Wait a minute -- Mack was TOLD to catch the missed FG?

[Carl Spackler]

I've said what I saw on the football field. It's there if you want to look at it.

In a general football sense, choosing to put a player back on a long kick, to field a short kick still in the field of play, is actually a sign of creative thinking.

The potential options on the play were acted upon very well by the kicking team, and the returning team did not do a great job of recognizing the options on the play and reacting. I'm just pointing out the action and reaction. Somebody knows what actually happened to get those actions and reactions, but it's not me, and I'm not going to speculate on it.

 

[ruskin]

Your definition of "short kick" and mine are completely different. Yes,the field goal was short of going through the goalposts. As a returnable kick, in no way short. The guy who caught it was 109 yards from the goal line the other end of the field. You wouldn't call that a "short" kickoff or a "short" punt.

 

[sportsart]

I've said what I saw on the football field. It's there if you want to look at it.

In a general football sense, choosing to put a player back on a long kick, to field a short kick still in the field of play, is actually a sign of creative thinking.

The potential options on the play were acted upon very well by the kicking team, and the returning team did not do a great job of recognizing the options on the play and reacting. I'm just pointing out the action and reaction. Somebody knows what actually happened to get those actions and reactions, but it's not me, and I'm not going to speculate on it.

Sorry Carl, you've gone off the deep end. Having Mack back is not dumb. Not giving him the instructions to run for his life away from the ball, if he sees 10 or more MD players running at him in a full sprint, is dumb f@@k football coaching.

Edit: Never should have been there though.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Look guys. I'm sticking to football from here on in. There's nothing else really for me to do. The entire sequence of this play, in the course of the football game, was one very interesting part of the chess game to me, that's all. Nobody has corrected me, which means I"ll have to correct myself I guess, after I go back and look, but I'm 99% sure that the sequence happened as I laid out (field goal try lines up, we have man deep, Maryland calls TO, field goal try lines up again, same look from both sides pre-snap, and the result).

I've really got nothing else to say, because nothing else I can say (or anyone else is going to say about it all) is goign to matter anyway. It's up to the people that actually make decisions to determine what to do with facts.

If my sequence is wrong, please somebody tell me, because any conclusions you can draw, would be based on improper evidence.

Is that lawyerly enough? I'm no lawyer, but I stayed at holiday inn express recently.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

How is anyone not talking about strictly football?

The head coach put a player in a position where he wasn't likely to succeed.

 

[Fishy]

The irony is that given our offense, better field position is just kind of a tease.

 

[Carl Spackler]

How is anyone not talking about strictly football?

The head coach put a player in a position where he wasn't likely to succeed.

Well, again, staying at a Holiday Inn Express, as my crednetials, when you're an employee of the state of CT, or soemthing like that, and you have a contract, there has got to be very specific reasons that meet a criteria for what could be, sometimes phrased as, 'just cause' for termination.

All I can do is point out what I see on the football field, and compare it to what's on the video recordings. I can stay at every Holiday Inn Express in the country, but it won't make me a decision maker for this football program.

 

[Fishy]

Well, again, staying at a Holiday Inn Express, as my crednetials, when you're an employee of the state of CT, or soemthing like that, and you have a contract, there has got to be very specific reasons that meet a criteria for what could be, sometimes phrased as, 'just cause' for termination.

All I can do is point out what I see on the football field, and compare it to what's on the video recordings. I can stay at every Holiday Inn Express in the country, but it won't make me a decision maker for this football program.

Carl has left us.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Well, again, staying at a Holiday Inn Express, as my crednetials, when you're an employee of the state of CT, or soemthing like that, and you have a contract, there has got to be very specific reasons that meet a criteria for what could be, sometimes phrased as, 'just cause' for termination.

All I can do is point out what I see on the football field, and compare it to what's on the video recordings. I can stay at every Holiday Inn Express in the country, but it won't make me a decision maker for this football program.

Uh, what? Lol.

 

[ruskin]

The entire sequence of this play, in the course of the football game, was one very interesting part of the chess game to me, that's all.

Yep, it was a blunder that paved the road for Maryland 'checkmate' two or three moves later. Problem is everyone else is playing chess and UConn is playing checkers. I can only imagine the disbelieving laughter in the Maryland coaches box when they saw Mack go back there after the time out and then field the ball.

 

[huskymedic]

The head coach put a player in a position where he wasn't likely to succeed.

Heck - He does that every time our QB gets behind the Center!

I'm not defending the call - high risk w/score 20-13. But if you read TMack's quote - he may have pushed the envelop as well.

>>"Coach told me to go back and catch the ball. I looked up and it was me trying to make a play and help the team. I guess if I would have taken a knee it would have been at the 20 and the offense could have gone somewhere else. I was just trying to make plays.

"If it happens and it goes positive you see it as a good highlight if it doesn’t come out then you are answering these types of questions. It just depends on what happens but everybody wants to make plays so you can’t get by trying to play it safe."<<

He's returned punts and kick offs in his years here. The thing I see is that you trust kids to make the right decision when it is theirs to make (catch/run/no run/no catch) - it's never going to be foolproof. This was a regrettable decision on the coaches and the player.

 

[sportsart]

Well, again, staying at a Holiday Inn Express, as my crednetials, when you're an employee of the state of CT, or soemthing like that, and you have a contract, there has got to be very specific reasons that meet a criteria for what could be, sometimes phrased as, 'just cause' for termination.

All I can do is point out what I see on the football field, and compare it to what's on the video recordings. I can stay at every Holiday Inn Express in the country, but it won't make me a decision maker for this football program.

Call 911..hurry...

 

[ruskin]

He does that every time our QB gets behind the Center!

I'm not defending the call - high risk w/score 20-13. But if you read TMack's quote - he may have pushed the envelop as well.

>>"Coach told me to go back and catch the ball. I looked up and it was me trying to make a play and help the team. I guess if I would have taken a knee it would have been at the 20 and the offense could have gone somewhere else. I was just trying to make plays.

"If it happens and it goes positive you see it as a good highlight if it doesn’t come out then you are answering these types of questions. It just depends on what happens but everybody wants to make plays so you can’t get by trying to play it safe."<<

He's returned punts and kick offs in his years here. The thing I see is that you trust kids to make the right decision when it is theirs to make (catch/run/no run/no catch) - it's never going to be foolproof. This was a regrettable decision on the coaches and the player.

Not a 50-50 responsibility split on that one, Medic. Mack shouldn't have been back there in the first place. Upon further review, it's 100 percent on the coaches. Again. The guy making $1.6 million a year shouldn't have put him in that situation.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Thanks for the concern guys. It's a short trip.

Let me be clear. I'm done with formulating opinions on the coaching staff decision making processes, what may or may not have been called, what scheme or assignments might have been there, for them, called by whom.

I put my opinions out in full force last week. Losing is not tolerated by me and my opinions haven't changed. I'm not as upset as I was last week, entirely because of the stadium environment was great. It was a clear reminder of what we used to have on pretty regular basis, and what we can still have again. BETTER than it was before.

It's going to take GOOD football to get it back again regularly though. We cannot rely on RAndy Edsall, or Michigan, or Brigham Young, to fill our arena.

THis little sequence in the game, is one of the instances of BAD football. I'm just pointing out the sequence, which if you lay out the timeline and observe the results, seems to lead to a pretty clear conclusion that I'm not stating. It's a good place for people that might actually have the ways and means of questioning people, that might be in charge of whether or not we play GOOD football, as to their level of control and competency in achieving something called GOOD football.

I saw a lot of good football players on the field Saturday night in blue and white. I had hoped I would see them. Taylor Mack is one of those players.

I did not see a lot of good football though from the blue and white. A little good, not a lot. Not enough to win by any means.

I'll be back on your terrestial plane soon, though, no worries. Thanks for the concern.

 

[huskymedic]

Not a 50-50 responsibility split on that one, Medic. Mack shouldn't have been back there in the first place. Upon further review, it's 100 percent on the coaches. Again. The guy making $1.6 million a year shouldn't have put him in that situation.

It's your thread - i don't expect you to change your mind.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Heck - He does that every time our QB gets behind the Center!

I'm not defending the call - high risk w/score 20-13. But if you read TMack's quote - he may have pushed the envelop as well.

>>"Coach told me to go back and catch the ball. I looked up and it was me trying to make a play and help the team. I guess if I would have taken a knee it would have been at the 20 and the offense could have gone somewhere else. I was just trying to make plays.

"If it happens and it goes positive you see it as a good highlight if it doesn’t come out then you are answering these types of questions. It just depends on what happens but everybody wants to make plays so you can’t get by trying to play it safe."<<

He's returned punts and kick offs in his years here. The thing I see is that you trust kids to make the right decision when it is theirs to make (catch/run/no run/no catch) - it's never going to be foolproof. This was a regrettable decision on the coaches and the player.

What this football program needs medic, is somebody in the media that really knows football. There are a ton of questions that should have been asked about this little sequence. last night - of both players and coaches on both sides of the ball - as to what went on.

Unfortunately, none of us, know, and too many people are focused on the wrong things. It's not that the kid caught the ball, on a missed field goal try (didn't use the word 'short' - sheesh), or that he was even put in position to be there - the fact that he was put in position to be there is what started the whole interesting sequence, and it really is, one of those things you can do in a football game, that shows creative thinking, and going outside the box.

Also - I really don't know the rule in college. In the NFL, that ball is dead, the equivalent of a punt. It only becomes live when the returning team touches it. The kicking team cannot advance the ball from the spot of the kick,if it is short and still in the field of play, and it reverts to a touchback in the endzone start at the 20 yard line, or the point of the kick whichever is farther.

Rules get a little screwy on blocked kicks, but that wasn't the situation here.

I don't know the NCAA rule - starting there would have been a good place to ask.

All we know, is what the facts are. THe player stated he was told to field the ball. The timeline, and the fact that on the kick, the kicking team played the kick as full field coverage on the run.

DId Maryland plan to do that on the first snap? Did it change? Were there any other instructions to Mack ? Did he decide to take the kick out of the endzone on his own? Did he recognize the coverage?

If the god damn media is going to be taking info from this website for their material, we might as well educate them. If people from UCONN actually monitor this website that have the ability to be decision makers, we better get them looking at the right things to figure out how to evaluate people.

And now, my strange trip is over. Good night all.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

I'd have to refresh myself on the rule book, but I'm pretty sure that a field goal try is the equivalent of punt, in that it is a dead ball kick. But that's NFL. I'm not sure of the NCAA rule.

I do know that both teams lined up for a field goal try, a TO was called, the field goal try was lined up again, and we had a player deep that fielded a short kick, and began a return into a full field kick coverage that forced him immediately to the sideline.

For the most part it is similar to a punt. There is a significant difference however in that if (in the case of a FG attempt that was not blocked, landing in the field of play, if the receiving team does not attempt play the ball after it lands the LOS is the spot of the kick. By playing the ball we altered the application of the rules (if downed in the end zone it becomes a touchback, if carried out from the end zone, it becomes identical to a punt or kickoff return). The main advantage on returning one iof these comes when the kicking team does not treat it as a returnable kick (I'll wager that at least 80% of these that have had quality returns happened with the kicking team having at least two players who did not treat it as a returnable kick until it was too late, including the 2006 return Hester had against the Giants).

I still see any instruction beyond 'if they cover the return, run away from where the ball will land' as assinine and I would love an explanation from anyone claiming anything different.

 

[Jimdish255]

I lost it after this. Just sheer stupidity put on display.

It's not even debatable in the P era, he just makes unequivocally wrong decisions.

It's the kind of desperate move that makes me worry about next week.

 

[Sean]

I think Fishy hit the nail on the head. We could have had the ball in great field position, in which case our odds of scoring were about 0.5%. If PP thought Mack could return it even 1% of the time, he sends him back.

That's pretty much the decision PP made. He said it was more likely for Mack to score a TD on that return than Whitmer lead us from the 40 yard line.

Yet we have one guy on here trying to claim it was the right decision. Unbelievable. Only thing more unbelievable is that an actual paid football coach did it, too.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I think Fishy hit the nail on the head. We could have had the ball in great field position, in which case our odds of scoring were about 0.5%. If PP thought Mack could return it even 1% of the time, he sends him back.

That's pretty much the decision PP made. He said it was more likely for Mack to score a TD on that return than Whitmer lead us from the 40 yard line.

Yet we have one guy on here trying to claim it was the right decision. Unbelievable. Only thing more unbelievable is that an actual paid football coach did it, too.

If you've referring to me as claiming it was a 'right' decision, then you need work on your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills.

All I've said is that it represents 'creative thinking' in football, and the play had multiple options and was part of a sequence of events that can have multiple different explanations.

THe only bad decision (ON THE FIELD) was taking the ball out of the endzone by Mack, but Mack is a player, and I don't have a problem with a player tryign to make plays, as long as they learn from their mistakes.

 

[Carl Spackler]

For the most part it is similar to a punt. There is a significant difference however in that if (in the case of a FG attempt that was not blocked, landing in the field of play, if the receiving team does not attempt play the ball after it lands the LOS is the spot of the kick. By playing the ball we altered the application of the rules (if downed in the end zone it becomes a touchback, if carried out from the end zone, it becomes identical to a punt or kickoff return). The main advantage on returning one iof these comes when the kicking team does not treat it as a returnable kick (I'll wager that at least 80% of these that have had quality returns happened with the kicking team having at least two players who did not treat it as a returnable kick until it was too late, including the 2006 return Hester had against the Giants).

I still see any instruction beyond 'if they cover the return, run away from where the ball will land' as assinine and I would love an explanation from anyone claiming anything different.

I agree, and these kinds of things are the things that should be asked of a football coach after a division 1 game, in a sequence like that. Maryland had called a timeout, did it even occur to anyone on our sideline that they may have recognized the situation and were planning to run a full coverage on the kick?

We are not a big time football program yet, in many ways. This program is being driven to losing, and there is nobody asking the right questions, except a handful of people that don't matter.

 

[cohenzone]

Well, certainly Mack is right that if he takes it all the way, attitudes might be different. But there are a lot more reasons to dislike the idea, especially given that field position was pretty good and the chances of there being a decent alley with MD being aware of the potential run back and almost guaranteed to be in his face by the time he got to the 5, leaving it up to him to make a bad decision was a not a good plan. Getting the ball at the 35 against a pass D that was not very good when the rush didn't succeed (big "if", I know) gives them a fighting chance.

 

[Waquoit]

It's the kind of desperate move that makes me worry about next week.

Right. They make that call, yet they didn't have the balls to go for it on 4th and 1. The odds of making a 1st down was a lot greater than a return for a TD.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Well, certainly Mack is right that if he takes it all the way, attitudes might be different. But there are a lot more reasons to dislike the idea, especially given that field position was pretty good and the chances of there being a decent alley with MD being aware of the potential run back and almost guaranteed to be in his face by the time he got to the 5, leaving it up to him to make a bad decision was a not a good plan. Getting the ball at the 35 against a pass D that was not very good when the rush didn't succeed (big "if", I know) gives them a fighting chance.

Hi cohenzone - this has been a fun exercise, and you nailed it here. IT's really this simple. I wonder how far this discussion will go out and beyond.

Here's what actually happened:

I told you all it was from memory last night, and could be wrong, and I was. We had 11 at the line of scrimmage on the first lineup for the kick. I didn't see what I said I saw, or maybe I "mis-rembered". Who knows. Nobody but me. Nobody bothered to correct me though. It's not that hard - the espn3.com recording actually has a bookmark on the play so that you can go right to it and watch the entire sequence.

Just goes to show that you can't trust me, or anyone else around here, and this is an anonymous message board and meaningless.

It really irks me that people from the media, and even the alma mater itself would take anything written on this website seriously. (and they do) - but moving on.

Here's the reality of the sequence - that you can verify with the recording available online.

The kick was from the 32 yard line, and it was 20-13 game about 1/3 the way through the third quarter. The defense had actually made a pretty good stop, playing good defense. Byron Jones made a great play on perfectly thrown ball into the post on second down. On third down, Maryland went to trips right formation that we hadn't seen before, sent 5 runners out in patterns and had an opening underneath on a crossing pattern coming from the left behind the linebackers and under the coverage shell that was wide open for a first down. Our rookie freshmen safety was caught backpedaling and looking at the trips formation rather than recognizing the crossing pattern from the left underneath and had the QB had time, it would have been a very high percentage first down, and possibly a long run for a touchdown with those three receivers on the right downfield blocking. You can see Obi staring to his left without moving his head through the entire play on the replay - where Obi's eyes are going, is something that needs to get fixed before next week in our defense. that's the most important thing moving forward in that sequence of downs.

But we got a pass rush on that play, and forced the QB to pull the ball down and scramble for a short gain. Maryland lined up for a kick, and we had 11 guys at the line of scrimmage. Maryland called a timeout. After the timeout - we lined up with 10 at scrimmage and Mack set deep. Mack caught the kick and ran approx. 20 yards with it before being forced out. We take over at the 10, instead of the 32.

-22 yard play.

It was a single possession game, and I personally, don't mind taking chances and being creative in football to make things change on the field in your favor, because we needed to get things going the other way - big time, we had just come off two consecutive three and outs on offense, and had recovered two fumbles on D but only put up 3 points. A few inches here or there on blocks up field , and Mack might get a gap and bring it back a long way. It was a risk, and risks in football, are always great calls, and great plays when they work, and bad calls and bad plays when they don't.

The question here isn't whether or not it was right or wrong. The play didn't work so it was wrong. I'm not defending it as the right decision, I'm just talking about it. THe play didn't work.

The question is how was the play coached? The devil is in the details.

It's a game of inches, it always has been. Unfortunately, for 2 seasons + now, we consistently come up inches short, and the difference, now isn't talent. We have talent - it's in the details. The days of being able to put players on the field that are vastly superior to other players, and then just let them play, and win by inches - are over.

It's never a good thing, when you have to come to the conclusion of being "inches short".

Don't trust what you read on this website.

 

[kcc1442]

I didn't read many of the posts here but I disagree with all the people who are hating on the decision to send Mack back there. HCPP is an idiot of the most grandiose fashion and has put us in turmoil. However, it was Mack's poor decision to bring the ball out rather than just kneel on it.

The field goal unit is typically comprised of a kicker, a holder (usually another K or P or QB) and 9 other fat olinemen......We badly need big electric game changing plays. For a guy who is typically anti-aggressive in his decision making at least he tried shaking things up to get a speedster in Mack matched up in a return with 10 fat guys on the field. Now unfortunately the timeout was called by Edsall and I'm sure he warned them about that so it completely worked against them but Mack should have just kneeled it.

It is definitely not nearly the worst decision ever.