Duke football note, 11-04-14

[jimsumner]

Much of today’s discussion focused on Duke’s recent ability to minimize mistakes. In the three-game winning streak, Duke has committed zero turnovers, allowed zero sacks and committed only 11 penalties for 85 yards. On the season Duke has committed five turnovers, while forcing 13, been sacked 4 times, while racking up 13 sacks and is averaging 26 fewer penalty yards per game.

Laken Tomlinson on that subject. “It’s how hard we work and how seriously we take our job. We focus on all the little things. We practice going out there and doing the same thing over and over again until it’s perfected. Then we get to exhibit that on game days.”

Anthony Boone says it is “Extreme focus and discipline. We practice getting the ball out on time, we practice taking care of the football and understanding our reads, clean blocks and not jumping offsides.”

Cutcliffe added that more football games are lost than are won.

Tight ends D.J. Reeves and Erich Schneider combined for four receptions against Pitt. Boone said Duke made a conscious decision to go more often to that position, “getting those guys more involved in the passing game, getting those guys the love they deserve. We ask them to do a big job of blocking defensive ends and getting out after linebackers and getting down and dirty. They deserve the football more and we decided to get them more involved.”

Cutcliffe added that the tight ends “need to continue to be weapons. We’re making them the primary receiver more often.”

Duke’s running backs also combined for eight receptions against Pitt. Cutcliffe ascribes that to Boone doing a great job of reading coverages and getting the ball to the right man.

Cutcliffe says he doesn’t expect any major problems playing indoors but isn’t taking any chances. Duke will do most of its practicing this week indoors. He did say that depth perception and vision can be issues . Duke played in the Georgia Dome last season, so it does have some experience playing indoors.

Duke had a hard practice today but did hold back some players who were more bumped and bruised than normal following the double-overtime game.

Syracuse? An active defensive line, receivers “making contested catches,” they “can run the football.”

DeVon Edwards suggested Duke might have plans to take advantage of Syracuse’s inexperience at quarterback. He was smiling when he said it.

Cutcliffe called his decision to go for the touchdown at the end of the first half a “no-brainer” and added “I’m still trying to figure out where the pylon is.”

The missed field goal at the end of regulation? Cutcliffe gave credit to Blakeney, Borders and Bruce for getting penetration. He said that he was icing the snapper as much as Blewitt. “The snapper is more nervous than the kicker.” After calling two timeouts, he told his team he would not be calling a third but he wanted Pitt to think he might. It appeared that the long snapper was a bit flummoxed and the timing was off.

[subzero02]

Great information and insightful quotes. Did Cutcliffe discuss his decision to punt on our last offensive possession in regulation? I like how our team plays on artificial turf. We have the speedsters now who can take advantage of the faster track.

[budwom]

As far as Syracuse's ability to "run the football," they averaged one yard per carry vs State last weekend....their OL was badly banged up, and I hope that the wounded take another day of rest against us and
come back strong the following week.

[devildeac]

Priceless Cut comment/no comment about the pylon. ;)

Thanks for reporting, Jim.

[jimsumner]

As far as Syracuse's ability to "run the football," they averaged one yard per carry vs State last weekend....their OL was badly banged up, and I hope that the wounded take another day of rest against us and
come back strong the following week.

Now, now. Next week's opponent is always a close analog to the 1972 Dolphins.

[uh_no]

Now, now. Next week's opponent is always a close analog to the 1972 Dolphins.

they spend their days drinking champagne? seems like that might bode well for us.

[Olympic Fan]

Seeing the note about Duke's four sacks allowed leads me to an observation --

We probably have the most productive offensive line in college football (note: I'm not saying the best since that would raise questions of the level of competition). My argument:

(1) Duke lead the nation in least sacks allowed. In the ACC, Duke has attempted 292 passes with four sacks ... second place Georgia Tech has given up seven sacks in 142 pass attempts. Considering the attempts -- that's a HUGE difference. And it's getting bigger -- Duke hasn't allowed a sack since the Miami game.

(2) Duke leads the nation in least tackles for loss allowed. Duke has allowed 2.63 TFL in eight games. Second in the ACC is Virginia, giving up 6.44 TFL a game. That's a HUGE difference. ... and it's getting bigger too. Duke has actually allowed just one TFL in the last three games -- and that came on a botched reverse against Virginia.

(3) Duke is averaging 5.8 yards a rushing play. That's second in the ACC to Georgia Tech, which is averaging 5.9 yards a carry. It's interesting, but with all the talk about how Pitt shredded our defensive, our runners actually averaged almost a yard more per carry (6.4) against Pitt than James Conner and the Panthers did against us (5.5).

I would add (4) being Duke's ability to avoid holding penalties. The trouble is that I don't have access to the stats on the number of holding calls by the offensive line. Just my memory is that we've had very, very few of those calls. Our overall penalty rate of 4.9 penalties for 39.2 yards a game would seem to support this, but I can't prove it.

Is there another offensive line in the country that can match that efficiency?

Laken Tomlinson is getting plenty of national pub -- and it's quite justified. I suspect he'll make a number of All-American teams.

But keep an eye on Matt Skura. The national guys haven't picked up on it yet, but he's blowing up. He's the quarterback of the line for two years and he's always been good in that role, but now he's starting to emerge as a dominant blocker too. Go back and watch Sirk's two TD runs at Pitt -- Skura was a one-man bulldozer on both of them.

[Richard Berg]

I would add (4) being Duke's ability to avoid holding penalties. The trouble is that I don't have access to the stats on the number of holding calls by the offensive line. Just my memory is that we've had very, very few of those calls.
My very skewed memory says that offensive holding is about 70% Blakeney, 30% McCaffrey.

[OldPhiKap]

Cutcliffe added that more football games are lost than are won.



The Pitt game being a perfect example. Pitt missed its first FG; gave up a 99-yard kick return; and missed the last FG in regulation. Keeping their best back out of the second overtime is likewise puzzling.

We played hard, and we played with very few mistakes. At the end of the day, that allowed us to take the opportunity presented to us.

[Dev11]

Cutcliffe called his decision to go for the touchdown at the end of the first half a “no-brainer” and added “I’m still trying to figure out where the pylon is.”

I didn't get a chance to comment on this in the game thread, but that call should have either been a touchdown or an incomplete pass. There's no way it was a reception and out of bounds before the goal line.

Carry on.

[Bob Green]

My very skewed memory says that offensive holding is about 70% Blakeney, 30% McCaffrey.

A receiver being flagged for a hold is especially frustrating. Sometimes offensive linemen have to hold to protect the QB from getting leveled, but the receivers just need to slow a defender up for a split second. I know McCaffrey was flagged for holding against Pitt, Blakeney has been flagged multiple times.

[DukeSean]

I didn't get a chance to comment on this in the game thread, but that call should have either been a touchdown or an incomplete pass. There's no way it was a reception and out of bounds before the goal line.

Carry on.

Could someone clarify the rules on the challenge/review process? If the call on the field is catch in bounds, out at the 1 yard line, and they review the catch, does that also put up everything else after that for review? In other words, is the review a wholesale review of all aspects of the play and its result(s), or can they only confirm, let play stand, or overturn the issue in question?

So in our case against Pitt, if they're reviewing whether or not it's a catch in bounds, can they also rule in the same review that it was a catch, and that he stayed in bounds for TD?

[BigWayne]

Could someone clarify the rules on the challenge/review process? If the call on the field is catch in bounds, out at the 1 yard line, and they review the catch, does that also put up everything else after that for review? In other words, is the review a wholesale review of all aspects of the play and its result(s), or can they only confirm, let play stand, or overturn the issue in question?

So in our case against Pitt, if they're reviewing whether or not it's a catch in bounds, can they also rule in the same review that it was a catch, and that he stayed in bounds for TD?

Like Dev11, I was watching it and saying he is either out of bounds and no catch or it's a touchdown. My guess why it is ruled the way they did is that the ref on the field ruled it that way and once he rules that way it is a dead ball and the continuation into the end zone is moot. In this case it is absurd, but suppose the initial call was at the 30 yard line and the receiver continued on to the end zone after the whistle blew. The official on the field blew the call. The only way he could rule that way is if he supposedly saw the foot come down in bounds and then slide out of bounds immediately.

[devilsadvocate85]

Like Dev11, I was watching it and saying he is either out of bounds and no catch or it's a touchdown. My guess why it is ruled the way they did is that the ref on the field ruled it that way and once he rules that way it is a dead ball and the continuation into the end zone is moot. In this case it is absurd, but suppose the initial call was at the 30 yard line and the receiver continued on to the end zone after the whistle blew. The official on the field blew the call. The only way he could rule that way is if he supposedly saw the foot come down in bounds and then slide out of bounds immediately.

Having some experience in the way it works. The replay official has to see irrefutable video evidence to change / reverse the call on the field. Also, the referee will say that a call "stands" - when there is not enough evidence to reverse the call, nor to say that the call was obviously correct. In the case of the Crowder catch/no catch/possible touchdown, there was not enough video evidence to confirm that he was inbounds (the announcement was that the ruling on the field stands) and I'm guessing the same was true with the possible touchdown. In that situation, the ball must cross the plane of the goal line before the player goes out of bounds. That may have indeed been the case, but as I watched the replays, I didn't see irrefutable video evidence that this was the case. So once again, the play was announced as "stands as called". Based on the requirements, had it been ruled no catch on the field, I believe the play would have been allowed to "stand" as called. Also, had it been ruled a touchdown, I think it also would have been a "stands as called" situation.

[BigWayne]

Having some experience in the way it works. The replay official has to see irrefutable video evidence to change / reverse the call on the field. Also, the referee will say that a call "stands" - when there is not enough evidence to reverse the call, nor to say that the call was obviously correct. In the case of the Crowder catch/no catch/possible touchdown, there was not enough video evidence to confirm that he was inbounds (the announcement was that the ruling on the field stands) and I'm guessing the same was true with the possible touchdown. In that situation, the ball must cross the plane of the goal line before the player goes out of bounds. That may have indeed been the case, but as I watched the replays, I didn't see irrefutable video evidence that this was the case. So once again, the play was announced as "stands as called". Based on the requirements, had it been ruled no catch on the field, I believe the play would have been allowed to "stand" as called. Also, had it been ruled a touchdown, I think it also would have been a "stands as called" situation.

Yes, they did the "play stands" thing. The one thing that the video (combined with the laws of physics) does irrefutably prove is that it is not possible for him to make a completed catch by having his foot be in bounds while simultaneously being ruled out of bounds at the same spot. Either it is a catch and he scores by knocking the inside of the pylon with his other foot, or he is out of bounds and does not complete the catch. That's why I am guessing the lack of advancement of the ball to the end zone results from the play being called dead incorrectly. Anyway, the next play fortunately made the effect of the bad call negligible.

[Reilly]

... it is not possible for him to make a completed catch by having his foot be in bounds while simultaneously being ruled out of bounds at the same spot. Either it is a catch and he scores by knocking the inside of the pylon with his other foot, or he is out of bounds ...

Doesn't the ball have to cross the plane of the goal line inbounds? Isn't the crucial question where is the ball, not whether his foot hit the pylon?

It's possible for a player to walk next to the sideline, inbounds the whole time, both feet inbounds the whole time, crossing the goal line .... but if the player were holding the ball out to his side in an exaggerated manner over the out-of bounds area, that would not count as a TD would it? And then we'd have an interesting question: if the player then drops the ball in the endzone such as by flipping it back towards the inbounds area, is it then a live fumble? Or if the player steps out of bounds after reaching the endzone but the ball never hovering over the inbounds space of the endzone, is it a touchback?

In short, for JC, I thought they were ruling that he caught the ball inbounds. Good catch. The ball was not yet across the plane of the goal line. Then, he stepped out of bounds. When he stepped out of bounds, the ball had not yet crossed the plane of the goal line *inbounds*.

I thought the position of the ball against his body would make it seem like it did cross the goal line inbounds but couldn't really tell for sure ...

[Papa John]

Yes, they did the "play stands" thing. The one thing that the video (combined with the laws of physics) does irrefutably prove is that it is not possible for him to make a completed catch by having his foot be in bounds while simultaneously being ruled out of bounds at the same spot. Either it is a catch and he scores by knocking the inside of the pylon with his other foot, or he is out of bounds and does not complete the catch. That's why I am guessing the lack of advancement of the ball to the end zone results from the play being called dead incorrectly. Anyway, the next play fortunately made the effect of the bad call negligible.

Correct. By rule, that play was either an incomplete pass or a touchdown--there was no "in-between" ruling available there... That was perhaps the worst ruling I have seen in football this season thus far (it trumps the OPI gift the crew gave FSU at the end of what should have been their loss to ND on a blown coverage--that call, though horrendous, at least presents those arguing with the officials a shred of logic to support an argument... There was no logic to support the ruling on the Crowder call... Again, were I the head of ACC officiating, that entire crew, including the replay officials, would be taking this week off to study the rule book... It was a comically bad, bad call).

[tux]

Correct. By rule, that play was either an incomplete pass or a touchdown--there was no "in-between" ruling available there... That was perhaps the worst ruling I have seen in football this season thus far (it trumps the OPI gift the crew gave FSU at the end of what should have been their loss to ND on a blown coverage--that call, though horrendous, at least presents those arguing with the officials a shred of logic to support an argument... There was no logic to support the ruling on the Crowder call... Again, were I the head of ACC officiating, that entire crew, including the replay officials, would be taking this week off to study the rule book... It was a comically bad, bad call).

It was a tough call, but I agree with Reilly above --- he got the one foot in with control of the ball (a catch), and then his other foot hits the inside of the pylon but the ball never crossed the goal line (i.e., the ball crossed on the other side of the pylon). If the rule is that the ball has to actually cross the goal line (which I think it is), then it was a good call but maybe the spot should have been a little closer to the goal line. (Not even close to the worse call of the season IMO.)

[devilsadvocate85]

Correct. By rule, that play was either an incomplete pass or a touchdown--there was no "in-between" ruling available there... That was perhaps the worst ruling I have seen in football this season thus far (it trumps the OPI gift the crew gave FSU at the end of what should have been their loss to ND on a blown coverage--that call, though horrendous, at least presents those arguing with the officials a shred of logic to support an argument... There was no logic to support the ruling on the Crowder call... Again, were I the head of ACC officiating, that entire crew, including the replay officials, would be taking this week off to study the rule book... It was a comically bad, bad call).

By rule, quoted here, regarding pylons and extension of the goal line -- "Play #4: The ball carrier heads for the right pylon of the goal line with the ball in his right hand. His foot hits the pylon just before the ball (a) crosses the pylon; or (b) crosses the extension of the goal line outside the pylon. Ruling: (a) and (b) No touchdown in either case. Because the pylon is out of bounds, the ball is dead once the runner's foot hits the pylon. Thus the ball is dead in both cases before it crosses the goal line or the side line."

Once he was ruled in bounds on the catch, Crowder was a ball carrier, because the one irrefutable part of the replay was that his foot did not touch the ground inside the end zone. So, it is entirely possible, and by rule to have been the absolutely correct call.

[AtlDuke72]

Below is a story of two great Duke athletes that I thought others would like to read. I don't know where to post this so please move if appropriate.

A good friend of mine, Steve Brown, sent this message about his father , Werner Brown and his best friend, Bob Barnett. Both gentlemen are in the Duke Athletic Hall of Fame. Mr. Brown, who is currently 95, was a track star who won 5 Southern Confernece championships and was the captain of the team in 1942. His sport bio can be seen at http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=220682. Barnett, who passed away in 2012, captained the Durham Rose Bowl team of 1942. During World War II, Barnett served and saw combat overseas in all the campaigns of the Third Marine Division (including Iwo Jima) and was decorated and retired from the Marine Corps in 1945 with the rank of Major and entered the Marine Corp Reserve as a Lieutenant Colonel. Barnett was also a grad of Duke Law School.

After the War the two men were each CEO's of major chemical companies in Wilmington. Mr.. Brown was with Hercules Inc. and Barnett was with ICI Americas. When Barnett retired as CEO, he became a senior partner in the law firm Potter Anderson and Corroon which was founded in 1826.


Here is the message from Werner Brown's son Steve ( a UVA grad) :

"The Ga Tech game reminds me of my favorite college football story.My father's best friend on the Duke team in 1939 was Bob Barnett. They were both sophomores.

Duke had a one-point lead at Grant Field late in the fourth quarter when their best linebacker was injured and laying on the field. Legendary Duke Coach Wallace Wade yelled down to the end of the bench for Bob Barnett. Bob was smoking a cigarette at the time which was frowned upon but not prohibited.

He threw down his cigarette and ran onto the field to help carry off the injured starter. When the injured player was delivered to the sideline, Barnett went back to the bench and resumed his cigarette.
Wade was furious and said "Barnett, what the hell are you doing!" Barnett had not played that season and thought he was just supposed to carry the guy off.

Barnett went into the game as linebacker and Tech was in the red zone, down by one with less that 2 min to play.
Barnett intercepted a pass on the one or two yard line and Duke ran out the clock for the victory.

Here is Barnett's brief bio. By the way, he moved to Wilmington after the War and was a lifelong friend of my fathers and well-known to me. A great guy.


A three-year letterman and two-year starter, Barnett was named All-Southern Conference center in 1940 and 1941 and received All-America recognition in 1941. Barnett led the Blue Devils to a three-year record of 24-4 including three state championships and two Southern Conference titles.
In 1966, Barnett was named to the Sports Illustrated Silver Anniversary All-America team. He was one of 25 awardees honored for extraordinary achievement in life in the 25 years since playing their last college football game.

[Papa John]

By rule, quoted here, regarding pylons and extension of the goal line -- "Play #4: The ball carrier heads for the right pylon of the goal line with the ball in his right hand. His foot hits the pylon just before the ball (a) crosses the pylon; or (b) crosses the extension of the goal line outside the pylon. Ruling: (a) and (b) No touchdown in either case. Because the pylon is out of bounds, the ball is dead once the runner's foot hits the pylon. Thus the ball is dead in both cases before it crosses the goal line or the side line."

Once he was ruled in bounds on the catch, Crowder was a ball carrier, because the one irrefutable part of the replay was that his foot did not touch the ground inside the end zone. So, it is entirely possible, and by rule to have been the absolutely correct call.

Actually, I disagree with your interpretation. Scenario 4 (the link would be helpful, I assume you are using this (http://en.allexperts.com/q/Football-Instruction-2069/2010/10/touchdown-2.htm) as your resource) does not apply here because Crowder's hands are extended ahead of his body as he makes the catch when the right foot lands, which means they are actually therefore beyond the goal line extended at that point. He then becomes airborne and knocks over the pylon by striking it on the inside with his leg. I would say scenario 2(a) is the more appropriate one given the circumstances, in which case it is a touchdown. Here's the video:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHIsfnTkU9k

I will agree that it is closer than I initially thought. Of course, this argument is superfluous anyway... You can't undo the call, and we scored [and won] anyway... Now let's go juice some oranges!

[Reilly]

... they are actually therefore beyond the goal line extended at that point ...

Thanks for the video.

I don't believe his hands are extended beyond the goal line when he catches the ball.

The angle from the endzone at the end of the video you linked seems to show, to me, that the ref maybe got it right -- that is, foot in bounds so good catch, ball not yet extended over the goal line in fair territory no TD, and the ball is out of bounds (that is, over the out of bounds area and not hovering over the inbounds endzone) when JC goes out of bounds (kicks the pylon).

[martydoesntfoul]

"The Ga Tech game reminds me of my favorite college football story.My father's best friend on the Duke team in 1939 was Bob Barnett. They were both sophomores.

Duke had a one-point lead at Grant Field late in the fourth quarter when their best linebacker was injured and laying on the field. Legendary Duke Coach Wallace Wade yelled down to the end of the bench for Bob Barnett. Bob was smoking a cigarette at the time which was frowned upon but not prohibited.

He threw down his cigarette and ran onto the field to help carry off the injured starter. When the injured player was delivered to the sideline, Barnett went back to the bench and resumed his cigarette.
Wade was furious and said "Barnett, what the hell are you doing!" Barnett had not played that season and thought he was just supposed to carry the guy off.

Barnett went into the game as linebacker and Tech was in the red zone, down by one with less that 2 min to play.
Barnett intercepted a pass on the one or two yard line and Duke ran out the clock for the victory.

Here is Barnett's brief bio. By the way, he moved to Wilmington after the War and was a lifelong friend of my fathers and well-known to me. A great guy.

A three-year letterman and two-year starter, Barnett was named All-Southern Conference center in 1940 and 1941 and received All-America recognition in 1941. Barnett led the Blue Devils to a three-year record of 24-4 including three state championships and two Southern Conference titles.
In 1966, Barnett was named to the Sports Illustrated Silver Anniversary All-America team. He was one of 25 awardees honored for extraordinary achievement in life in the 25 years since playing their last college football game.

Fantastic story. Thanks so much for sharing. Stuff like this makes me so proud to be a Blue Devil.

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

Below is a story of two great Duke athletes that I thought others would like to read. I don't know where to post this so please move if appropriate.

A good friend of mine, Steve Brown, sent this message about his father , Werner Brown and his best friend, Bob Barnett. Both gentlemen are in the Duke Athletic Hall of Fame. Mr. Brown, who is currently 95, was a track star who won 5 Southern Confernece championships and was the captain of the team in 1942. His sport bio can be seen at http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=220682. Barnett, who passed away in 2012, captained the Durham Rose Bowl team of 1942. During World War II, Barnett served and saw combat overseas in all the campaigns of the Third Marine Division (including Iwo Jima) and was decorated and retired from the Marine Corps in 1945 with the rank of Major and entered the Marine Corp Reserve as a Lieutenant Colonel. Barnett was also a grad of Duke Law School.

After the War the two men were each CEO's of major chemical companies in Wilmington. Mr.. Brown was with Hercules Inc. and Barnett was with ICI Americas. When Barnett retired as CEO, he became a senior partner in the law firm Potter Anderson and Corroon which was founded in 1826.


Here is the message from Werner Brown's son Steve ( a UVA grad) :

"The Ga Tech game reminds me of my favorite college football story.My father's best friend on the Duke team in 1939 was Bob Barnett. They were both sophomores.

Duke had a one-point lead at Grant Field late in the fourth quarter when their best linebacker was injured and laying on the field. Legendary Duke Coach Wallace Wade yelled down to the end of the bench for Bob Barnett. Bob was smoking a cigarette at the time which was frowned upon but not prohibited.

He threw down his cigarette and ran onto the field to help carry off the injured starter. When the injured player was delivered to the sideline, Barnett went back to the bench and resumed his cigarette.
Wade was furious and said "Barnett, what the hell are you doing!" Barnett had not played that season and thought he was just supposed to carry the guy off.

Barnett went into the game as linebacker and Tech was in the red zone, down by one with less that 2 min to play.
Barnett intercepted a pass on the one or two yard line and Duke ran out the clock for the victory.

Here is Barnett's brief bio. By the way, he moved to Wilmington after the War and was a lifelong friend of my fathers and well-known to me. A great guy.


A three-year letterman and two-year starter, Barnett was named All-Southern Conference center in 1940 and 1941 and received All-America recognition in 1941. Barnett led the Blue Devils to a three-year record of 24-4 including three state championships and two Southern Conference titles.
In 1966, Barnett was named to the Sports Illustrated Silver Anniversary All-America team. He was one of 25 awardees honored for extraordinary achievement in life in the 25 years since playing their last college football game.

Another wonderful story from Duke's rich football history and tradition.... a particular benefit of the resurgence of the football program is that many special aspects of Duke history are rediscovered and shared. This isn't about living in the past; it's about celebrating it.

[AtlDuke72]

Below is a story of two great Duke athletes that I thought others would like to read. I don't know where to post this so please move if appropriate.

A good friend of mine, Steve Brown, sent this message about his father , Werner Brown and his best friend, Bob Barnett. Both gentlemen are in the Duke Athletic Hall of Fame. Mr. Brown, who is currently 95, was a track star who won 5 Southern Confernece championships and was the captain of the team in 1942. His sport bio can be seen at http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=220682. Barnett, who passed away in 2012, captained the Durham Rose Bowl team of 1942. During World War II, Barnett served and saw combat overseas in all the campaigns of the Third Marine Division (including Iwo Jima) and was decorated and retired from the Marine Corps in 1945 with the rank of Major and entered the Marine Corp Reserve as a Lieutenant Colonel. Barnett was also a grad of Duke Law School.

After the War the two men were each CEO's of major chemical companies in Wilmington. Mr.. Brown was with Hercules Inc. and Barnett was with ICI Americas. When Barnett retired as CEO, he became a senior partner in the law firm Potter Anderson and Corroon which was founded in 1826.


Here is the message from Werner Brown's son Steve ( a UVA grad) :

"The Ga Tech game reminds me of my favorite college football story.My father's best friend on the Duke team in 1939 was Bob Barnett. They were both sophomores.

Duke had a one-point lead at Grant Field late in the fourth quarter when their best linebacker was injured and laying on the field. Legendary Duke Coach Wallace Wade yelled down to the end of the bench for Bob Barnett. Bob was smoking a cigarette at the time which was frowned upon but not prohibited.

He threw down his cigarette and ran onto the field to help carry off the injured starter. When the injured player was delivered to the sideline, Barnett went back to the bench and resumed his cigarette.
Wade was furious and said "Barnett, what the hell are you doing!" Barnett had not played that season and thought he was just supposed to carry the guy off.

Barnett went into the game as linebacker and Tech was in the red zone, down by one with less that 2 min to play.
Barnett intercepted a pass on the one or two yard line and Duke ran out the clock for the victory.

Here is Barnett's brief bio. By the way, he moved to Wilmington after the War and was a lifelong friend of my fathers and well-known to me. A great guy.


A three-year letterman and two-year starter, Barnett was named All-Southern Conference center in 1940 and 1941 and received All-America recognition in 1941. Barnett led the Blue Devils to a three-year record of 24-4 including three state championships and two Southern Conference titles.
In 1966, Barnett was named to the Sports Illustrated Silver Anniversary All-America team. He was one of 25 awardees honored for extraordinary achievement in life in the 25 years since playing their last college football game.


I had posted this back in November about two members of Duke's Hall of Fame. Sorry to report that Mr. Brown passed away peacefully today at age 95.