Nebraska vs Virginia Tech Post Game Heart-Breaking Overreaction: Morning After Version

by corn blight on Sep 20, 2009 8:50 AM CDT in Football Comment 23 comments

More photos » by Don Petersen - AP

It was one of those kinds of games. I'm guessing a lot of Husker fans were in the same position after the game, including some that involved a toilet.

Browse more photos »

I thought I might wake up this morning and there would be a different outcome to yesterday's game. Didn't happen. Hokie receiver Danny Coale still got behind Matt O'Hanlon for a 84-yard reception that lead to Virginia Tech's touchdown.

That's the play that will be remembered. After all, how do you let a receiver get behind you when the game is in the bag and the opposing quarterback can't hit the broad side of a barn, even when not under pressure?

What a heart breaker. The Huskers played a darned fine game on both sides of the ball and in the end it was the cliché that killed us. "Beamer Ball". It's tired - it's so worn out that the Hokies fans are sick of hearing about it.

It's unfortunate because there were so many other plays where Nebraska could have won this game. A first and goal drive ended with zero points after a downpour of penalties and mistakes forced the Huskers out of field goal range.

Bo Pelini could have gone for it on fourth and one late in the game instead of punting the ball away. Virginia Tech's offense hadn't done anything all day. If you have faith in your defense, what would it have mattered if they'd have to go 50 yards or 80? He played it safe and it cost him the game.

Zac Lee had a horrible game, finishing 11 for 30 and 136 yards and two interceptions. He had a streak of eight straight misses. The Huskers were running the ball all over the place, Roy Helu looking like the back we want him to be, yet Shawn Watson kept dialing up passes. I know the goal is to stay balanced, but if it ain't working, why keep trying?

Two touchdowns were called back because of penalties - the bottom line here is there's plenty of blame to go around. It was a tough environment, Lee's first road start, the Hokies are a good team.... yeah, that covers the rationalization and excuse-making.

In the end we lost because we didn't play well, made critical mistakes on both sides of the ball and got out-coached. The streak of not having beaten a Top 25 on the road since 1997 still stands. We'll have to hear about it in a couple weeks when the Huskers head to Columbia, Missouri to take on the Tigers. The Huskers have a lot of work to do until then.

0 recs | Comment 23 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

no after game commentary reading

After most neb games the first thing I will read are the commentaries by shatel, sipple and so on. Not after this one though, just don’t have the heart for it yet. I will say this though, Leave O’hanalon Alone. Our def played well enough that they should get blackshirts and one bad play does not make a career. Take away that one play and we are saying great game and we are back. We could second guess and say all the would have and could have’s we want. Hind sight is twenty and its very easy to be a armchair coach. Bo has this team on the right direction and to me a true fan is loyal and supportive thru the good and the bad.

by huskermic on Sep 20, 2009 9:20 AM CDT via mobile reply actions 0 recs

That hurt

Wow the defense played so well all day long what a killer. I was just shocked as I suppose everyone was. But they can take a lot of positives from this game. I hang this loss on the offense you get inside the 20 four or five times, inside the five twice and all you get is field goals, that isn’t good enough. Lee and the offense didn’t come through and put up touchdowns when they had the chance, for whatever reason.

by Huzkerfan on Sep 20, 2009 9:58 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

i agree bout the offense to a point

But this team is growing by leaps and bounds. I feel sorry for the cajuns because well the huskers will be UnLoading on them

by huskermic on Sep 20, 2009 1:27 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs

very good analysis

Esp. since you did not gloss over Zac Lee’s horrible play. I know that O’Hanlon will get most of the blame, but in the 2nd half, Zac Lee was just as bad if not worse than Taylor throwing the football, and in my opinion, our single biggest concern on the team. Even the 30 pass play was a very good catch of a terrible pass. No reason that shouldn’t have been a TD. He did have some drops, but not nearly enough to make 11 for 30 seem respectable.

During the Missou game, if Zac Lee still cannot cleanly throw even 5 yd dump offs, we have got to do something else. And yes, I agree, when Zac Lee was clearly way over his head in this game (2nd half), we needed more running plays.

by meatybob on Sep 20, 2009 1:58 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

This game can only help Lee though

Gabbert didn’t play well when BGSU was getting some pressure on him. He will not have seen any defense in the same Universe as Nebraska’s

I also think that Missouri’s D will be waaay easier to handle than VaTech’s

You can't possibly be a scientist if you mind people thinking that you're a fool.
~Wanko the Sane

by JLew on Sep 20, 2009 2:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

What I don't understand

is how an official review did not take place of Holt’s TD catch?? I understand we were reluctant to use a challenge and risk losing our [final?] timeout, but I think we should have taken it. It looked very clear to this obviously biased observer that Holt caught it, took a step in the endzone, and fell to the turf with the ball under complete control under the ground caused a fumble, so to speak. Taking the step with the ball under complete control should have been enough. I would still probably be furious if the official review claimed the evidence was not clear enough to reverse the call on the field, but it seems ridiculous that no review took place. WTF is the system for? A crucial, possible TD play in the 4th quarter of a game with a 2-pt differential, and it’s not reviewed?

That said, we had numerous, numerous other plays where we could have won this one, but I just was stunned that no review took place of that TD catch.

by KC Gunner on Sep 20, 2009 2:15 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I thought the rule was

the WR had to keep control of the ball all the way to the ground, to complete the catch.

I could be wrong though

You can't possibly be a scientist if you mind people thinking that you're a fool.
~Wanko the Sane

by JLew on Sep 20, 2009 2:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Found it

XIV. Receiver A85 stretches out at the Team B two-yard line and possesses the ball but is going to the ground on his own as he is attempting to complete the catch. As A85 falls to the ground in the end zone, the ball immediately comes loose and falls to the ground. RULING: Incomplete pass. Any receiver going to the ground on his own in the process of making a catch must maintain control of the ball when he hits the ground.

You can't possibly be a scientist if you mind people thinking that you're a fool.
~Wanko the Sane

by JLew on Sep 20, 2009 2:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

But

Holt took a step. I buy and agree with that rule if it’s a diving catch, but that wasn’t what happened here. The key is “going to ground on his own IN THE PROCESS OF MAKING A CATCH” and if you take a step and then tumble to the turf, you’re no longer “in the process of making” the catch — you’ve made the catch, taken a step, and then hit the ground.

by KC Gunner on Sep 20, 2009 2:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Interpetation is whether he had control

when he had the 1 foot in.

I don’t think it would have been overturned. Probably should have been reviewed from the booth. I don’t know if NU should have burned it’s last timeout to challenge it though.

Holt has got to control the ball all the way to the ground.

You can't possibly be a scientist if you mind people thinking that you're a fool.
~Wanko the Sane

by JLew on Sep 20, 2009 2:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I didn't see any bobbling

or other indication that he lacked control while he took that step in the end zone. Or that the ball looked at all precarious in his hands until the collision with the ground knocked it out.

Agreed that he should have held onto it to remove any doubt, but it’s difficult for me to see that as a play that did not deserve an official booth review and, ultimately, as anything other than a TD.

by KC Gunner on Sep 20, 2009 2:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Did you watch the play?

He dropped the ball when he hit the ground. It’s really very cut-and-dried and I’m surprised people are making such a big deal out of it. Holt just has to hold onto that ball.

by awolfson on Sep 20, 2009 4:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, I did

Your comment fails to address my point — it looked to me like he took a full step in the end zone. That establishes a catch. And then when he hits the ground and the ball pops out, it’s like the ground not being able to cause a fumble. I agree with you that a diving receiver who has the ball pop out of his hands immediately upon landing did not make a valid catch. But that scenario does not describe the play here, in my opinion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WfAMvOiOU8 beginning at 40 sec). He catches the ball on the run, takes a step, and then falls down, at which point the ground causes a fumble. You would have to agree that a running back or receiver, who has established possession of the ball by carrying it , who then falls down and has the ball squirt out due to colliding with the ground is not going to have that ruled a fumble.

by KC Gunner on Sep 20, 2009 4:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's not the rule

You have to maintain control all the way through the catch. Which basically means you have to get up holding the ball.

by awolfson on Sep 20, 2009 4:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The exact same thing

Happened in the Raiders-Chargers game last Monday. The guy put two feet down in the end zone, with control, but he lost control of the ball when he hit the ground. It was called correctly as an incomplete pass. It’s the same thing in college.

by awolfson on Sep 20, 2009 4:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Poor Call

Because he had clear possession and took a step in the endzone, followed by another step out of the endzone and fall, multiple rulings come into effect. The play could be called incomplete pass, or a completion because he had posession and the play ended when he stepped out the back of the endzone, before the fall took place.

Officials should have called it as instructed, if there is any question, call it a touchdown and have an official review.

Either way I think Nebraska blew several chances to put the game away. The offense did not play up to their ability. This may just be the spark that restarts the fire.

by irocu on Sep 21, 2009 7:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

also

do you have a link to that rulebook?

by KC Gunner on Sep 20, 2009 2:44 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Try this

Rule Book

You can't possibly be a scientist if you mind people thinking that you're a fool.
~Wanko the Sane

by JLew on Sep 20, 2009 2:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with both arguements about the instant replay… There needs to be some tweaking like you get one free challange instead of risking a timeout

by huskermic on Sep 20, 2009 3:38 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs

Rules

being what they are it doesn’t change the fact we had the ball on inside the five twice and our offensive line couldn’t get us in the end zone. Whether lack of execution in blocking or penalties. I also will give credit to Va Tech. They played harder than we did inside the redzone. And I think Bud Foster out coached Shawn Watson, that don’t happen very often I hope Watson learned from this game also. I just felt he tried to force the pass to much when the running game was their. But heck what do I know. Maybe it was the passes that helped open the run game. What do you think?

by Huzkerfan on Sep 20, 2009 4:11 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

my new bold prediction

I think after this game we only lose to ou and face texas in the big 12 championship… I have that much faith now

by huskermic on Sep 20, 2009 6:33 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs

You know

I’m feeling the same way, and I don’t think that the OU game is a given loss.

Could this be a game that galvanizes this team?

You can't possibly be a scientist if you mind people thinking that you're a fool.
~Wanko the Sane

by JLew on Sep 20, 2009 8:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dang, I sure hope so.

I think they’ll recover. I’d rather they lose this game than Mizzou or Texas Tech or Baylor or…you get the point. But this does mean the leash is shorter now. Each one of those games becomes even more critical.

by Cheeseandcorn on Sep 20, 2009 10:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs