UNC vs Rutgers

[cantrelax]

Credit to Rutgers D at the end of regulation time. They had everyone locked off. Gray (I beleve) behind with nobody to pass to.

[wgdsr]

Terry Foy:

I asked Brecht whether he was trying to call a timeout in OT and if that led to his dispute with the official. He said he didn’t have an issue with the ref at that time, and described how he’s trusted his players in that spot all year.

Pretty clear wasn’t trying to call TO.

https://twitter.com/TerenceFoy/status/1 ... 4659689476

thanks. good chance i would've done the same.

seremet? was visibly calling for a to, but don't recall whether that was in the box and of course don't know if the refs gave him the authority/he was aping brecht.

any event, great game by rutgers and a team made one more play. or 2 more.

[a fan]

2 guys went to 1st shortie and a pole? had to come up to his pass receiver in the middle of the field? that's the definition of seeing whether seeing if something happens. do you recall loyola calling a to when they had numbers on duke?
didn't duke win it all? this isn't cut and dried and there was some effort somewhere to call one when it broke down (quickly) and the staff didn't look happy.

go with what you want. they're doofusses.

edit: get on a sideline. refs miss to requests all the time. the lead looked like an old man, watching the play but already at gle. the trail was nowhere in the picture but they're also not often watching. sheesh.

That's fine. Doesn't have to be cut and dried. The moral of the story is they were legally allowed to call a timeout, had time to do so, and didn't. It may have cost them a win.

Everyone says that every single year a team doesn't call a OT timeout, and said team loses.

Calling a time out in overtime is like calling one to "ice" a kicker.

They just had the OT break and a huddle, right? What does everyone think the O and D coaches talk about during the OT break? The post game meal?

The critics forget that the timeout gives the defensive team more time to rest, and more time to prepare.

I LOVE when coaches just let the kids on the field figure it out. This is supposed to be a players sport----and taking one time out isn't some magic tonic that improves your chances to win. If it was, every offensive time out in our sport would lead to an automatic goal.

Edit to add---this isn't directed at you, HopFan16....I know you're just giving your opinion...

[HopFan16]

2 guys went to 1st shortie and a pole? had to come up to his pass receiver in the middle of the field? that's the definition of seeing whether seeing if something happens. do you recall loyola calling a to when they had numbers on duke?
didn't duke win it all? this isn't cut and dried and there was some effort somewhere to call one when it broke down (quickly) and the staff didn't look happy.

go with what you want. they're doofusses.

edit: get on a sideline. refs miss to requests all the time. the lead looked like an old man, watching the play but already at gle. the trail was nowhere in the picture but they're also not often watching. sheesh.

That's fine. Doesn't have to be cut and dried. The moral of the story is they were legally allowed to call a timeout, had time to do so, and didn't. It may have cost them a win.

Everyone says that every single year a team doesn't call a timeout, and said team loses.

Calling a time out in overtime is like calling one to "ice" a kicker.

They just had the OT break and a huddle, right? What does everyone think the O and D coaches talk about during the OT break? The post game meal?

The critics forget that the timeout gives the defensive team more time to rest, and more time to prepare.

I LOVE when coaches just let the kids on the field figure it out. This is supposed to be a players sport----and taking one time out isn't some magic tonic that improves your chances to win. If it was, every offensive time out in our sport would lead to an automatic goal.

By that logic, the UNC D should have already been prepared anyway, because of the prior break for OT. UNC D was also pretty well rested from not having had to play any defense the previous few possessions.

Again, I don't think the timeout would have been to get an offensive advantage over the defense. It would have been to put that possession in a vault. Maybe it calms the nerves knowing they've got the ball in the box and don't have to worry about anything but just running the offense.

I'm all for letting the players play. But several of the Rutgers players were playing poorly by that point. Struggling to maintain possession. I do think calling a timeout would have improved their chances of winning. Brecht thought different, clearly.

PS that analogy about icing the kicker doesn't make any sense lol

[wgdsr]

if it couldn't be more ironic, carc had a problem with a timeout called in 1st half.
and they come out and score. and carc's a genius.

[a fan]

By that logic, the UNC D should have already been prepared anyway, because of the prior break for OT. UNC D was also pretty well rested from not having had to play any defense the previous few possessions.

So....you get it, then?

Taking a timeout vs. not taking a timeout is irrelevant to the outcome of the game. Full stop.

PS that analogy about icing the kicker doesn't make any sense lol

It makes perfect sense. The lesson here: taking a timeout doesn't increase your chances of winning.

Let's say that Brecht calls the timeout, and UNC strips a Rutgers player after a restart and wins the game----and I come on here and claim that the timeout was stupid because I noticed the UNC D was gassed, and the timeout allowed them to rest. What's your rebuttal to that?

There isn't one. Why? Because my claim is stupid, that's why.

Timeouts aren't magic unicorns stuffed with fairy dust. Sports fans always think that they are, and that devoid of any evidence, think that taking one increases the offensive teams chance to score. If that ACTUALLY worked? Wouldn't the first team to gain possession in an OT, and calls a timeout, ALWAYS win?

You and the other QB's are speculating. Full stop.

[wgdsr]

By that logic, the UNC D should have already been prepared anyway, because of the prior break for OT. UNC D was also pretty well rested from not having had to play any defense the previous few possessions.

So....you get it, then?

Taking a timeout vs. not taking a timeout is irrelevant to the outcome of the game. Full stop.

PS that analogy about icing the kicker doesn't make any sense lol

It makes perfect sense. The lesson here: taking a timeout doesn't increase your chances of winning.

Let's say that Brecht calls the timeout, and UNC strips a Rutgers player after a restart and wins the game----and I come on here and claim that the timeout was stupid because I noticed the UNC D was gassed, and the timeout allowed them to rest. What's your rebuttal to that?

There isn't one. Why? Because my claim is stupid, that's why.

Timeouts aren't magic unicorns stuffed with fairy dust. Sports fans always think that they are, and that devoid of any evidence, think that taking one increases the offensive teams chance to score. If that ACTUALLY worked? Wouldn't the first team to gain possession in an OT, and calls a timeout, ALWAYS win?

You and the other QB's are speculating. Full stop.

i got nowhere a fan. good luck.

[DocBarrister]

2 guys went to 1st shortie and a pole? had to come up to his pass receiver in the middle of the field? that's the definition of seeing whether seeing if something happens. do you recall loyola calling a to when they had numbers on duke?
didn't duke win it all? this isn't cut and dried and there was some effort somewhere to call one when it broke down (quickly) and the staff didn't look happy.

go with what you want. they're doofusses.

edit: get on a sideline. refs miss to requests all the time. the lead looked like an old man, watching the play but already at gle. the trail was nowhere in the picture but they're also not often watching. sheesh.

That's fine. Doesn't have to be cut and dried. The moral of the story is they were legally allowed to call a timeout, had time to do so, and didn't. It may have cost them a win.

Everyone says that every single year a team doesn't call a OT timeout, and said team loses.

Calling a time out in overtime is like calling one to "ice" a kicker.

They just had the OT break and a huddle, right? What does everyone think the O and D coaches talk about during the OT break? The post game meal?

The critics forget that the timeout gives the defensive team more time to rest, and more time to prepare.

I LOVE when coaches just let the kids on the field figure it out. This is supposed to be a players sport----and taking one time out isn't some magic tonic that improves your chances to win. If it was, every offensive time out in our sport would lead to an automatic goal.

Edit to add---this isn't directed at you, HopFan16....I know you're just giving your opinion...

You missed the point ... this was a timeout to preserve possession. North Carolina had caused four turnovers on the ride in the waning minutes of the game. You don’t keep that timeout in your pocket when you see Chris Gray running up behind your middie.

It need not be said that timeouts don’t guarantee results.

The timeout should have been called to preserve possession. It’s really silly to argue about this. Most coaches would have taken the timeout, and most coaches would have been right to take it.

DocBarrister

[HopFan16]

By that logic, the UNC D should have already been prepared anyway, because of the prior break for OT. UNC D was also pretty well rested from not having had to play any defense the previous few possessions.

So....you get it, then?

Not sure what you mean. My point is that since the D is already rested and prepared, calling a timeout wouldn't have really helped the defense, as you suggested it would have. There was no advantage to lose. You implied calling a TO would have helped the UNC D and I'm disagreeing.

PS that analogy about icing the kicker doesn't make any sense lol

It makes perfect sense. The lesson here: taking a timeout doesn't increase your chances of winning.

Let's say that Brecht calls the timeout, and UNC strips a Rutgers player after a restart and wins the game----and I come on here and claim that the timeout was stupid because I noticed the UNC D was gassed, and the timeout allowed them to rest. What's your rebuttal to that?

There isn't one. Why? Because my claim is stupid, that's why.

Timeouts aren't magic unicorns stuffed with fairy dust. Sports fans always think that they are, and that devoid of any evidence, think that taking one increases the offensive teams chance to score. If that ACTUALLY worked? Wouldn't the first team to gain possession in an OT, and calls a timeout, ALWAYS win?

You and the other QB's are speculating. Full stop.

Of course it's speculation. Everything everyone has said about this is speculation—that goes unsaid. Brecht was speculating by not calling a timeout—he speculated his guy wouldn't turn it over. He speculated the value of not calling a timeout was greater than the value of calling one. No one can say DEFINITIVELY that he was wrong. But we can say definitively that he wasn't right.

I think the likelihood of a Rutgers attackman or offensive middie getting stripped, in a settled situation, after a restart, would have been low—certainly lower than a defensive midfielder coughing it up in transition, which had happened multiple times right before that, and, as it turned out, happened again. Yes, speculation, but informed speculation, IMO.

In a game in which UNC was defending the Rutgers transition game well, and Rut was beginning to struggle just to get the ball into their box, I'd have prioritized maintaining that possession over "letting the kids play" and at least forcing the other team to earn it via a save or a real defensive stand. If you call a TO and still turn it over, what have you lost? Not like the D-mid was about to score and they ruined a great transition opportunity. He was nowhere near the goal and not really in a position to get there. We've seen coaches get too timeout happy and ruin a transition goal (heck, Tillman did that a few weeks ago. Dino did too I believe) but this wasn't that.

[DocBarrister]

By that logic, the UNC D should have already been prepared anyway, because of the prior break for OT. UNC D was also pretty well rested from not having had to play any defense the previous few possessions.

So....you get it, then?

Taking a timeout vs. not taking a timeout is irrelevant to the outcome of the game. Full stop.

PS that analogy about icing the kicker doesn't make any sense lol

It makes perfect sense. The lesson here: taking a timeout doesn't increase your chances of winning.

Let's say that Brecht calls the timeout, and UNC strips a Rutgers player after a restart and wins the game----and I come on here and claim that the timeout was stupid because I noticed the UNC D was gassed, and the timeout allowed them to rest. What's your rebuttal to that?

There isn't one. Why? Because my claim is stupid, that's why.

Timeouts aren't magic unicorns stuffed with fairy dust. Sports fans always think that they are, and that devoid of any evidence, think that taking one increases the offensive teams chance to score. If that ACTUALLY worked? Wouldn't the first team to gain possession in an OT, and calls a timeout, ALWAYS win?

You and the other QB's are speculating. Full stop.

i got nowhere a fan. good luck.

You can lecture us when you can actually recall the game you are watching.

Until then, eat more fish. Good for the brain and memory.

DocBarrister

[HopFan16]

By that logic, the UNC D should have already been prepared anyway, because of the prior break for OT. UNC D was also pretty well rested from not having had to play any defense the previous few possessions.

So....you get it, then?

Taking a timeout vs. not taking a timeout is irrelevant to the outcome of the game. Full stop.

PS that analogy about icing the kicker doesn't make any sense lol

It makes perfect sense. The lesson here: taking a timeout doesn't increase your chances of winning.

Let's say that Brecht calls the timeout, and UNC strips a Rutgers player after a restart and wins the game----and I come on here and claim that the timeout was stupid because I noticed the UNC D was gassed, and the timeout allowed them to rest. What's your rebuttal to that?

There isn't one. Why? Because my claim is stupid, that's why.

Timeouts aren't magic unicorns stuffed with fairy dust. Sports fans always think that they are, and that devoid of any evidence, think that taking one increases the offensive teams chance to score. If that ACTUALLY worked? Wouldn't the first team to gain possession in an OT, and calls a timeout, ALWAYS win?

You and the other QB's are speculating. Full stop.

i got nowhere a fan. good luck.

the "none of you know the rules" guy is still being dismissive? lol

[Wheels]

Just got done watching the 2nd half on DVR.

In that situation, most coaches probably call the TO in OT just to settle the team. Hell, UNC called a TO right when they first got possession in the OT for the same reason. Whatever Brecht and his staff drew up doesn't guarantee that RU scores, but turnover happened right in front of them. They saw Gray closing in. When Kirst got the initial ground ball, the RU assistant tried calling a TO for the same reason...he could see Gray closing in and getting ready for a stick check.

Great defensive effort by RU. Gutty win by UNC.

Beginning to think that the champion will come out of the other side of the bracket. UNC and UVA are going to beat the living tar out of each other on Saturday, and then the winner has to recover and play another top team on Monday.

[wgdsr]

By that logic, the UNC D should have already been prepared anyway, because of the prior break for OT. UNC D was also pretty well rested from not having had to play any defense the previous few possessions.

So....you get it, then?

Taking a timeout vs. not taking a timeout is irrelevant to the outcome of the game. Full stop.

PS that analogy about icing the kicker doesn't make any sense lol

It makes perfect sense. The lesson here: taking a timeout doesn't increase your chances of winning.

Let's say that Brecht calls the timeout, and UNC strips a Rutgers player after a restart and wins the game----and I come on here and claim that the timeout was stupid because I noticed the UNC D was gassed, and the timeout allowed them to rest. What's your rebuttal to that?

There isn't one. Why? Because my claim is stupid, that's why.

Timeouts aren't magic unicorns stuffed with fairy dust. Sports fans always think that they are, and that devoid of any evidence, think that taking one increases the offensive teams chance to score. If that ACTUALLY worked? Wouldn't the first team to gain possession in an OT, and calls a timeout, ALWAYS win?

You and the other QB's are speculating. Full stop.

i got nowhere a fan. good luck.

the "none of you know the rules" guy is still being dismissive? lol

i explained it already. guys were saying on the ride. and i didnt see in the box for a few seconds.

here's my guess, 16. you like to be a fan. you and doc b have never played anywhere seriously (maybe you in h.s.... doc never). and you have absolutely never coached the way you're carrying on. you sit in the stands.

and in your mind... you would've called a timeout, have the ref hear it/see it, in the one second that a transition opportunity was pulled out and an attackman was near a mid ready to pass the ball.

and you would've won the game with that genius.

gtfoh.

[HopFan16]

By that logic, the UNC D should have already been prepared anyway, because of the prior break for OT. UNC D was also pretty well rested from not having had to play any defense the previous few possessions.

So....you get it, then?

Taking a timeout vs. not taking a timeout is irrelevant to the outcome of the game. Full stop.

PS that analogy about icing the kicker doesn't make any sense lol

It makes perfect sense. The lesson here: taking a timeout doesn't increase your chances of winning.

Let's say that Brecht calls the timeout, and UNC strips a Rutgers player after a restart and wins the game----and I come on here and claim that the timeout was stupid because I noticed the UNC D was gassed, and the timeout allowed them to rest. What's your rebuttal to that?

There isn't one. Why? Because my claim is stupid, that's why.

Timeouts aren't magic unicorns stuffed with fairy dust. Sports fans always think that they are, and that devoid of any evidence, think that taking one increases the offensive teams chance to score. If that ACTUALLY worked? Wouldn't the first team to gain possession in an OT, and calls a timeout, ALWAYS win?

You and the other QB's are speculating. Full stop.

i got nowhere a fan. good luck.

the "none of you know the rules" guy is still being dismissive? lol

i explained it already. guys were saying on the ride. and i didnt see in the box for a few seconds.

here's my guess, 16. you like to be a fan. you and doc b have never played anywhere seriously (maybe you in h.s.... doc never). and you have absolutely never coached the way you're carrying on. you sit in the stands.

and in your mind... you would've called a timeout, have the ref hear it/see it, in the one second that a transition opportunity was pulled out and an attackman was near a mid ready to pass the ball.

and you would've won the game with that genius.

gtfoh.

4 people in the thread were calling for a timeout and only one of them said anything about a ride. "Guys" was one poster out of several. And, man, even though the turnover may not have technically occurred during a "ride," it wasn't all that far off especially given the context of previous clears. Feel like that's getting a bit nitpicky.

Taking random shots at my lacrosse experience for having a different opinion about a timeout than you isn't going to change the fact that you messed that one up. But congrats on the imaginary forum points you awarded yourself for that zinger

[wgdsr]

whatever dude. i generally speaking enjoy hearing your takes and analysis.

as you did here, you like to get a bit acerbic. get yourself surprised when it comes back at you.

don't be doc.

[HopFan16]

whatever dude. i generally speaking enjoy hearing your takes and analysis.

as you did here, you like to get a bit acerbic. get yourself surprised when it comes back at you.

don't be doc.

I'm not attacking anyone here personally. I thought Rutgers should have called a timeout, as did others. Sue me.

a fan was somehow able to have a respectful discussion with me about the game without prematurely sh*tting on everyone else for not knowing the rules and then being dismissive for seeing it differently—and then, on top of that, going after my experience in the game as if that, even if true, somehow invalidates the mere thought that maybe the coach should have called a timeout.

[a fan]

Not sure what you mean. My point is that since the D is already rested and prepared, calling a timeout wouldn't have really helped the defense, as you suggested it would have. There was no advantage to lose. You implied calling a TO would have helped the UNC D and I'm disagreeing.

You're telling me that you've never seen a coach--in any sport with timeouts---- burn two timeouts at the end of a game to rest D?

Of course it's speculation. Everything everyone has said about this is speculation—that goes unsaid.

Well, good on ya for understanding that you're speculating......many fans do not understand they are speculating here.

Personally? I like it when the coach lets the players work themselves out of a jam, and don't micromanage every freaking minute of the game.

One thing we agree on? This was a fantastic game, and both teams played their guts out. Can't wait for tomorrow!

[HopFan16]

Personally? I like it when the coach lets the players work themselves out of a jam, and don't micromanage every freaking minute of the game.

As a general philosophy, I'm with you 100%.

[wgdsr]

whatever dude. i generally speaking enjoy hearing your takes and analysis.

as you did here, you like to get a bit acerbic. get yourself surprised when it comes back at you.

don't be doc.

I'm not attacking anyone here personally. I thought Rutgers should have called a timeout, as did others. Sue me.

a fan was somehow able to have a respectful discussion with me about the game without prematurely sh*tting on everyone else for not knowing the rules and then being dismissive for seeing it differently—and then, on top of that, going after my experience in the game as if that, even if true, somehow invalidates the mere thought that maybe the coach should have called a timeout.

i said other people (not you) didn't know the rules. actually, 2 1/2 out of 4, not 1, were talking about riding and clearing.

again, you can expect it both ways at times, hopfan. you seem you have thick enough skin.

[HopFan16]

whatever dude. i generally speaking enjoy hearing your takes and analysis.

as you did here, you like to get a bit acerbic. get yourself surprised when it comes back at you.

don't be doc.

I'm not attacking anyone here personally. I thought Rutgers should have called a timeout, as did others. Sue me.

a fan was somehow able to have a respectful discussion with me about the game without prematurely sh*tting on everyone else for not knowing the rules and then being dismissive for seeing it differently—and then, on top of that, going after my experience in the game as if that, even if true, somehow invalidates the mere thought that maybe the coach should have called a timeout.

i said other people (not you) didn't know the rules. actually, 2 1/2 out of 4, not 1, were talking about riding and clearing.

again, you can expect it both ways at times, hopfan. you seem you have thick enough skin.

It's not both ways though...I am not calling your credentials into question, nor am I accusing you or anyone else of not knowing the rules. Whatever, we really can be done with this. I've moved on. More good lax tomorrow.