Staff video by Travis Long, Caulton Tudor and J.P. Giglio
Today's topic: Previewing ECU's trip to UNC on Saturday.
Blogs
Web Search powered by YAHOO!
- Home
-
News
- Sections
- Multimedia
-
Sports
- Business
-
Politics
- MULTIMEDIA
- Life
-
Entertainment
- MULTIMEDIA
-
Opinion
-
Obits
- SECTIONS
- Find n Save
- Classifieds
- Jobs
- Real estate
- Cars
- Place ad
-
The Podcast: Sept. 17
Submitted by jpg on 09/16/2009 - 21:30
About the blogger
J.P. Giglio covers the ACC for the News & Observer, where he has worked since 1997. Want to post a comment?
In order to join the conversation, you must be a member of newsobserver.com. Click here to register or to log in.Advertisements
Comments
JPG...that didn't count...
Thu, 09/17/2009 - 15:39 — UNC1998If UNC proves ECU to not be the best team in the state of NC...I just know you will come out and say as much...like you wrot on this very blog 2 weeks ago. Other than that UNC should be better. The offensive line is hurting, but at least those backups got a whole week of practice with what is left of the first team. Rome is back. Highsmith will probably play more. Yates can take 6 steps sideways and throw it to a tb or te. We'll see.
Shady Call?
Thu, 09/17/2009 - 11:51 — SurferWhat clowns, the guys laughing. What is the definition of a "shady call"? Saying that UNC needed that call to win and implying that the ACC refs gave it to them, as well.
Had the call not been made, (which to all accounts was the correct call) UConn would have still punted and with over 1:30 left, UNC could have easily at least kicked a field goal or won in overtime, or lost. But please don't say that UNC needed or counts on a call like that to win.
As everyone will tell you,
Thu, 09/17/2009 - 12:40 — mad_maxAs everyone will tell you, holding could be called on every single play in a football game if the refs really wanted to do so. For it to come at this particular time in the game by an ACC crew, it could definitely be argued as a "shady call"...especially since that was the only holding call of the game if I'm not mistaken. Look back at all 4 of UConn's sacks and try to tell me that the UNC O-line was not holding...you can't. Truth is, this was a very suspect time to make the first holding call of the game.
That being said, the call is not the reason UNC won that game, especially since UConn recovered the onside kick right after. Tough, questionable call? Yes. The reason UNC won? No.
Holding call
Thu, 09/17/2009 - 17:21 — Heels20You're absolutely right about how holding could be called on every play. HOWEVER, the guy did 3 things wrong. 1. He grabbed cloth (let it go). 2. He got beat and reached across his chest to grab him (pushing it, but still don't call that considering the circumstances. 3. He brought him to the ground. At that point, it is a blatant hold that prevented a sack that would have been a safety. Props to the ref for having the balls to make that call at that point of the game.
True
Thu, 09/17/2009 - 19:30 — mad_maxIt was a hold, don't get me wrong. Like I said though, for this to be the only holding call of the game, it's gonna be opened up for some questions and people are gonna call it "shady". I'm not saying he shouldn't have thrown the flag though, just explaining why so many people have a hard time accepting it. Also, you can't really say that the QB would have been sacked had the hold not taken place. You CAN say that UConn's chances to win that game were very, very low at that point though.
max
Thu, 09/17/2009 - 22:22 — gvillegatrI havent heard the first UConn fan/coach/grad not accepting ... only non UNC fans. not a negative comment was made on their football website.
Really?
Fri, 09/18/2009 - 09:39 — mad_maxI've heard plenty of UConn fans arguing the call...check out youtube. C'mon G-gatr, you know that the actual football sites never question the calls! They feel they have to be PC. You never saw gopack.com complaining about TA's TD in the 2004 State/UNC game. Don't try to make this something that it's not.
Ya know, I try to be friendly and reasonable on here, but you make it really difficult when you spit out false garbage like that.
false garbage
Fri, 09/18/2009 - 11:36 — gvillegatr... seems a little harsh considering I said no one on their website made any negative comments about it. and they didn't. I apologize for not scowering the depths of youtube for what was the right call.
why would you even be going to youtube (for starters) searching for fans being upset about a game you have no rooting interest in? a little obsessive if you ask me.
lets not forget, you brought up the garbage of the holding penalty in the comment section of this blog ... you know, the non UNC fan.
it was a hold and the correct call was made. worry about G-W.
have a wonderful weekend, mad max.
"lets not forget, you
Fri, 09/18/2009 - 11:46 — mad_max"lets not forget, you brought up the garbage of the holding penalty in the comment section of this blog ... you know, the non UNC fan. "
-c'mon, it was very clearly Surfer who brought this topic up. and i'm pretty sure he's not a non-UNC fan.
and "false garbage" was referring to you insisting that no UConn fans had beef with that call, but rather it was all non-UNCers. Again, I'm not saying i disagree with the call, just pointing out why many people consider it suspect (including the two gentlemen in this podcast).
Thanks, enjoy your weekend too. I'm glad the UNC/ECU game will actually be on tv.
"suspect"
Fri, 09/18/2009 - 12:42 — gvillegatryou cannot agree with the call (which you have) and also say it was "suspect." maybe you just used the wrong word to get one of your points across?
The word "unusual" would apply.
I didn't say it was
Fri, 09/18/2009 - 14:13 — mad_maxI didn't say it was suspect...just trying to explain what the argument is for people that are calling it suspect, such as JP and Tudor. Sheesh, I said it was the right call. C'mon, I'm not trying to hate here.
Max
Fri, 09/18/2009 - 13:29 — SurferWhat ever Max calls it, he is not going to like it.
My original point was my problem with Toots and JP laughing and calling it a "shady" call.
Yes, I am not a non-UNC fan. I am a UNC grad and life time UNC fan.
Yeah, I don't care much
Fri, 09/18/2009 - 14:15 — mad_maxYeah, I don't care much about the call. If UNC wins or loses that game, it has no effect on my Wolfpack. Just trying to explain what I would assume JP and Tudor felt about the call. That's it. Congrats on getting your degree and good luck tomorrow.
This is no attack on max by
Fri, 09/18/2009 - 16:41 — Heels20This is no attack on max by any means, I honestly see what both sides are trying to say. I just wanted to point out that Tudor and JPG call it a shady call because Tudor is about as crazy as Lou Holtz and JPG is about as anti-Carolina as Billy Packer. I guess if you want, you can give them the benefit of the doubt by saying that maybe they referred to it as a shady call because it was an unusual call that really sealed the game for the Heels. Whatever. The Heels won, the Pack won, JPG is biased and I would love to see the Heels kick the mess out of the Pirates. Go Heels
I gotcha. Good luck
Fri, 09/18/2009 - 20:23 — mad_maxI gotcha. Good luck tomorrow.
Agreed
Thu, 09/17/2009 - 19:22 — JPDOhioOnce the guy tackled him, it was pretty hard for the referee not to throw the flag.
Haha
Thu, 09/17/2009 - 01:31 — Heels20Don't want our boys to lose, but I like the prediction on 24+. Pianalto is a big loss, but I think we kind of found our offensive identity toward the end of that UConn game, with Little and Highsmith stepping up. This will not be an easy game, but I think we'll get it done.
Nice take on the game guys.
Wed, 09/16/2009 - 23:12 — mad_maxNice take on the game guys. If UNC puts up 24 points, I don't see them losing this one. The question is, can they get that offense going well enough to score 24+.
Now all we need is Tysiac to tell us all how the UConn/Baylor game is more important to UNC than this ECU game.
PS: I think Tudor is growing out his hair until UNC loses. Just another reason to root against 'em!...as if I needed one.