ND probably did not specify to the refs the number of players who would wear receiver numbers.

Home > Forums > Football Message Board

| Register

ND probably did not specify to the refs the number of players who would wear receiver numbers.

Author: SteveM (2104 Posts - Joined: Sep 9, 2011)

Posted at 9:17 am on Nov 17, 2024

View All

(no message)

Replies to: "ND probably did not specify to the refs the number of players who would wear receiver numbers."

Anybody find a good explanation on the fake punt call? It seems to be - ndphysics - 6:08am 11/17/24 (24) [View All]
- The rule makes sense. Not having at least 5 players with linemen numbers.. - SteveM - 7:53am 11/17/24
  - The Defense has eyes and brains…they should be able to recognize something is odd and adjust. [NT] - TyroneIrish - 8:34am 11/17/24
    - It's the refs job to call the existing rules - it was the correct call [NT] - Fisher01 - 11:27am 11/17/24
      - Fine, but also make the fair catch call under the existing rules. Clown show. [NT] - Frank L - 12:52pm 11/17/24
    - Right, so then give all 11 guys on offense receiver numbers and tell the defense to figure it out... - SteveM - 9:16am 11/17/24
      - Worth a shot…but seriously, the rule deserves a look at the end of the season… - TyroneIrish - 11:25am 11/17/24
        The play is fine if you have the correct lineman numbers on the field. ND did not. - McIrish - 12:29pm 11/17/24
- According to the announcers MF had shown the play to Refs prior to the game - TyroneIrish - 7:39am 11/17/24
  - That’s what Freeman was mouthing. [NT] - whatsamataU - 9:42am 11/17/24
  - ND probably did not specify to the refs the number of players who would wear receiver numbers. [NT] - SteveM - 9:17am 11/17/24
    - I had wondered about this detail. Perhaps small but very important - ndphysics - 5:12pm 11/17/24
  - The ACC is no friend to Notre Dame. - AlbanyIRISH - 7:50am 11/17/24
    - It would appear that way… [NT] - TyroneIrish - 8:27am 11/17/24
  - Yes, but MF made no mention of it in his post game unless I missed it. [NT] - ELP - 7:49am 11/17/24
    - “Cost/Benefit Ratio” for continuing the debate isn’t worth it…we won handily. [NT] - TyroneIrish - 8:30am 11/17/24
      - Yep. Also besides pass interference so inconsistently called, I hate inadvertent face mask - THEISMANCARR - 11:14am 11/17/24
        Could not agree more… - TyroneIrish - 11:33am 11/17/24
        The calls weren't "facemask" penalties. They were for illegal hands to the face - McIrish - 12:22pm 11/17/24
        Yup, and the ones I saw looked like legit calls, especially the one on 78 bringing back - Frank L - 12:50pm 11/17/24
        Didn't 78 basically extend his arms sideways and the defender ran into his hand? Even if it was - THEISMANCARR - 1:09am 11/18/24
- I've heard several explanations & none that put the play to rest. - ELP - 7:34am 11/17/24
  - He shouldn't have to call and blow a TO to have the play reviewed. - McIrish - 12:24pm 11/17/24
- The NBC rules guru offered confusing explanations - MarkHarman - 7:33am 11/17/24
  - That last part really sounds like bullshit. [NT] - THEISMANCARR - 11:16am 11/17/24