3rd and 9

[RichUT 1832]

48 minutes ago, sidis said:

on third and 9, steve was playing for the same scenario as alabama.  remember, on the key third and long driving at the end, we ran brooks up the middle and it worked and we all called it a genius move...because it worked.  ou was ready for it and i think it was a mistake.

 

This argument is a straw man. We were up 10 on Alabama at the time, who did not have a quick strike explosive Offense. In a world where we don't pick that first down up, the win probability for Texas was still well north of 90%. 

[sidis 9832]

4 minutes ago, RichUT said:

This argument is a straw man. We were up 10 on Alabama at the time, who did not have a quick strike explosive Offense. In a world where we don't pick that first down up, the win probability for Texas was still well north of 90%. 

it is not a straw man.  i am just pointing out what i believe was going through steve's mind.  best of all worlds is we don't stop the clock and get the first down.  unfortunately, only one of the outcomes occurred (ou having to use its last timeout).  

at the end of the day, as i said, i am super frustrated that steve made the call he did.  given their cb and bowman being out...and them doing the same stupid ass prevent stuff we lost the game with, there was an easy ten yards for 5, 13, 1...hell, anyone.  i think a a johntay cook appearance there would have been perfect.  it was there for the taking and we went conservative.  there is a persuasive case to be made for it but in the moment, i wanted us to go for the first down through the air. 

[dcar00 14306]

if incomplete on 3rd and 9 and then punt, play real D and go to OT.  If Gabriel gets them to FG range OK but it wasn't some fait accompli like when Carroll had to decide to either give the ball back to Vince via punt or go for it on 4th and 2.

there is also the chance you get 5 or 6 yards anyway on a check down.  It kind of appears he didn't trust Ewers or the OL but a sack just means you have to punt.

[Hookem2147 21344]

1 hour ago, Sir Ulrich said:

As for time remaining for OU to drive for a score, the officials made their biggest gaffe of the day when Worthy knocked Bowman out of the game. They took an officials timeout with 2:35 left but never restarted the clock once play was ready to resume saving OU a timeout and :30 seconds of game time. We all know Sark was ok with a field goal at this point so its fair to say we would have snapped the ball with around 2:05 left and either ran the same play for a sack or ran brooks up the middle. Venables  didn't call a timeout 30 seconds after our 3rd down play which was an insane thing to do in its own right. So with 1:29 we run play 3 and get into FG range and kick with 1:22 left after the OU TO leaving 1:17 left. If the officials restart the clock with 2;35 left we could have been looking at taking the lead with around 48 seconds left instead of 1:17. Even with prevent defense this would have been a FG to tie at worst, sending the game to overtime if they were successful.

If the game plays out the same with Official starting clock:

2:35 Bowman Hurt

2:05 Snap 1st down

1:58 Play concludes

1:28 Snap 2nd down

1:21 play concludes and Venables calls TO #2 at 1:00

1:00 Snap 3rd down

:53 Play concludes and Venables calls TO #3

:53 Snap FG attempt

:48 FG good

 

NCAA rule in spoiler:

  Hide contents

Starts on the Referee’s Signal. For each of the following reasons, the game clock is stopped on an official’s signal. If the next play begins with a snap, the game clock will start on the referee’s signal:

Team A is awarded a first down, either through play or by penalty. 2. A Team A forward fumble goes out of bounds.

Other than with fewer than two minutes remaining in a half, a Team A ball carrier, fumble or backward pass is ruled out of bounds.

To complete a penalty (Exception: Rule 3-4-4-c).

An injury timeout is allowed for one or more players or an official (A.R. 3-3-5-I-V).

 

The clock was supposed to start once the ball is marked ready for play coming out of the injury timeout. The problem was we snapped the ball with 34 seconds remaining on the 40 second play clock, so in reality the officials not winding the clock saved OU about 6 seconds. 

[sidis 9832]

5 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

It kind of appears he didn't trust Ewers or the OL but a sack just means you have to punt.

he didn't...which is weird because they had hit their stride other than one shit play.

[sidis 9832]

Just now, Hookem2147 said:

The clock was supposed to start once the ball is marked ready for play coming out of the injury timeout. The problem was we snapped the ball with 34 seconds remaining on the 40 second play clock, so in reality the officials not winding the clock saved OU about 6 seconds. 

had the clock been moving, i suspect our behavior would have altered significantly.  i think it was an enormous contributing variable to ou's win.

[OU Sucks 8890]

12 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

if incomplete on 3rd and 9 and then punt, play real D and go to OT.  If Gabriel gets them to FG range OK but it wasn't some fait accompli like when Carroll had to decide to either give the ball back to Vince via punt or go for it on 4th and 2.

there is also the chance you get 5 or 6 yards anyway on a check down.  It kind of appears he didn't trust Ewers or the OL but a sack just means you have to punt.

Why do people keep saying we should've punted if we threw incomplete on 3rd and 9?  The ball was at the OU 35.  What team punts at the opponent's 35 yard line in a tie game?  Dumbass Jimbo might, and Cristobal would probably take a knee.  If we kicked it into the endzone, it would've netted 15 yards in field position, which OU would erase in 5 seconds.  Even if it's downed at the 1, OU would march right down the field with our shitty prevent defense.

Edited October 9, 2023 by OU Sucks

[Codaxx 5794]

2 hours ago, OU Sucks said:

This thread should be on the 1st and goal from the 1 instead.  I disagree with the 3rd and 9 play-calling and decision to kick it, but it's a should've/could've/would've situation...I can understand Sark's motives, as shitty as I think they were.  The four plays from the 1 were just terribad.  Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

I really dont have many issues with the 4 calls on the 1 yard line. Coaches are building the program around "Big Humans" and physicality. Those are the Sark's words. You should be able to grind out a yard in 3 shots.. If you want to bitch about red zone play calling, its probably best to bring up the annoying jet sweep to a WR that loses yards that I have been forced to watch 2 weeks in a row. 

[dcar00 14306]

13 minutes ago, OU Sucks said:

Why do people keep saying we should've punted if we threw incomplete on 3rd and 9?  The ball was at the OU 35.  What team punts at the opponent's 35 yard line in a tie game?  Dumbass Jimbo might, and Cristobal would probably take a knee.  If we kicked it into the endzone, it would've netted 15 yards in field position, which OU would erase in 5 seconds.  Even if it's downed at the 1, OU would march right down the field with our shitty prevent defense.

sure you could go for it as well.  OU had scored once on the first drive of the half at that point. it wasn't like it was some back and forth scoring affair in the 2nd half.

[Codaxx 5794]

2 hours ago, Sir Ulrich said:

We will be dissecting this set of downs until the rematch in Arlington but running the ball there accomplishes two things which I know have been talked about ad nauseum but alas

1. They were forced to use their last timeout and make the full length drive that much harder. Which did ended up being a moot point. 

2. Auburn's career long was 49 yards against Rice this year and he was 3-6 coming into this game. This also moved the ball to the middle of the field to make a FG attempt easier. 

If Sark attempts a pass on 3rd and 9 and it goes incomplete then OU has one timeout remaining and it forces Auburn to hit a 51 yarder from the left hash. Worse case scenario is they bring pressure and QE has to take a sack and the FG attempt is 55+. 

If either a sack or incompletion forces an Auburn miss then Sark would be eviscerated here for making those calls. Even though I do think he should have thought more about going for it on 4th down. 

I think this correct, but that is in the irrational world of sports chat rooms. 

I think the decision is pretty obvious. We can quibble over percentages, but making the FG or the 1st down on 4th and 4 are both probably around a coin flip (with OU down 2 starters in the secondary, I think odds are better for going for it).. IF either fail it doesnt matter, the odds on the outcome are essentially the same.. IF you make the first down, the odds dramatically increase for a Texas win compared to making the FG. Making the first down puts OU's chances at winning at essentially 0. 

Edited October 9, 2023 by Codaxx

[OU Sucks 8890]

32 minutes ago, Codaxx said:

I really dont have many issues with the 4 calls on the 1 yard line. Coaches are building the program around "Big Humans" and physicality. Those are the Sark's words. You should be able to grind out a yard in 3 shots.. If you want to bitch about red zone play calling, its probably best to bring up the annoying jet sweep to a WR that loses yards that I have been forced to watch 2 weeks in a row. 

And they should've given up on that thought when OU had already stopped it for no gain twice in a row, or at least spread the field out so OU couldn't stack the middle with their entire team.  They ran the same defense all 3 downs because our playcall/formation allowed it.  We didn't once try slipping a TE for an easy pop pass, when Helm was completely invisible to them all day.

Edited October 9, 2023 by OU Sucks

[Codaxx 5794]

Just now, OU Sucks said:

And they should've given up on that thought when OU had already stopped it for no gain twice in a row, or at least spread the field out so OU couldn't stack the middle with their entire team.  They ran the same defense all 3 downs because our playcall/formation allowed it.  We didn't once try slipping a TE for an easy pop pass, when Helm was completely invisible to them all day.

We didnt get 1 yard, because our fat bastards got whipped by their fat bastards. Again I woudl rather that, than see an unblocked DE tackle WR for a loss. I am not goign to be the fan that gets pissed when Sark does some cute shit like a jet sweep and then bitch when he goes meathead at the 1 yard line. 

[immamac 42872]

6 minutes ago, Codaxx said:

We didnt get 1 yard, because our fat bastards got whipped by their fat bastards. Again I woudl rather that, than see an unblocked DE tackle WR for a loss. I am not goign to be the fan that gets pissed when Sark does some cute shit like a jet sweep and then bitch when he goes meathead at the 1 yard line. 

This just isn't true. It's much easier to defend a run up the gut and doesn't require the big men to beat anyone. If you can generate a 7 on 10 2 yard explosion of the LOS all you have to do is pile up and let the second layer adjust to stuffing the hole, 1st and goal from the 1 is one of the hardest offensive things to pull off because it significantly limits the playbook and space on the field and there is virtually no way to get called for PI or defensive holding. It's a huge advantage for the defense, but its also a razors edge if you can get a push or stick the ball over the line for the offense. 

I don't have any problem except going for it on 4th and even that proved to be the right call it was just bullshit no call penalty that kept us from scoring. 

[Tex Long 4408]

The problem with the playcalling on 1st-and-goal is the same problem we see from Sark in other situations. Namely, he has to prove - yet again - that he's the offensive genius. In this case, he wants to insist stubbornly on putting two DL in the backfield and building his big humans schtick. He ignores the fact - the absolutely unconditional fact - that the overwhelming point is to win the fucking game. My take is that you do that by keeping your guys on the field, not subbing and not letting them sub, and running your O. If it doesn't work on a couple of downs, then change - hell, put in the DL guys, PA it and throw to one of them, whatever. Given that he went the genius way and the jumbos couldn't do it, don't try it a third time, and when that doesn't work either, on the goal line, don't throw the fucking ball to someone who isn't in the end zone. 

But, you know what? This is about 3rd-and-9, and everything that happened before is meaningless... other than "duh, wull gawrsh, if we already scored more we woulda coulda shoulda winned that game." 

[Codaxx 5794]

Just now, immamac said:

This just isn't true. It's much easier to defend a run up the gut and doesn't require the big men to beat anyone. If you can generate a 7 on 10 2 yard explosion of the LOS all you have to do is pile up and let the second layer adjust to stuffing the hole, 1st and goal from the 1 is one of the hardest offensive things to pull off because it significantly limits the playbook and space on the field and there is virtually no way to get called for PI or defensive holding. It's a huge advantage for the defense, but its also a razors edge if you can get a push or stick the ball over the line for the offense. 

I don't have any problem except going for it on 4th and even that proved to be the right call it was just bullshit no call penalty that kept us from scoring. 

Went inside twice and outside once (off tackle). The biggest thing for me in that series was how much Texas misses a Rojo.. My point was I never get to riled up about running the ball in short situation, especially when in theory your are supposed to have an advantage. I do get pissed when Sark gets too cute and over thinks it. 

[Codaxx 5794]

8 minutes ago, Tex Long said:

The problem with the playcalling on 1st-and-goal is the same problem we see from Sark in other situations. Namely, he has to prove - yet again - that he's the offensive genius. In this case, he wants to insist stubbornly on putting two DL in the backfield and building his big humans schtick. He ignores the fact - the absolutely unconditional fact - that the overwhelming point is to win the fucking game. My take is that you do that by keeping your guys on the field, not subbing and not letting them sub, and running your O. If it doesn't work on a couple of downs, then change - hell, put in the DL guys, PA it and throw to one of them, whatever. Given that he went the genius way and the jumbos couldn't do it, don't try it a third time, and when that doesn't work either, on the goal line, don't throw the fucking ball to someone who isn't in the end zone. 

But, you know what? This is about 3rd-and-9, and everything that happened before is meaningless... other than "duh, wull gawrsh, if we already scored more we woulda coulda shoulda winned that game." 

I am not sure I would say putting two fat bastards to lead the run is offensive genius level thinking. People been doing that shit for 20 years starting in pop warner.  Again the pt is running downhill with 1 yard to go- reasonable decision. You can bitch about it, but it is a logical decision. Its the jet sweeps and cute shit that bugs me. As it is more boom or bust. 

Edited October 9, 2023 by Codaxx

[Guest]

This thread reminds me I'm not over the loss.

I hope our players give a shit about OU. It's obvious OU gives a shit about Texas. 

Even if we meet again in the conference championship, I have zero faith in us to beat OU when it means anything of consequence. How many fucking conference titles in a row did they win?

[Tex Long 4408]

1 minute ago, Codaxx said:

I am not sure I would say putting two fat bastards to lead the run is offensive genius level thinking. People been doing that shit for 20 years starting in pop warner.  Again the pt is running downhill with 1 yard to go- reasonable decision. You can bitch about it, but it is a logical decision. Its the jet sweeps and cute shit that bugs me. As it is more boom or bust. 

You're right. He shoulda put three fat bastards in the backfield. OU would never have figured out which one would get the ball.

I was assuming when they did that, that the other side of the OL would fold around and push. Rugby scrum FTW.

[A’Dam Psycho 1470]

1 hour ago, OU Sucks said:

Maybe if a play that OU has seen on film and schemed against doesn't work the first time, don't fucking try the same thing 2 more times?  Maybe spread out the receivers so OU has to at least respect a pass and can't stack 11 bodies right middle where we're about to run it?  Maybe run a little motion to create some confusion/misalignment?  Nope, just line up with the big guys and repeatedly bang your head against the wall (or the RB into a wall of defenders).

We have to create confusion and misalignment for one yard? Holy fuck. If Sark gets cute there and we get tackled for a loss or heaven forbid Ewers throws and interception, this entire site would be calling for his head.

[Vic Mackey 47089]

We have to create confusion and misalignment for one yard? Holy fuck. If Sark gets cute there and we get tackled for a loss or heaven forbid Ewers throws and interception, this entire site would be calling for his head.

How about a play action under the jumbo package? OU was selling out for the run and it seems a play fake could have worked. Or hell, even a QB sneak. The 3rd down call in that sequence was the worst. A slow developing outside run that lost yards.

[Sir Ulrich 5187]

1 hour ago, Hookem2147 said:

The clock was supposed to start once the ball is marked ready for play coming out of the injury timeout. The problem was we snapped the ball with 34 seconds remaining on the 40 second play clock, so in reality the officials not winding the clock saved OU about 6 seconds. 

But the clock never started. The play after this we ran the play clock down to 13 before the snap so it is evident during the Bowman timeout Sark had a discussion about running the clock down with QE and company. The refs failed to start the clock and we paid the price ultimately. 

[OU Sucks 8890]

35 minutes ago, A’Dam Psycho said:

We have to create confusion and misalignment for one yard? Holy fuck.

Well, seeing how we couldn't get that one yard in 3 attempts against a D with comparable athletes, yes?

[GreenspointTexas 9662]

It should have never come to that

[Constant 6748]

55 minutes ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

This thread reminds me I'm not over the loss.

I hope our players give a shit about OU. It's obvious OU gives a shit about Texas. 

Even if we meet again in the conference championship, I have zero faith in us to beat OU when it means anything of consequence. How many fucking conference titles in a row did they win?

Once won 5 in a row, 9 out of 11, and 11 total. 

[gernblansten 3197]

39 minutes ago, Sir Ulrich said:

But the clock never started. The play after this we ran the play clock down to 13 before the snap so it is evident during the Bowman timeout Sark had a discussion about running the clock down with QE and company. The refs failed to start the clock and we paid the price ultimately. 

That doesn't really seem to make much sense. One would have to believe Sark told QE and company during the injury time out to run the play clock down so the game clock is ticking off and QE then went out there and just decided to snap it with 34 seconds on the play clock when he noticed the game clock wasn't running and neither QE nor any coaches said shit to the officials about the game clock not running. There just isn't a plausible scenario with Sark telling QE to run the play clock down before snapping it and QE says "fuck it, the game clock isn't running so I'm snapping it with 34 seconds on the play clock and Sark can kiss my ass." 

The 40 second clock starts when the sack play is whistle blows. The play call came in and the OL has it at 20 seconds, gets set at 14 seconds and the snap is 12 seconds. It's not like the offense had the play, was lined up, and patiently let 25 seconds run off the clock before snapping it.  

[A’Dam Psycho 1470]

1 hour ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

This thread reminds me I'm not over the loss.

I hope our players give a shit about OU. It's obvious OU gives a shit about Texas. 

Even if we meet again in the conference championship, I have zero faith in us to beat OU when it means anything of consequence. How many fucking conference titles in a row did they win?

I’m less confident about making it to Arlington than I am in a potential rematch with 0u. If we meet them again, we win by at least 17 and that’s being generous 

I’m worried about a sleepy Saturday against BYU or TCU in FTW. 

[lilMAC25 3801]

6 minutes ago, A’Dam Psycho said:

I’m less confident about making it to Arlington than I am in a potential rematch with 0u. If we meet them again, we win by at least 17 and that’s being generous 

I’m worried about a sleepy Saturday against BYU or TCU in FTW. 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, A’Dam Psycho said:

I’m less confident about making it to Arlington than I am in a potential rematch with 0u. If we meet them again, we win by at least 17 and that’s being generous 

I’m worried about a sleepy Saturday against BYU or TCU in FTW. 

Yes, winning out is tough. If you had a 95% chance to win each individual game on the schedule, the probability of winning six games in a row is just 74%. If you have a 90% chance to win each individual game, it drops to just 53%.

[USNALonghorn 5078]

54 minutes ago, A’Dam Psycho said:

I’m less confident about making it to Arlington than I am in a potential rematch with 0u. If we meet them again, we win by at least 17 and that’s being generous 

I’m worried about a sleepy Saturday against BYU or TCU in FTW. 

I can see TCU or ISU. If we can’t get up for BYU at home, then we don’t deserve to even think about a Big12 CG berth.

[Horndog 2228]

On the last drive the play calling was fine. We easily moved down the field. It all changed on the sack. Once it got to 3rd and 9 there is a difficult choice on how aggressive to be. There is a big difference between a 50+ yard FG and one from 45 or so. Main goal is to get in FG range to take the lead. And by running the ball we made OU use their last time out. It was the more conservative call, but not indefensible.

[Horndog 2228]

22 hours ago, JGrayDBU said:

Somebody already mentioned this I guess, but it was the fake injury that stopped our momentum.   Why do we let stuff like that affect us, but we do.  

 

 

Hate to disagree, but the injury was not a fake. Watch the play again. After the collision with Worthy  Bowman is clearly dazed. He got up but went back down. It had the same effect but he was legit out of it for a few seconds. That's not the guy OU wanted to leave the field. 

[SuckitKevin 920]

5 minutes ago, Horndog said:

On the last drive the play calling was fine. We easily moved down the field. It all changed on the sack. Once it got to 3rd and 9 there is a difficult choice on how aggressive to be. There is a big difference between a 50+ yard FG and one from 45 or so. Main goal is to get in FG range to take the lead. And by running the ball we made OU use their last time out. It was the more conservative call, but not indefensible.

Exactly this, the sack killed us on that drive. It was an RPO that maybe Quinn should’ve handed off but I’m not sure what he saw. Either way, if we just get 2or 3yds on first down we could have put it away.

[Tex Long 4408]

8 minutes ago, Horndog said:

... It was the more conservative call, but not indefensible.

What it was, was NOT "All Gas, No Brakes". That's all you need to know. 

[Cairn Horn88 8277]

Listening to ESPN commentator, who was standing behind the end zone when Horns were driving to score…then Ewers throws to Sanders and got picked….the commentator said before the throw, a number of Sooners players made a lot of adjustments, saying he knew they knew the play call…said he’s positive, after talking to others, that Venables stole Texas’ signs….anyone else hear anything about this?

[Constant 6748]

9 minutes ago, Cairn Horn88 said:

Listening to ESPN commentator, who was standing behind the end zone when Horns were driving to score…then Ewers throws to Sanders and got picked….the commentator said before the throw, a number of Sooners players made a lot of adjustments, saying he knew they knew the play call…said he’s positive, after talking to others, that Venables stole Texas’ signs….anyone else hear anything about this?

I’d imagine he’d be a little better covered if that were the case. It was a touchdown if the throw was better.  Gotta love any and all theories on why y’all lost, though. 
 

Sanders probably should never have played at all. He looked so bad in warmups. 

[Had Enough 2083]

Hate to disagree, but the injury was not a fake. Watch the play again. After the collision with Worthy  Bowman is clearly dazed. He got up but went back down. It had the same effect but he was legit out of it for a few seconds. That's not the guy OU wanted to leave the field. 

Yep. That’s what I saw live. I don’t think Bowman returned either.

[dcar00 14306]

22 minutes ago, Cairn Horn88 said:

Listening to ESPN commentator, who was standing behind the end zone when Horns were driving to score…then Ewers throws to Sanders and got picked….the commentator said before the throw, a number of Sooners players made a lot of adjustments, saying he knew they knew the play call…said he’s positive, after talking to others, that Venables stole Texas’ signs….anyone else hear anything about this?

this sounds like BS to me and if he can it is on us.  more than likely they may have figured out something on run v pass in the first half.

everything was fine until our DC decided to play a fucking ridiculous prevent.

[Dahobbs 17626]

13 minutes ago, Constant said:

I’d imagine he’d be a little better covered if that were the case. It was a touchdown if the throw was better.  Gotta love any and all theories on why y’all lost, though. 
 

Sanders probably should never have played at all. He looked so bad in warmups. 

Yeah, Sanders was severely limited. Unfortunate for us and fortunate for you. So much of our offense is predicated on the matchup problems he creates in the middle of the field. Hell, at 100%, I'm pretty sure he snags that TD that became an INT. 

[Dahobbs 17626]

Just now, dcar00 said:

this sounds like BS to me and if he can it is on us.  more than likely they may have figured out something on run v pass in the first half.

everything was fine until our DC decided to play a fucking ridiculous prevent.

Yeah, play tighter coverage and if the score on a long play, at least we have plenty of clock left. 

[Constant 6748]

6 minutes ago, Had Enough said:

Yep. That’s what I saw live. I don’t think Bowman returned either.

He did not return. He got his bell rung. 

[Tex Long 4408]

 Stealing signs is not a problem, to me. If you're dumb enough to give signals openly, that's on you. If nothing else, I want you to think I can steal your signs. 

Yeah, I know the Astros got hammered for using center-field camera, but there's no real difference between that and having a runner on second doing the same... just use that signal set the whole game.

How you steal signs  may be - or seem to be - illegal or unethical. I don't know what rules NC2A may have on that. If nothing  else, I'd have lip readers and parabolic mics on the job, and I'd have assistants whose job is to watch every game film and work at figuring the signal paths and content. That, and look for tells by players and coaches.

Spider 2 Y Banana.

[Constant 6748]

@Rickylovesweed You have not come to face your music so we’ll just do it here. 
 

Eat my ass. 

Eat my ass. 

Eat my ass. 

Eat my ass.

 

Eat my ass. 

Eat my ass.

Eat my ass. 23 offensive points. 
 

Eat Brent’s ass. 

Edited October 10, 2023 by Constant

[Tex Long 4408]

2 minutes ago, Constant said:

Eat my ass

Eat my ass

Eat my ass

Eat my ass

Eat my ass. 

Eat my ass.

Eat my ass. 

Eat my ass.

Eat my ass. 23 offensive points. 

Eat Brent’s ass. 

Pics or GTFO

[Constant 6748]

2 minutes ago, Tex Long said:

Pics or GTFO

I respect the quote game you just showed if you’re on mobile. It’s a nightmare. 

[dcar00 14306]

34 minutes ago, Tex Long said:

 Stealing signs is not a problem, to me. If you're dumb enough to give signals openly, that's on you. If nothing else, I want you to think I can steal your signs. 

Yeah, I know the Astros got hammered for using center-field camera, but there's no real difference between that and having a runner on second doing the same... just use that signal set the whole game.

How you steal signs  may be - or seem to be - illegal or unethical. I don't know what rules NC2A may have on that. If nothing  else, I'd have lip readers and parabolic mics on the job, and I'd have assistants whose job is to watch every game film and work at figuring the signal paths and content. That, and look for tells by players and coaches.

Spider 2 Y Banana.

if you are stealing them with technology vs. your eyes it's bullshit.  

[Tex Long 4408]

13 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

if you are stealing them with technology vs. your eyes it's bullshit.  

Why do you hate technology? 

Shit, if I thought the oppo might be stealing my signs, I'd misinfo their ass.