M's 2015 defense

[dubbsco]

Great. It's been two weeks and you are STILL on here arguing with others about a horse shit call. You won. Go celebrate some more.

Just move on man, go to your board and talk exhibition basketball with the other 8 posters on there.

 

[zyxt9]

generalize much? the entire world? you're the one searching and searching for excuses, first it was the personal foul on the punt, now it's the targeting ejection. You just can't deal with the fact that you lost, you have to find something to cling to that's not your teams fault in your opinion. You aren't on this board lamenting your teams inability to run the football, your inability to execute a punt, your coach's decision to have 9 guys block 11, it's the refs, right? the refs lost the game for you. typical crybaby, the officiating was shitty in this game but it hurt MSU as much as it helped MSU.

1. As I explained, the personal foul on the punt was presented by a source and I was upset based on the info I had at the time. However, unlike you...LIMP DICK...I was man enough to apologize and have not brought that up again.

2. No one is saying there were not other factors involved in the loss. As with any game, there are multiple moments, good and bad plays, solid performances and unfathomable mistakes. However, that does not excuse the refs from their mistake. At least the Miami crew was suspended for their BS...but you continue to defend the refs who fucked up not only this review but many other plays and reviews. Should the 30 second run have been whistled dead due to forward progress being stopped, I can understand the MSU position on that and agree that the whistle should have been blown dead due to the fact if plays are not blown dead then you have defenders in a bad situation where they are damned if they pile on and damned if they don't because the play isn't ruled dead and a TD is the result.

3. Even if you want to claim the Bolden hit deserved a PF, there have been far more egregious hits that did not result in targeting calls. Add in the FACT that Conklin pushed him (which EVERY analyst agrees happened) and the PF should not have been called due to the FACT the rules are in place that state a defender should NOT be called for a PF when pushed onto a defenseless ball carrier. You see this all the time, including areas such as Fair Catch interference when a guy is blocked into the guy attempting to make the catch. Those are ALWAYS supposed to be waved off flags allowing for the FACT the defender was pushed.

 

[zyxt9]

Also, there is a huge difference between making an excuse and stating that this call was BS. No one knows how the game ends if the PF & Targeting are waved off. It is not possible (currently) to visit the other multiverse where that did happen. It is also not possible to visit the multiverse where the 30 second TD was ruled down due to forward progress and UM tries something, a FG or goes for it on 4th down. These things are impossible to know. HOWEVER, the fact that the B1G did not suspend these refs is a travesty. As I have stated MANY times, these refs deserved to be suspended not just for the Bolden call, but for their entire game's worth of terrible calls.

 

[dubbsco]

You could if this was Interstellar and you got into the 5th dimension.

 

[Sbee]

Great. It's been two weeks and you are STILL on here arguing with others about a horse shit call. You won. Go celebrate some more.

Just move on man, go to your board and talk exhibition basketball with the other 8 posters on there.

it's been 2 weeks and there's still a lot of crying about the officiating in the MSU game, it's permeated just about every thread here and hasn't been brought up by the MSU fans.

 

[zyxt9]

You could if this was Interstellar and you got into the 5th dimension.

That would be awesome. I think every fan of every team would continually bounce into the multiverse where their team won every game.

But then, what's the fun in that? It is like playing a video football game with a All Pro team vs Pee Wee. You know the outcome or can change to a multiverse where your preferred outcome is the reality. I don't know, seems like it would be boring after awhile.

Of course, losing like the Lions always do is pretty boring and yet I and others continue to follow them hoping they will one day win it all. I'm not even sure if a multiverse exists where the Lions win. LOL

 

[Sbee]

Also, there is a huge difference between making an excuse and stating that this call was BS. No one knows how the game ends if the PF & Targeting are waved off. It is not possible (currently) to visit the other multiverse where that did happen. It is also not possible to visit the multiverse where the 30 second TD was ruled down due to forward progress and UM tries something, a FG or goes for it on 4th down. These things are impossible to know. HOWEVER, the fact that the B1G did not suspend these refs is a travesty. As I have stated MANY times, these refs deserved to be suspended not just for the Bolden call, but for their entire game's worth of terrible calls.

I do agree that the officiating did suck in the game, no doubt there. MSU got away with two pick plays that could have been called as well. My point is that officiating does have an impact on outcomes, but I don't think there is a strong argument that it benefited one team much more than the other.

 

[TheVictors]

My Spartan buddy here in Scottsdale said the other night .."hey, we got one more win in before Harbaugh returns the rivalry to Michigan dominating"

He 'hates' UM as much as anyone but he's such a better fan and person than those here who represent the same fanbase.

 

[Sbee]

My Spartan buddy here in Scottsdale said the other night .."hey, we got one more win in before Harbaugh returns the rivalry to Michigan dominating"

He 'hates' UM as much as anyone but he's such a better fan and person than those here who represent the same fanbase.

Oh shit, you have a Spartan buddy that thinks that Harbaugh is going to dominate, I guess I have to concede based on that rock solid anecdotal message board evidence.

it's settled, close the program, it's over.

For a supposedly smart person, you make the worst fucking arguments on the planet.

 

[zyxt9]

I do agree that the officiating did suck in the game, no doubt there. MSU got away with two pick plays that could have been called as well. My point is that officiating does have an impact on outcomes, but I don't think there is a strong argument that it benefited one team much more than the other.

Who is arguing that MSU benefitted more than UM? People are just pissed by the targeting rule being inconsistent not to mention the ejection part, and for good reason.

Aside from that one, even the Ross ejection was borderline at best. The NW receiver missed the ball and you can tell Ross recognized it by the fact he didn't completely crush the WR and drive him into the ground. Instead he pulls back from the hit, which he actually was targeting the shoulder and the NW receiver's helmet smacks the side of Ross's helmet. Did it result in the NW receiver being hurt? Unfortunately yes, but that is part of football. Ross did not intentionally take the guy out, he was intentionally trying to pull back from crushing the guy because his brain registered the receiver dropped the pass. Ross doesn't drive into the guy, nor is he launching into him. His facemask goes into the receiver's shoulder pad, which is a correct place for it, but the receiver's helmet snaps into the side of Ross's.

Point being, the ejections should only happen when it is a clear cut case of intent to injure. If Ross launched his body into the WR and layed him out with a blow to the head, then he absolutely would have deserved the ejection.

Too many times the UM players have been ejected while the opponents' have theirs waved off. That inconsistency is unacceptable, especially considering they are reviewed. Opponents have even had far more egregious hits that were either never flagged or waved off after review. It is complete BS that the rule is so inconsistently administered. The NCAA needs to make it a requirement that undeniable intent to injure is the threshold for ejections. They can still call the PF, that's fine...but the ejection part is being extremely mishandled.

 

[Sbee]

Who is arguing that MSU benefitted more than UM? People are just pissed by the targeting rule being inconsistent not to mention the ejection part, and for good reason.

Aside from that one, even the Ross ejection was borderline at best. The NW receiver missed the ball and you can tell Ross recognized it by the fact he didn't completely crush the WR and drive him into the ground. Instead he pulls back from the hit, which he actually was targeting the shoulder and the NW receiver's helmet smacks the side of Ross's helmet. Did it result in the NW receiver being hurt? Unfortunately yes, but that is part of football. Ross did not intentionally take the guy out, he was intentionally trying to pull back from crushing the guy because his brain registered the receiver dropped the pass. Ross doesn't drive into the guy, nor is he launching into him. His facemask goes into the receiver's shoulder pad, which is a correct place for it, but the receiver's helmet snaps into the side of Ross's.

Point being, the ejections should only happen when it is a clear cut case of intent to injure. If Ross launched his body into the WR and layed him out with a blow to the head, then he absolutely would have deserved the ejection.

Too many times the UM players have been ejected while the opponents' have theirs waved off. That inconsistency is unacceptable, especially considering they are reviewed. Opponents have even had far more egregious hits that were either never flagged or waved off after review. It is complete BS that the rule is so inconsistently administered. The NCAA needs to make it a requirement that undeniable intent to injure is the threshold for ejections. They can still call the PF, that's fine...but the ejection part is being extremely mishandled.

I agree that the rule needs to be looked at, I'm all for player safety but sometimes the enforcement isn't consistent. I do think that hit out of bounds on Rudock was grounds for ejection, i didn't see the Ross play. I didn't think the hit that knocked Rudock out of the game was targeting though. Bullough got one this year, it was targeting by definition, he laid out a receiver right as the ball arrived. it's just aggressive football, I didn't think he intended to hurt the player but it was certainly targeting as it's defined.

 

[zyxt9]

I agree that the rule needs to be looked at, I'm all for player safety but sometimes the enforcement isn't consistent. I do think that hit out of bounds on Rudock was grounds for ejection, i didn't see the Ross play. I didn't think the hit that knocked Rudock out of the game was targeting though. Bullough got one this year, it was targeting by definition, he laid out a receiver right as the ball arrived. it's just aggressive football, I didn't think he intended to hurt the player but it was certainly targeting as it's defined.

I agree the Minn player didn't deserve ejection for hit on Rudock, but it should have been a PF for facemask/ripping off the helmet. I agree he wasn't intending to injure, but defenders are responsible for knowing what they grab and grabbing the helmet like that has been a PF more often than not.

I just looked at the Bullough play and I'm not certain I would have ruled it targeting to be honest because the receiver comes down and because he is preparing for the hit kinda curls up, resulting in his position being lower than Bullough was originally targeting. I don't think there was the necessary level of intention with that hit as prior to the receiver curling up Bullough was aiming lower on the body.

This is the part that the rule fails to take into account. The offensive player has probably more control over where they get hit in that situation than the defensive player. When they move their body in a way that results in the defender hitting the helmet instead of their originally intended target, the rule expects the defender to change the laws of physics in order to avoid the helmet. It is just not acceptable. Should it have been a PF, probably based on the "defenseless receiver" part, but even that is borderline IMO as the receiver had come down with the ball and spotted Bullough which was why he curls his body up. Additionally, Bullough doesn't launch into him, instead absorbing a good amount of the blow which is why the receiver wasn't injured.

The whole "forceable contact to the head or neck area" is worthy of a PF, but the "intent to injure" is where I disagree that Bullough deserved to be ejected. In this specific case the WR even bounces up very quickly with no injury sustained. At least with the Ross hit there was unfortunately an injury sustained that the refs could use to justify the decision to eject him. If Bullough intended to injure that guy, he would not have gotten up off the turf. Looked to me he was aiming more at the body but the WR came down curling into the hit. Should he have aimed lower? Probably, which is why a PF would have been warranted. I just don't see the "intent to injure" part that is worth ejecting. Not that a guy has to be injured to show such intent, but he sure seemed to not launch into him with malice.

So many of these hits are just football hits. Worthy of a PF and worthy of an ejection are 2 very different things to me.

 

[Sbee]

I agree the Minn player didn't deserve ejection for hit on Rudock, but it should have been a PF for facemask/ripping off the helmet. I agree he wasn't intending to injure, but defenders are responsible for knowing what they grab and grabbing the helmet like that has been a PF more often than not.

I just looked at the Bullough play and I'm not certain I would have ruled it targeting to be honest because the receiver comes down and because he is preparing for the hit kinda curls up, resulting in his position being lower than Bullough was originally targeting. I don't think there was the necessary level of intention with that hit as prior to the receiver curling up Bullough was aiming lower on the body.

This is the part that the rule fails to take into account. The offensive player has probably more control over where they get hit in that situation than the defensive player. When they move their body in a way that results in the defender hitting the helmet instead of their originally intended target, the rule expects the defender to change the laws of physics in order to avoid the helmet. It is just not acceptable. Should it have been a PF, probably based on the "defenseless receiver" part, but even that is borderline IMO as the receiver had come down with the ball and spotted Bullough which was why he curls his body up. Additionally, Bullough doesn't launch into him, instead absorbing a good amount of the blow which is why the receiver wasn't injured.

The whole "forceable contact to the head or neck area" is worthy of a PF, but the "intent to injure" is where I disagree that Bullough deserved to be ejected. In this specific case the WR even bounces up very quickly with no injury sustained. At least with the Ross hit there was unfortunately an injury sustained that the refs could use to justify the decision to eject him. If Bullough intended to injure that guy, he would not have gotten up off the turf. Looked to me he was aiming more at the body but the WR came down curling into the hit. Should he have aimed lower? Probably, which is why a PF would have been warranted. I just don't see the "intent to injure" part that is worth ejecting. Not that a guy has to be injured to show such intent, but he sure seemed to not launch into him with malice.

So many of these hits are just football hits. Worthy of a PF and worthy of an ejection are 2 very different things to me.

Bullough was just trying to make a play on the football, it happens so fast and it's hard to avoid the helmet to helmet when both players are moving quickly. Bullough agreed with the call though, he said that if that's the rule than it's targeting, though there was no intent on the play. there are good intentions around these rules but there's no escaping that this is a violent game with a significant risk of head injuries. I'm not going to push my kids to play football, if they come to me and beg to play I'll let them but there are other sports out there for them to try.

 

[zyxt9]

Bullough was just trying to make a play on the football, it happens so fast and it's hard to avoid the helmet to helmet when both players are moving quickly. Bullough agreed with the call though, he said that if that's the rule than it's targeting, though there was no intent on the play. there are good intentions around these rules but there's no escaping that this is a violent game with a significant risk of head injuries. I'm not going to push my kids to play football, if they come to me and beg to play I'll let them but there are other sports out there for them to try.

And he's right that if the rule is written that way, then it's targeting. Doesn't make the rule a good one and hopefully the NCAA fixes it soon....and not by turning the game even more toward flag football. It is human nature to kind of do the knee jerk reaction and take things to an extreme, which appears to be what has happened here. They need to realize they went too far and bring it back to requiring intent. The Minn player who launched himself into Rudock's helmet on the sideline (not the play where Rudock was injured), that had more intent to hit helmet to helmet than Ross or Bullough's hits...yet no penalty let alone ejection. Just demonstrates how terrible the rule is and the inconsistent administration.

 

[hungry]

Is hitting face-mask to face mask targeting? Is the face-mask the crown of the helmet?