[Husker] What exactly is the defense doing?

[Steve Reichenbach]

Another of Bob's rants and like most of them wrong.

1) I only said this one anouncer was biased.  I didn't think that about
the other announcers of this game nor announcers in general.  So, Bob,
I'll continue decide when its worth saying and when its not.

2) It wasn't pass interference, whether you want to say it was obvious
or not.  If you think refs don't make judgements appropriate for the
situation, you're crazy.  Another example, one blocker on a punt return
bumps the back of a defender who isn't in the play and doesn't go down,
then another blocker makes exactly the same contact on a defender who
might have made the tackle but loses balance and goes down --- in both
instances, the player commits exactly the same infraction of a block
in the back.  To not account for the situation is absurd and good refs
don't insert themselves into the game unnecessarily, especially if
making a call is going to change the complexion of a game.  If you
think otherwise you're both naive as to how things really are called
and advocating an absurd approach to football officiating where something
is called every play.

I've had my say and won't post again on this subject, fully prepared
to let Bob have the last word.  Bob always has the last word even when
it means posting after "his last post on a subject."

>     Please don't start the"biased announcer" thing again.  It is so
> old and trite.  Let me say it and then maybe we won't have to hear it
> again.  Every announcer, sportscaster, sideline reporter, news person,
> media person, sports writer, and anything else one can think of that
> has anything to do with the reporting of college sports in any form is
> biased against Nebraska.  They all hate Nebraska and will do or say
> anything they possibly can to cut down Nebraska.  They do it to no
> other school, only Nebraska and to NU every single time.  There, and
> from now on any time we are talking about an announcer this assumption
> will be made so it shouldn't have to be said.
> 
>      That play was an obvious pass interference.  The only possible
> way they could say it wasn't is if they ruled the ball uncatchable.  As
> far as the 1993 bowl game or any other game you call the game by the
> rules and/or judgment.  You don't make a call by what the situation is
> at the moment.  That would make a mockery of the game.