorts and cleats toss the pig skin around with no contact, it just isn't going to happen.  The moment the element of death and injury is removed from the game the game will cease to be "the sport" of choice in America.  Why do you think soccer has never caught on?

The fact that it is dangerous and horribly damaging to anyone that plays it even if they just play in High School has always been there, it is  absolutely intentional. 

[NuttinItUp]

I do not dissagree with your points but IMHO the game of football came about as a "as close to Gladiator" activity as possible.  We are Rome or want to be Rome, or unconsciously behave as Romans.

MMA?

[311Hog]

MMA?

MMA yes but not nearly as popular as football and is 1 v 1 football is 11 v 11 you can see the scale. 

[HognitiveDissonance]

I do not dissagree with your points but IMHO the game of football came about as a "as close to Gladiator" activity as possible.  We are Rome or want to be Rome, or unconsciously behave as Romans.

No one is going to pay the kind of money that is being paid to see guys in shorts and cleats toss the pig skin around with no contact, it just isn't going to happen.  The moment the element of death and injury is removed from the game the game will cease to be "the sport" of choice in America.  Why do you think soccer has never caught on?

The fact that it is dangerous and horribly damaging to anyone that plays it even if they just play in High School has always been there, it is  absolutely intentional.

And I'm ok with that (tossing the pig skin around with no contact)
I've come to terms with it.
Make it happen.

I am not sure about your other points. I don't know if there would no longer be 70,000 people around to watch or not. Not 100% convinced they wouldn't, as long as good ole State U is playing.
Soccer is also not an 'American' creation. That contributes some to its lack of popularity, at least with adults watching. IMHO, put some more offense in the game and that might change. Right now, it's a bunch of people running around a field for hours to maybe score three goals. Only a diehard fan would watch that and enjoy the 'strategy'.
Prices being lowered for football, I'm all in! They need to be anyway.

[EastexHawg]

And I'm ok with that (tossing the pig skin around with no contact)
I've come to terms with it.
Make it happen.

I am not sure about your other points. I don't know if there would no longer be 70,000 people around to watch or not. Not 100% convinced they wouldn't, as long as good ole State U is playing.

State U plays a lot of games, including the good ol' American invention of baseball.  How big is the baseball stadium compared to RRS, Neyland, or Bryant Denny?  Are the crowds there for golf and volleyball? 

When and if we go to flag football, it'll be you and a few soccer moms standing around yelling for Little Joey to "get that flag!"  But hey, maybe that will increase the odds of hooking up with a chick who no longer objectifies herself with dieting and makeup but drives a mean minivan or SUV.

[311Hog]

And I'm ok with that (tossing the pig skin around with no contact)
I've come to terms with it.
Make it happen.

I am not sure about your other points. I don't know if there would no longer be 70,000 people around to watch or not. Not 100% convinced they wouldn't, as long as good ole State U is playing.
Soccer is also not an 'American' creation. That contributes some to its lack of popularity, at least with adults watching. IMHO, put some more offense in the game and that might change. Right now, it's a bunch of people running around a field for hours to maybe score three goals. Only a diehard fan would watch that and enjoy the 'strategy'.
Prices being lowered for football, I'm all in! They need to be anyway.

I mean you will not see IMHO players getting paid millions of dollars if there is no violence in the sport.  People aren't going to pack Jerry world to watch flag football.  Some will of course but not nearly the $$$ product that exists today. 

And strangely enough i grew up playing soccer when i was a kid in the 80's it wasn't until i was older that i played football, and i love football do not get me wrong, i just see it for what it is.  A poor person lottery that 1% actually realize and they more than likely have to sacrifice their quality and length of their lives to get.

[HognitiveDissonance]

I didn't say the product or entertainment value would be better.
I don't think it would.

But it's a societal issue for me. We don't need games where people hit each other. Yea, it definitely seems sissi-fied...but it's also correct. We need to progress as people.
In some ways, we have. We no longer have games where people pack a stadium and watch people battle wild beasts like lions.
These are the next logical steps...to eliminate violent sports like boxing, football, MMA, etc

[Pig in the Pokey]

really smart to call it there. Even if they call it, you can just line up and kick the FG. no harm, no foul. Great call.

yessiree. said the same as it happened. really wasn't a pick tho b/c the bama player just tackled the WR. should have been holding on Bama. Both teams were willing to get a penalty there. If they call holding on bama, there is 1 second left, ball on the 1 yd line. Wonder if Clemson would have gone for the fg or td in that situation. i bet td.

[Hogwild]

Ehh...not a fix...just bad refs. They missed a lot of stuff on both sides

The game winning TD pass, was a perfectly legal play, the refs made the right call.  The outside WR never made contact with the inside defensive back.

[hogsanity]

The game winning TD pass, was a perfectly legal play, the refs made the right call.  The outside WR never made contact with the inside defensive back.

Yep, the inside defender was "picked" by his own man. The route combo ran them into each other, but there is nothing illegal about that.

[HognitiveDissonance]

Yep, the inside defender was "picked" by his own man. The route combo ran them into each other, but there is nothing illegal about that.

To take an extreme, anytime a pass pattern calls for two WRs to cross near each other, there is the possibility of bodies being 'tangled'. It could be inadvertent, or it could be intentional. How can you prove? So you would have to come up with a rule which says WRs can not run routes within so many yards of each other. Which is impossible.

If you can't definitively 100% say the offense tried to run people into each other, then you have to give them the benefit of the doubt. The compromise is that the offense has to 'sell' the rub play and make it look permissible.

That's why I compared it to intentional grounding. Everyone in the nation knows when a QB is chunking the ball out of bounds just to avoid a sack. But the refs can't 100% 'prove' a guy is just throwing it away, so the compromise is to at least 'sell' the play and allow QBs to do that 'if a receiver is in the general area'.

In both examples, offenses are taking advantage of the necessary gray area in the rules.

[hogsanity]

To take an extreme, anytime a pass pattern calls for two WRs to cross near each other, there is the possibility of bodies being 'tangled'. It could be inadvertent, or it could be intentional. How can you prove? So you would have to come up with a rule which says WRs can not run routes within so many yards of each other. Which is impossible.

If you can't definitively 100% say the offense tried to run people into each other, then you have to give them the benefit of the doubt. The compromise is that the offense has to 'sell' the rub play and make it look permissible.

That's why I compared it to intentional grounding. Everyone in the nation knows when a QB is chunking the ball out of bounds just to avoid a sack. But the refs can't 100% 'prove' a guy is just throwing it away, so the compromise is to at least 'sell' the play and allow QBs to do that 'if a receiver is in the general area'.

In both examples, offenses are taking advantage of the necessary gray area in the rules.

usually what refs look for is a offensive player extending an arm or arms into a defender after stopping running, dropping a shoulder into a defender, or veering suddenly into a defender or path of a defender.

[Temprees]

It should have been called twice last night. Both times on Clemson TDs. When it wasn't called the first time,  I figured the officials just missed it but when it wasn't called the second time on that last TD, I knew the fix was in.

The winning TD was not offensive pass interference.  The defender made contact first with the pass receiver (the picker).

[HogShat]

Apparently the "pick" plays are already in our playbook. Allen had like 3 against VT... Maybe he is doing it wrong...

[DeltaBoy]

Kinda like Coach K calling those he knows with the ability to put more emphasis on hand-checking after the 1994 basketball championship game?

Yep it will be a point of emphasize next year.

[lakecityhog]

Let's see, it's called a "pick" play. Offensive coaches discuss "pick" plays after games. Yeah, I think that the very intent of the play is illegal.

I think that the little "bunch screen" plays are illegal too. At the snap of the ball 2 WR's make contact and grab onto the nearest DB and hold on for dear life. The 3rd WR takes a step back and catches the ball and normally has a fairly clear path for several to a whole lot of yards.
Now, you let a DB run up to and grab a WR and hold on for dear life and you will see a flag EVERY time.(unless the DB is playing for Bama!)

The rules have definitely been changed to greatly benefit the teams throwing the ball.

[Inhogswetrust]

according to Dabo it was all done through God.

If there were a God it would have no interest in what team wins a game.

[Inhogswetrust]

It was a pick play, but it is also a fact that Bama has made a living manhandling receivers at the line of scrimmage, delaying, redirecting, knocking them off their routes. The Bama defender actually had his arms around the Clemson receiver who "picked" him before he was blocked.  Apparently that sort of contact is only okay if Bama's corners instigate it and the receivers meekly try to get away from them instead of driving straight ahead.

I have no problem with that until the pass is in the air towards the guy that is being manhandled.

[jbcarol]

https://twitter.com/aldotcomSports/status/818978300164968452

If there were lingering questions about Alabama's loss to Clemson, it surrounded two fourth-quarter touchdowns scored by the Tigers.

Were they legal?

Could the referees have called them pick plays?

Two rules experts finally issued rulings a day after Clemson's 35-31 win over Alabama.

Rogers Redding...

[billmontgomery10]

Hunter Henry stated after the Bama-Clemson game that he had been called for penalties twice on the pick play. I also seem to recall Sprinkle getting a penalty called for doing it so it is in our playbook.

[JJHog]

according to Dabo it was all done through God.

that's tacky. come on.

[JJHog]

If there were a God it would have no interest in what team wins a game.

Good point. There is a God his name is King Jesus.

[311Hog]

Good point. There is a God his name is King Jesus.

and he is 6'3 and runs a 4.2 forty....

[GoHogs1091]

The winning TD was not offensive pass interference.  The defender made contact first with the pass receiver (the picker).

You are correct.  The Alabama defender initiated contact first (which is something that occurs a lot regarding Alabama Defensive Backs).

Referee Mike Defee and his crew is probably the best officiating crew in all of College football, hence why they were officiating the NC game this year.

Defee and his crew worked the Rose Bowl last year.  A Referee and his crew don't get those type of games (Rose Bowl and NC games) without being excellent.