The Truth behind 40 times

[trj]

Hahaha. 6th man? Come on, Iowa totally collapsed in the second half.

Wrong! Not for that call Iowa would have been up 18 pts and Texas would have not had the time to come back.


Go back and the read the box score and then get back to me.

 

[ICHawk24]

No, not really......A bogus not having a 6th man on the los call was.

This was a very valid infraction and was correctly called. What part do you disagree with?

 

[trj]

Of COURSE it matters. But it's nowhere NEAR a guarantee of success on the field.

More significant might be the improvements one sees from players. Bob Sanders arrived at Iowa with times in mid-4.5s to low-4.6s. He was timed anywhere from 4.33 to 4.38 by the time he left IOWA. That's pretty significant, especially since he wasn't known for his speed.

I don't let articles fool me, BTW. I just don't much credence in 40 times. We've ALL seen DBs with 4.5 speed do great jobs covering the 4.3 WRs. Speed is but one factor.

I think Oregon would disagree with that and about half of the SEC.

 

[trj]

This was a very valid infraction and was correctly called. What part do you disagree with?

Scott Chandler was on the line of scrimmage just like every other time Iowa ran that same exact play.

 

[hawkfan2679]

Scott Chandler was on the line of scrimmage just like every other time Iowa ran that same exact play.

IIRC, it wasn't Chandler's fault. It was the WR who "covered" Chandler lined up wide to his side.

**Edit - Or it was Chandler's fault because he wasn't supposed to line up on the LOS.

 

[trj]

Watch Chandler come in motion and set where he is suppose to be.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEgroPzQEdY&feature=related]‪Alamo Bowl 2006 Iowa Hawkeyes touchdown‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[hawkfan2679]

Watch Chandler come in motion and set where he is suppose to be.

That's the only vid I could find of him too. But to your assertion that he " was on the line of scrimmage just like every other time Iowa ran that same exact play," that's actually what the refs saw too and that's what got us in trouble.

I found this little tidbit from a write-up of the game:

Officials attempted to clarify their call that negated tight end Scott Chandler’s second-quarter touchdown pass for Iowa.


Official Jeff Robinson released this statement:


“The man who caught the ball (No. 87) came in motion and came across the line, which made him ineligible to go down field to catch the ball. There was already a man outside of him. the official term for the call on the field is ‘covered up on the line.’ “

The only problem I have with this explanation is that it doesn't make sense. Coming in motion across the line (across the line? Does that mean across the formation?) in and of itself shouldn't have made him ineligible. Given that they are clarifying that he was 'covered up on the line' they must have concluded that he lined up on the LOS after his shift.

 

[trj]

That's the only vid I could find of him too. But to your assertion that he " was on the line of scrimmage just like every other time Iowa ran that same exact play," that's actually what the refs saw too and that's what got us in trouble.

I found this little tidbit from a write-up of the game:




The only problem I have with this explanation is that it doesn't make sense. Coming in motion across the line (across the line? Does that mean across the formation?) in and of itself shouldn't have made him ineligible. Given that they are clarifying that he was 'covered up on the line' they must have concluded that he lined up on the LOS after his shift.

Based on that video does it look that way to you?

 

[hawkfan2679]

Based on that video does it look that way to you?

Not particularly. Do you remember what the call on the field was, regardless of the way the officials "explained" it later? Was it only 6 men on, or was it ineligible downfield?

On that video I can tell if we were in this (after motion):

........X...................T.G.C.G.T.Y.......................H
......................................................Z
..................................Q.....R

which would have drawn the flag for ineligible downfield (although questionable at best) or if we were in this (again, after motion)

........X...................T.G.C.G.T
..........................................Y...........Z..........H
..................................Q....R

which would have been a penalty for only 6 on the LOS.

 

[VAHawkFan]

40 times are the most over-hyped, worthless statistic in professional football. I honestly can't believe that anyone at the professional level still gives them any credence. Unless you're going to strap pads on a guy, simulate an actual game for 5 minutes in which the dude is actually getting hit and beat up a bit and THEN clock a 40 time...it's all useless. Speed only matters if it can be maintained in game conditions.

If I were a GM the only time I care at all about 40 times is as it relates to injury. If I have questions about a player's health I may put the guy through some 40s just to see how he's running. If I wanted to look at a guy's speed, it would be game film all day long. I'd be sitting in a room with my scouts timing play after play after play and letting some over-educated math wizard break down angles, distance, reaction time, etc... to tell me how fast a player played the game.

 

[trj]

Not particularly. Do you remember what the call on the field was, regardless of the way the officials "explained" it later? Was it only 6 men on, or was it ineligible downfield?

On that video I can tell if we were in this (after motion):

........X...................T.G.C.G.T.Y.......................H
......................................................Z
..................................Q.....R

which would have drawn the flag for ineligible downfield (although questionable at best) or if we were in this (again, after motion)

........X...................T.G.C.G.T
..........................................Y...........Z..........H
..................................Q....R

which would have been a penalty for only 6 on the LOS.

I want to say it was 6 on the LOS, but it has been nearly 5 years ago it could have been ineligible downfield. Each scenario you presented indicates the line judge got it wrong. I still think it is bad call, imho. To me that was the difference game, the ko punch.

Humpal getting smoked on that wheel route by Charles would not have mattered.

 

[latrans]

It was ineligible downfield.

 

[trj]

It was ineligible downfield.

It was still wrong.....Chandler was definitely eligible. The line judge eff'd it up end of story.