B1G Officials admit error in Gophers-Buckeyes game.

Donate To GopherHole
TNGophfan said:
Not sure I follow. Why?
Click to expand...
It's not a hit on us fundamentally or coaching or anything, but we're MN and we tend to be unlucky. I could see them combing through the game and coming away with 5 additional questionable calls that all go against us.
 

tmvander said:
It's not a hit on us fundamentally or coaching or anything, but we're MN and we tend to be unlucky. I could see them combing through the game and coming away with 5 additional questionable calls that all go against us.
Click to expand...
Gotcha
 


Ewert86PC said:
"PJ Fleck told KFAN 1003 on Tuesday that the Big Ten admitted it made an officiating error and that targeting should have been called against Ransom. Had the call been made, Ransom would have probably been ejected and would miss the first half of the Oregon game this Saturday."


thespun.com

Big Ten Admitted Incorrect Call In Minnesota vs. Ohio State

Minnesota fans were right. The Big Ten admitted on Tuesday it made a major officiating error in the Gophers' season opener versus Ohio State. In the fourth
thespun.com thespun.com

So what is the B1G Conference going to do about it?

Not calling a targeting penalty is, in my personal opinion, a negligently egregious action. It already showed that the officials place player safety and accurately officiating a game below the entertainment value of the game and the reputation of one of the participating teams.

The only real remedy for this situation would be to suspend Ransom for the first half of the Buckeye/Ducks game.
Click to expand...
Headline should read "Big Ten officials admit they didn't want to kick a valuable Buckeye out of the game when they play Oregon next week." Or, "Big Ten Officials don't care if they don't call targeting because all they have to do is say whoops, we made an error, sorry about that."

I mean it's such an absolutely blatant disregard for doing the right thing. It's egregious and it's gross.
 

btowngopher said:
If a guy looks like he got knocked out you might want to check a replay and see if he got hit in the head.
Click to expand...
Agreed, most 7 year olds would think the same way, but apparently not Big Ten officials or replay officials. Too much logic needed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SDR


It's not just a B1G deal. The targeting penalty is enforced differently from game to game and from crew to crew. it's just too bleepin' inconsistent.

Here's my idea which will never happen:

eliminate "targeting" as a penalty and replace it with "launching."

If the defender leaves his feet and throws his body through the air to make a tackle, that's "launching" and it's a penalty. doesn't matter what part of the body he makes contact with - if both feet are off the ground, it's a penalty.

if the ball carrier or receiver is injured as a result of the 'launching,' then you tag on an ejection.

force players to keep one foot on the ground and promote better tackling mechanics.

it will never happen, but I can dream.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
It's not just a B1G deal. The targeting penalty is enforced differently from game to game and from crew to crew. it's just too bleepin' inconsistent.

Here's my idea which will never happen:

eliminate "targeting" as a penalty and replace it with "launching."

If the defender leaves his feet and throws his body through the air to make a tackle, that's "launching" and it's a penalty. doesn't matter what part of the body he makes contact with - if both feet are off the ground, it's a penalty.

if the ball carrier or receiver is injured as a result of the 'launching,' then you tag on an ejection.

force players to keep one foot on the ground and promote better tackling mechanics.

it will never happen, but I can dream.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and different from conference to conference.
 

It was clearly targeting - in fact, the very definition of it. It changed the direction of the game, too, as the Gophers were moving and there was enough time left to score once, then an onside kick.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
It's not just a B1G deal. The targeting penalty is enforced differently from game to game and from crew to crew. it's just too bleepin' inconsistent.

Here's my idea which will never happen:

eliminate "targeting" as a penalty and replace it with "launching."

If the defender leaves his feet and throws his body through the air to make a tackle, that's "launching" and it's a penalty. doesn't matter what part of the body he makes contact with - if both feet are off the ground, it's a penalty.

if the ball carrier or receiver is injured as a result of the 'launching,' then you tag on an ejection.

force players to keep one foot on the ground and promote better tackling mechanics.

it will never happen, but I can dream.
Click to expand...
So if you're chasing down the ball carrier as he's approaching the end zone, no more diving at his feet and trying to trip him? I don't think there's anything wrong with the QB diving at the guy who intercepted his pass, and trying to swing his arm at the guy's feet. But this would be "launching" and a penalty in your book?
 



Gold Rush said:
I would say that is acceptable although since he wasn't punished at all in the Gopher game maybe he should sit out the ENTIRE Oregon game!!! That was clearly targeting - I do not know how you can miss that call, you can see the receiver go completely limp and knocked unconscious. He clearly took a head shot - you just need to slow down the film and see where the contact came from.

EASY CALL!!!! And yes he should be suspended for the first half of the Oregon game even after the fact.
Click to expand...
I think they need to take this further than the player and do something with the officiating crew AND the replay booth crew. Those are the enforcers of the rule and if they're truly concerned with safety, what better way to show that what happened, will NEVER happen again, AND maybe it will show that Ohio State SHOULD NOT and WILL NOT get preferential treatment due to their status as the B1G's only real National Champ threat!

Ok, I just awoke from my dream...

NOTE: I should have read ALL of the first page of these comments..
 
Last edited:

How about they punish the refs?

What about the other play where Ohio state player lead with his head, on Tanner or Moe, I believe, he hit him and you could see the defenders neck bend. Should be a penalty to protect the defender, using your head as a weapon is not a good idea.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
It's not just a B1G deal. The targeting penalty is enforced differently from game to game and from crew to crew. it's just too bleepin' inconsistent.

Here's my idea which will never happen:

eliminate "targeting" as a penalty and replace it with "launching."

If the defender leaves his feet and throws his body through the air to make a tackle, that's "launching" and it's a penalty. doesn't matter what part of the body he makes contact with - if both feet are off the ground, it's a penalty.

if the ball carrier or receiver is injured as a result of the 'launching,' then you tag on an ejection.

force players to keep one foot on the ground and promote better tackling mechanics.

it will never happen, but I can dream.
Click to expand...
Not realistic in the least. When a guy is streaking towards the end zone the last defender often has only one shot to save a TD. That means a full out horizontal dive, both feet off the ground.

The targeting rule is clear enough and the hit on MBS met all the criteria. If it was not clear on the ground it was crystal clear in replay review. They saw it and knew it. They just decided to ignore it.
 




Not sure the officials screwed up, actually. When Ohio State is playing an unranked opponent who, despite the loss of its dominant RB, is still knocking on the door to score its 38th points of the game, perhaps the Big Ten officials' "two-step" is to (1) ignore the blatant, obvious targeting, so that the ball turns over to Ohio State, ending the Gophers' drive and essentially ending the game, and (2) to "acknowledge" the mistake after the fact, once Ohio State has secured its victory with a decent point spread. If there were no such thing as the college football playoffs, and no need to grease the skids for Ohio State to secure a berth therein, I believe targeting would have been called. {And, if the shoes were reversed, and it was Tyler Nubin using his helmet to deliver a concussive targeting hit to Chris Olave's head seconds after a catch, targeting would have been called on the field and upheld by video review. The double standard was really on display Thursday night.}
 
Last edited:


fmlizard said:
I accept officiating errors full speed.

I don't accept them when slowed down frame by frame with a bazillion camera angles available from a national 4K broadcast.
Click to expand...

This is the correct opinion. If the refs stop the game for five minutes to review.....come back and still have it wrong according to their superiors (or whoever decided to now "admit" error).....then maybe demerits are in order.
 


Wally said:
How about they punish the refs?

What about the other play where Ohio state player lead with his head, on Tanner or Moe, I believe, he hit him and you could see the defenders neck bend. Should be a penalty to protect the defender, using your head as a weapon is not a good idea.
Click to expand...
I wish there would be a way to make sure this Officiating crew has no chance to call the Wisconsin game. Knowing our luck they for sure will be the crew assigned. I hate the woe is me crap but we sure get screwed by Big 10 referees about as much as anyone in the Big 10 conference.
 


Word said:
My guess is the assumption that they will be more likely make an example out of us than the marquee programs. Like when Kill/Claeys teams would get like 3 targeting calls per game.
Click to expand...

But it seemed like those were always called against Minnesota — and upheld, 'upon further review'. Therefore the review couldn't hurt us at that point, because penalties/suspensions had already been meted out.
 

RememberMurray said:
But it seemed like those were always called against Minnesota — and upheld, 'upon further review'. Therefore the review couldn't hurt us at that point, because penalties/suspensions had already been meted out.
Click to expand...
Oh, they'd find more, rest assured.
 

RememberMurray said:
But it seemed like those were always called against Minnesota — and upheld, 'upon further review'. Therefore the review couldn't hurt us at that point, because penalties/suspensions had already been meted out.
Click to expand...
Its not always. But in a competitive game, at a key point, between us and either OSU or Michigan, I challenge anyone to find an instance where we benefited from a call. I think that that officiating crew should be suspended or fired. What could the referee have been viewing in the replay?
 

denguegopher said:
Its not always. But in a competitive game, at a key point, between us and either OSU or Michigan, I challenge anyone to find an instance where we benefited from a call. I think that that officiating crew should be suspended or fired. What could the referee have been viewing in the replay?
Click to expand...

Bovada?
 

Gophergrandpa said:
Not sure then officials screwed up, actually. When Ohio State is playing an unranked opponent who, despite the loss of its dominant RB, is still knocking on the door to score its 38th points of the game, perhaps the Big Ten officials' "two-step" is to (1) ignore the blatant, obvious targeting, so that the ball turns over to Ohio State, ending the Gophers' drive and essentially ending the game, and (2) to "acknowledge" the mistake after the fact, once Ohio State has secured its victory with a decent point spread. If there were no such thing as the college football playoffs, and no need to grease the skids for Ohio State to secure a berth therein, I believe targeting would have been called. {And, if the shoes were reversed, and it was Tyler Nubin using his helmet to deliver a concussive targeting hit to Chris Olave's head seconds after a catch, targeting would have been called on the field and upheld by video review. The double standard was really on display Thursday night.}
Click to expand...
This is a great post! The Olave example really shows you the bias and corruption of the Big aren’t conference when it comes to targeting.
 

Some Day...Maybe said:
Agreed, most 7 year olds would think the same way, but apparently not Big Ten officials or replay officials. Too much logic needed.
Click to expand...
Perhaps they were targeted too much back in their high school and college football days.
 


How about the Wolitarsky TD vs Michigan:

"Upon further review, his knee was down at the one"

Another example of protecting the Blue Bloods. His knee was down but this is another example of refs that never let a call go our way in a big game.
 

gophernut1 said:
When a sport is all about B1G money it trickles down to every fabric of its identity. When the big money only include 4 teams making a playoff then each conference is left making decisions (officials are part of the conference) that benefit its end goal. We need an OSU to be undefeated and calling that targeting call against OSU does 2 things - #1 it give MN a chance (a small one) and #2 it hurts OSU vs. Oregon. That call was all about the $$$$. I don't blame OSU here the B1G needs to examine what its priorities are. They will ruin college football and B1G football if it becomes about getting OSU into the playoffs.
Click to expand...
Those skunks should have worn red and white stripes. It was like a scripted "professional" wrestling match except for the fall guy wasn't a willing accomplice.

The only people that didn't see targeting were the blind refs. What made matters worst were the fair-weathered sycophantic announcers. It must be several thousands of fans who were blind. That's entertainment for you.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
It's not just a B1G deal. The targeting penalty is enforced differently from game to game and from crew to crew. it's just too bleepin' inconsistent.

Here's my idea which will never happen:

eliminate "targeting" as a penalty and replace it with "launching."

If the defender leaves his feet and throws his body through the air to make a tackle, that's "launching" and it's a penalty. doesn't matter what part of the body he makes contact with - if both feet are off the ground, it's a penalty.

if the ball carrier or receiver is injured as a result of the 'launching,' then you tag on an ejection.

force players to keep one foot on the ground and promote better tackling mechanics.

it will never happen, but I can dream.
Click to expand...
With the exception of a defender launching himself from behind the ball carrier in open field, ie the show string tackle from behind.
 

Rickman55 said:
This is so disingenuous. And yes the player should still be suspended and the replay officially should be suspended too or fired.
Click to expand...
I very much like suspending the referee. I think that would get to the heart of the problem. Would make referees want clarity for what is considered targeting, too.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom