.

[The Jackal]

Not sure if this made the broadcast, but Samford changed the name of their stadium at halftime - now Pete Hannah Stadium. Apparently now the Seiberts are disfavored.

First time I can remember seeing a family give so much money to a university that they basically just wrote out a prior benefactor to the school.

[MNORM]

I feel like we got a gift of a pass interference call at one point late. I would’ve been steaming if I was a Sammy.

Assuming we are talking about the same play, it was a third and 10 in the third quarter. Huff threw a long pass to Ethan Harris.

Not sure what it looked like on TV, but in real time it appeared clear pass interference. Harris ended up in single coverage against a Samford DB, ran a post/flag route and the Samford defender grabbed him to keep him from making the break to the outside.

It probably was a TD pass without the interference. Harris had a step on him in single coverage. That drive ended up with a missed field goal attempt, so it probably benefitted Samford in the end - exchanged a likely touchdown throw for a missed field goal.

DB grabbed hold and pinned his arm...was clearly PI.

[apaladin]

After further review you are correct.

[Roundball]

Not sure if this made the broadcast, but Samford changed the name of their stadium at halftime - now Pete Hannah Stadium. Apparently now the Seiberts are disfavored.

First time I can remember seeing a family give so much money to a university that they basically just wrote out a prior benefactor to the school.

https://samfordsports.com/news/2023/10/ ... hanna.aspx
“The former Seibert Stadium, named in honor of F. Page Seibert, has played host to many significant moments in Samford football history, including last year's first-ever NCAA playoff game against Southeastern Louisiana. The Seibert name will continue to grace Samford's campus as the newly renovated Seibert Hall will serve as the centerpiece of the university's new campus recreation, wellness and athletic complex scheduled to open in September 2024.”

[The Jackal]

The name sounded familiar. I believe Samford's football stadium and basketball arena are named after the same guy.

[The Jackal]

[Bootie]

I feel like we got a gift of a pass interference call at one point late. I would’ve been steaming if I was a Sammy.

Assuming we are talking about the same play, it was a third and 10 in the third quarter. Huff threw a long pass to Ethan Harris.

Not sure what it looked like on TV, but in real time it appeared clear pass interference. Harris ended up in single coverage against a Samford DB, ran a post/flag route and the Samford defender grabbed him to keep him from making the break to the outside.

It probably was a TD pass without the interference. Harris had a step on him in single coverage. That drive ended up with a missed field goal attempt, so it probably benefitted Samford in the end - exchanged a likely touchdown throw for a missed field goal.

Found it on the archive… I wouldn’t call for the referee’s head here, but I still don’t think I would’ve thrown the flag and feel we got a gift at the time. Mild contact but seems uncatchable to me, I don’t feel like Harris was gonna get there regardless. Anyhoo, on to Western.

[FUBeAR]

I feel like we got a gift of a pass interference call at one point late. I would’ve been steaming if I was a Sammy.

Assuming we are talking about the same play, it was a third and 10 in the third quarter. Huff threw a long pass to Ethan Harris.

Not sure what it looked like on TV, but in real time it appeared clear pass interference. Harris ended up in single coverage against a Samford DB, ran a post/flag route and the Samford defender grabbed him to keep him from making the break to the outside.

It probably was a TD pass without the interference. Harris had a step on him in single coverage. That drive ended up with a missed field goal attempt, so it probably benefitted Samford in the end - exchanged a likely touchdown throw for a missed field goal.

Found it on the archive… I wouldn’t call for the referee’s head here, but I still don’t think I would’ve thrown the flag and feel we got a gift at the time. Mild contact but seems uncatchable to me, I don’t feel like Harris was gonna get there regardless. Anyhoo, on to Western.

It probably would not have been called except for the last thing the DB did. Just as the ball was going over, he put his left arm on top of the FU WR's right arm. Freeze at :08 and :46 and you can see it - easier to see @ :46.

That's where it went from hand-fighting/checking to impeding. Harris did not have an opportunity (because his 'front' arm was being 'locked down') to make a play on the ball.

To those that say 'non-catchable' ... Suppose for a minute, on another play in the same game, that the Samford DB had held both of Ben Ferguson's arms down instead of just the one closest to him. If Ferguson hadn't been able to leap and reach with his 1 free hand, wouldn't we all have said it was 'non-catchable.' FUBeAR sure would. FUBeAR thought Huff was throwing it out of bounds...and to be honest...I'm still not sure he wasn't.

So....nah, not non-catchable...and a close call...that could have gone either way, but because of the last move of the Samford DB, DPI was the correct call and the SoCon Official got it right.

[The Jackal]

I was going to go through the same bit, but you beat me to it.

The rule book definition is "obvious intent to impede" and "could" prevent the eligible player from catching a forward pass.

In my view, the defender is obviously intending to impede Harris. He's using his right arm to grab Harris' left arm while he was running. You can see at the :45 mark that the DB has grabbed Harris' left arm and doesn't let go of it until the ball lands. It's pretty clear because you can see his black gloves on top of Harris' arms.

So, the parts of the rule are met - ball is in the air, Harris is an eligible receiver, the is obvious contact by the defender with the intent to impede the receiver, and the ball was such that Harris could have caught it if not for the DB grabbing his arm while he was running.

[MNORM]

I was going to go through the same bit, but you beat me to it.

The rule book definition is "obvious intent to impede" and "could" prevent the eligible player from catching a forward pass.

In my view, the defender is obviously intending to impede Harris. He's using his right arm to grab Harris' left arm while he was running. You can see at the :45 mark that the DB has grabbed Harris' left arm and doesn't let go of it until the ball lands. It's pretty clear because you can see his black gloves on top of Harris' arms.

So, the parts of the rule are met - ball is in the air, Harris is an eligible receiver, the is obvious contact by the defender with the intent to impede the receiver, and the ball was such that Harris could have caught it if not for the DB grabbing his arm while he was running.

Yep. The DB is literally holding onto his wrist as the ball approaches. This is clear PI as Harris was kept from getting his arm up to even make an attempt to catch the ball.

[gofurman]

List of injuries?

Offense.
Starting OG 51 Petit left game. No knowledge. I think 65 Huntley came in for him
Starting WR Harris 2. Someone said upthread his family said he was ok

Defense.
3 starting DB Brinson didn’t play at all as far as I could tell
Starting DL 40 Stephens? Maybe left the field. On tv I couldn’t tell
Starting LB 44 Luke Clark. Maybe. Again on tv so hard to tell. One of these last 2 guys fell to ground on very last defensive play

51 out for the year.

Crap. Prayers for him!!! and hate that for team

Losing a guy key to a unit is way more important than a missed call when you consider the whole year. Prayers for Petut. At least he has more years. I really hate when a guys last year is cut short

[gofurman]

List of injuries?

Offense.
Starting OG 51 Petit left game. No knowledge. I think 65 Huntley came in for him
Starting WR Harris 2. Someone said upthread his family said he was ok

Defense.
3 starting DB Brinson didn’t play at all as far as I could tell
Starting DL 40 Stephens? Maybe left the field. On tv I couldn’t tell
Starting LB 44 Luke Clark. Maybe. Again on tv so hard to tell. One of these last 2 guys fell to ground on very last defensive play

51 out for the year.

AlltimeFU, THANKS for info ! Even bad information. You are just messenger

[gofurman]

The jackal, Mrs. Jackal, Jackal, Jr., and Jackalette made the drive over yesterday for the game and were treated to a beautiful day and hard fought football game between two teams.

My thoughts on the contest:

1. Everyone has to remember Samford had everything on the line in this game. They were playing at home. We're their biggest game on the schedule. A loss basically eliminates them from any discussion of repeating as SoCon champ or even making the post season.

2. Our defensive front seven was incredible. 11 tackles for loss and 9 sacks. Samford averaged 1.5 yards per rush attempt. It's hard to imagine a more dominant effort in that department by the defense.

3. It's not only the number of pressures that was impressive, but that those pressures came from everywhere. 7 players credited with a sack and 9 players with a TFL. That's effectively the entire front seven depth chart playing in Samford's backfield. Defense just kept answering the bell.

4. My only quibble with the defensive effort was the first drive and giving up a long pass play, though it was a beautiful throw from Hiers. After that, the only frustration was Samford's last scoring drive where our defense kept forcing third and fourth downs and just couldn't get off the field.

5. Offensively, we had a good day. After watching Samford/Wofford, I thought the Terriers had a lot of RPO-type throws open against the Bulldogs they just couldn't seem to hit. Furman hit those throws. By the fourth quarter, Roberto was starting to find a lot of running room.

6. It took Huff a little time to settle down on his throws, but once he did, he was really throwing the ball well. The catch by Ferguson was outstanding. A few times we tried to hit deep throws, but they never materialized and were well covered by Samford.

7. The offense just couldn't seem to deliver the haymaker in the second half. We had Samford on the ropes and opportunities to put them on the mat, but couldn't land that final punch to finish them. Credit to them, though. They weren't going to go quietly.

8. The offense really helped things out, though, in playing keep away. We ran 71 plays to Samford's 79 (remember, Samford's entire offense is built around running as many plays as possible), held the ball for 5 minutes longer, put up more yards than Samford, etc. We really controlled the pace of the game and made Samford play our type of football game instead of us playing theirs.

9. Samford's offense only made it into the redzone twice. Again, outstanding.

10. I had noticed this during the game, but just looked up the number - Furman's first four drives started at their on 7, 15, 10, and 1 yard line. Great fight by the offense to go into the half with the lead when 4 of the 5 offensive drives in the half were basically in the shadow of your goal posts.

11. Samford fans were griping about the referees. I didn't see any grave miscarriages of justice on any plays in real time.

12. I still think the best is yet to come for this group.

NOT NEGATIVE. feel like I have to preface. Lol

Just an oddity. You had the best turnover creating team in Furman (especially interceptions). Vs a team with a big penchant for turnovers (especially throwing turnovers). Heck, I think ETSU took 4 turnovers from Samford . UTC had pick 6 etc. Seems everyone takes a lot of turnovers from Samford. EVERYONE

Jackal noted this pregame

But we had zero. As the leading SoCon turnover taking team. And even more strange with an AWESOME NINE SACKS that usually creates bad throws but it’s almost like Heirs just ate the ball and took the sack and avoided the bad throw. Wonder if he was coached about this after throwing so many picks. Better to take a sack than throw a pick

Great win. . It was

Just a weird stat. We were actually negative 1 turnover …. We may be the only team to have negative turnovers vs Samford. Confirmed. We are the only FCS team to have negative turnover ratio (just 1) vs Samford

[The Jackal]

The jackal, Mrs. Jackal, Jackal, Jr., and Jackalette made the drive over yesterday for the game and were treated to a beautiful day and hard fought football game between two teams.

My thoughts on the contest:

1. Everyone has to remember Samford had everything on the line in this game. They were playing at home. We're their biggest game on the schedule. A loss basically eliminates them from any discussion of repeating as SoCon champ or even making the post season.

2. Our defensive front seven was incredible. 11 tackles for loss and 9 sacks. Samford averaged 1.5 yards per rush attempt. It's hard to imagine a more dominant effort in that department by the defense.

3. It's not only the number of pressures that was impressive, but that those pressures came from everywhere. 7 players credited with a sack and 9 players with a TFL. That's effectively the entire front seven depth chart playing in Samford's backfield. Defense just kept answering the bell.

4. My only quibble with the defensive effort was the first drive and giving up a long pass play, though it was a beautiful throw from Hiers. After that, the only frustration was Samford's last scoring drive where our defense kept forcing third and fourth downs and just couldn't get off the field.

5. Offensively, we had a good day. After watching Samford/Wofford, I thought the Terriers had a lot of RPO-type throws open against the Bulldogs they just couldn't seem to hit. Furman hit those throws. By the fourth quarter, Roberto was starting to find a lot of running room.

6. It took Huff a little time to settle down on his throws, but once he did, he was really throwing the ball well. The catch by Ferguson was outstanding. A few times we tried to hit deep throws, but they never materialized and were well covered by Samford.

7. The offense just couldn't seem to deliver the haymaker in the second half. We had Samford on the ropes and opportunities to put them on the mat, but couldn't land that final punch to finish them. Credit to them, though. They weren't going to go quietly.

8. The offense really helped things out, though, in playing keep away. We ran 71 plays to Samford's 79 (remember, Samford's entire offense is built around running as many plays as possible), held the ball for 5 minutes longer, put up more yards than Samford, etc. We really controlled the pace of the game and made Samford play our type of football game instead of us playing theirs.

9. Samford's offense only made it into the redzone twice. Again, outstanding.

10. I had noticed this during the game, but just looked up the number - Furman's first four drives started at their on 7, 15, 10, and 1 yard line. Great fight by the offense to go into the half with the lead when 4 of the 5 offensive drives in the half were basically in the shadow of your goal posts.

11. Samford fans were griping about the referees. I didn't see any grave miscarriages of justice on any plays in real time.

12. I still think the best is yet to come for this group.

NOT NEGATIVE. feel like I have to preface. Lol

Just an oddity. You had the best turnover creating team in Furman (especially interceptions). Vs a team with a big penchant for turnovers (especially throwing turnovers). Heck, I think ETSU took 4 turnovers from Samford . UTC had pick 6 etc. Seems everyone takes a lot of turnovers from Samford. EVERYONE

Jackal noted this pregame

But we had zero. As the leading SoCon turnover taking team. And even more strange with an AWESOME NINE SACKS that usually creates bad throws but it’s almost like Heirs just ate the ball and took the sack and avoided the bad throw. Wonder if he was coached about this after throwing so many picks. Better to take a sack than throw a pick

Great win. . It was

Just a weird stat. We were actually negative 1 turnover …. We may be the only team to have negative turnovers vs Samford. Confirmed. We are the only FCS team to have negative turnover ratio (just 1) vs Samford

Probably not as odd as you might assume.

To start, while not statistically recorded as a "turnover" Furman stopped Samford on 2 of their 4 fourth down attempts. These are technically turnovers, though not recorded as such.

Sometimes, too, the ball just bounces against you.

In the first quarter, DiMaggio forced a Hiers fumble that bounced right back to a Samford player. That could have easily been a turnover just based on the bounce of the football.

On Samford's last scoring drive, Hiers threw a ball right into the hands of Braden Gilby (I think), who dropped what might have been the easiest interception of his career. Again, not a turnover, but easily could have been.

Samford's lone turnover was a similar unlucky bounce of the ball. High throw that was tipped in the air and caught right before it hit the ground.

Furman leads the SoCon in interceptions and, honestly, has probably dropped nearly as many as they've caught. I think just the law of probabilities will suggest that at some point those drops will turn into picks.

[gofurman]

The jackal, Mrs. Jackal, Jackal, Jr., and Jackalette made the drive over yesterday for the game and were treated to a beautiful day and hard fought football game between two teams.

My thoughts on the contest:

1. Everyone has to remember Samford had everything on the line in this game. They were playing at home. We're their biggest game on the schedule. A loss basically eliminates them from any discussion of repeating as SoCon champ or even making the post season.

2. Our defensive front seven was incredible. 11 tackles for loss and 9 sacks. Samford averaged 1.5 yards per rush attempt. It's hard to imagine a more dominant effort in that department by the defense.

3. It's not only the number of pressures that was impressive, but that those pressures came from everywhere. 7 players credited with a sack and 9 players with a TFL. That's effectively the entire front seven depth chart playing in Samford's backfield. Defense just kept answering the bell.

4. My only quibble with the defensive effort was the first drive and giving up a long pass play, though it was a beautiful throw from Hiers. After that, the only frustration was Samford's last scoring drive where our defense kept forcing third and fourth downs and just couldn't get off the field.

5. Offensively, we had a good day. After watching Samford/Wofford, I thought the Terriers had a lot of RPO-type throws open against the Bulldogs they just couldn't seem to hit. Furman hit those throws. By the fourth quarter, Roberto was starting to find a lot of running room.

6. It took Huff a little time to settle down on his throws, but once he did, he was really throwing the ball well. The catch by Ferguson was outstanding. A few times we tried to hit deep throws, but they never materialized and were well covered by Samford.

7. The offense just couldn't seem to deliver the haymaker in the second half. We had Samford on the ropes and opportunities to put them on the mat, but couldn't land that final punch to finish them. Credit to them, though. They weren't going to go quietly.

8. The offense really helped things out, though, in playing keep away. We ran 71 plays to Samford's 79 (remember, Samford's entire offense is built around running as many plays as possible), held the ball for 5 minutes longer, put up more yards than Samford, etc. We really controlled the pace of the game and made Samford play our type of football game instead of us playing theirs.

9. Samford's offense only made it into the redzone twice. Again, outstanding.

10. I had noticed this during the game, but just looked up the number - Furman's first four drives started at their on 7, 15, 10, and 1 yard line. Great fight by the offense to go into the half with the lead when 4 of the 5 offensive drives in the half were basically in the shadow of your goal posts.

11. Samford fans were griping about the referees. I didn't see any grave miscarriages of justice on any plays in real time.

12. I still think the best is yet to come for this group.

NOT NEGATIVE. feel like I have to preface. Lol

Just an oddity. You had the best turnover creating team in Furman (especially interceptions). Vs a team with a big penchant for turnovers (especially throwing turnovers). Heck, I think ETSU took 4 turnovers from Samford . UTC had pick 6 etc. Seems everyone takes a lot of turnovers from Samford. EVERYONE

Jackal noted this pregame

But we had zero. As the leading SoCon turnover taking team. And even more strange with an AWESOME NINE SACKS that usually creates bad throws but it’s almost like Heirs just ate the ball and took the sack and avoided the bad throw. Wonder if he was coached about this after throwing so many picks. Better to take a sack than throw a pick

Great win. . It was

Just a weird stat. We were actually negative 1 turnover …. We may be the only team to have negative turnovers vs Samford. Confirmed. We are the only FCS team to have negative turnover ratio (just 1) vs Samford

Probably not as odd as you might assume.

To start, while not statistically recorded as a "turnover" Furman stopped Samford on 2 of their 4 fourth down attempts. These are technically turnovers, though not recorded as such.

Sometimes, too, the ball just bounces against you.

In the first quarter, DiMaggio forced a Hiers fumble that bounced right back to a Samford player. That could have easily been a turnover just based on the bounce of the football.

On Samford's last scoring drive, Hiers threw a ball right into the hands of Braden Gilby (I think), who dropped what might have been the easiest interception of his career. Again, not a turnover, but easily could have been.

Samford's lone turnover was a similar unlucky bounce of the ball. High throw that was tipped in the air and caught right before it hit the ground.

Furman leads the SoCon in interceptions and, honestly, has probably dropped nearly as many as they've caught. I think just the law of probabilities will suggest that at some point those drops will turn into picks.

Agree. For the most part. Just there are forced turnovers. Sacks and tips and qb pressure and great DB play.

And some are just luck. The qb mishandles the handoff to RB in backfield with no defender nearby and drops ball and it gets kicked into LOS

I would say the throw to our LB ( Gilby pretty sure) by Hiers looked like a hard catch as I recall the ball was moving fast. A hard throw. Plus a lot of times defenders are looking to make a tackle and an INT and have very little time to catch an errant pass. No time to react. The easier picks are like Blackshear cutting in front of the TTU pass where he reads it all the way and becomes a receiver. Much easier. When a DB is coming up hard to make a tackle and the receiver drops the ball at the very end that’s a tough interception as the defender is focused on the tackle and has no time to react.

Anyway. It’s yes and no. Absolutely love 4th down stops! But we lead conference (I think ) in turnovers and esp interceptions. All that qb pressure I would have expected a pick. No biggie

What I hope does not hurt us is what you referenced and is undeniable. We have several easy picks we have dropped. Must catch the easy interception’s