Game story from Annapolis paper

[mr. pony]

Arkpony was quoting the article not his opinion.

People don't read very closely.

I read just fine. You said SMU had six on the line.

[ponyboy]

The Annapolis paper says we "stunned" Navy? Not sure what that means. As in we had no chance of winning that game at home? As in compared to the line? As in how we had played in the game itself? Or as in the ending?

[mrydel]

Arkpony was quoting the article not his opinion.

People don't read very closely.

I read just fine. You said SMU had six on the line.

No. The article said that. Did you even read the article? And did you read Arkpony’s opening stating he does not agree with the article?

[Whitwiki Pony]

The Annapolis paper says we "stunned" Navy? Not sure what that means. As in we had no chance of winning that game at home? As in compared to the line? As in how we had played in the game itself? Or as in the ending?

i would be pretty stunned if my team lost a game it was favored in to a team that hasn’t beaten us in 20 years on a trick play in overtime.

[PoconoPony]

TV ran several re-runs of the play and it was very clear it was a legal play with 7 on the line. The announcers even marked off each player on the line showing 7 in various re-runs and freeze frames. Line of scrimmage was fairly easy to discern as the 7 on the line had their back foot clearly inside the the 5 yard line stripe and the remaining 4 were placed clearly behind the stripe.

[Charleston Pony]

Arkpony was quoting the article not his opinion.

People don't read very closely.

I read just fine. You said SMU had six on the line.

You obviously didn't read the article. Arkpony's 2nd paragraph (that you mistook as his statement) was quoted from the article. He even commented in his opening paragraph that the writer's opinion differed from the announcers, officials and Arkpony's. You misread. Get over it.

[ponyboy]

The Annapolis paper says we "stunned" Navy? Not sure what that means. As in we had no chance of winning that game at home? As in compared to the line? As in how we had played in the game itself? Or as in the ending?

i would be pretty stunned if my team lost a game it was favored in to a team that hasn’t beaten us in 20 years on a trick play in overtime.

Even when you had to beat the aforementioned team with a last second field goal at home the prior year? Even where you were less than a touchdown favorite? That's not stunning. Slightly surprising, perhaps, but not stunning.

Stunning: "causing astonishment or disbelief"

[Terry Webster]

Maybe the writer understands Perunas law and was stunned that it didn't happen this time. After the blocked extra point and all it sure looked like it was going to happen.

[Whitwiki Pony]

The Annapolis paper says we "stunned" Navy? Not sure what that means. As in we had no chance of winning that game at home? As in compared to the line? As in how we had played in the game itself? Or as in the ending?

i would be pretty stunned if my team lost a game it was favored in to a team that hasn’t beaten us in 20 years on a trick play in overtime.

Even when you had to beat the aforementioned team with a last second field goal at home the prior year? Even where you were less than a touchdown favorite? That's not stunning. Slightly surprising, perhaps, but not stunning.

Stunning: "causing astonishment or disbelief"

You can play with semantics all you want, but our team wasn’t playing well to start the season and we suck against Navy. Hell I was shocked we won.
It’s OK to not be a super homer on every emotion or word about SMU football.

[Bergermeister]

Hell, I was shocked we won.

You're not alone.

[AusTxPony]

Must admit, I kept thinking they would overtake us, but the defense did just enough to keep the game in hand. Thank the gods we are beginning to have enough depth to play some real football. And thank you Coach Kane for making a difference. Perfect decision by Dykes to go for two. Many around me were calling for that as well. And let's not forget, Navy was less than fooled, so great throw and better catch by Tedford.

[ponyboy]

Navy is always such a disciplined team.

BTW, a lot of folks seem to forget that, yes, while we hadn't beaten them in 20 years, we didn't play them 12 of those 20 years. Navy's been very good of late: The last six matchups with SMU, Navy went on to win at least 7 games that season, including an 11-win campaign in 2015.

It's good to beat a good, disciplined, and storied program. Lots of hope for SMU football and Sonny Dykes.

[shadowman]

At a minimum we had 6.5 players on the line of scrimmage which rounds up to 7.

Legal play.

Two thoughts here. I agree it was a legal formation, but it WAS close to not being one. This is a play that had obviously been well practiced, shame to think it almost got messed up by someone lining up wrong.

Also, I assume the long delay was a discussion between officials as to whether or not there were seven men on the line and probably also included on whether or not it was a reviewable play.

If the play is not reviewable, what were they looking at for so long once the ref said it was under review and walked over to the headset? Should have just taken 5 seconds to say it is not reviewable. Almost makes me think there was another element they were dissecting.

[mrydel]

Every play is close to one not lining up correctly. Just takes one yard one way or another for any of 11 players. The play was totally legal.

[AusTxPony]

Didn't Dykes say another element of the formation is Pursely, after the in-motion cannot step forward like he is a eligible receiver, so that could be another element under discussion. At any rate, it was legal. Thank goodness, the boys did it right.