Late hit on Leidner

Donate To GopherHole
gopher7

gopher7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2008
Messages
1,902
Reaction score
559
Points
113
Sorry if there was another thread on this but was there any public second guessing of the decision to pick of the flag on the Leidner late hit? This was as big as any play in the game, since because of this we had to punt and Michigan scored the winning TD. After watching the replay I simply can't believe this wasn't upheld. Both of his knees are down, and the Michigan defender gives him the extra fling around and throws Leidner into the ground, hard. I thought this is exactly what they are trying to stop?

https://youtu.be/ebnRx6Bbeg0?t=1h57m
 

Yeah, the announcers say he was trying to get out of the way (jump over him) ... but how much does that matter? If you cream the QB's head when he's down isn't that still a penalty even if it's accidental?
 


I agree that he was already down before the pause and then being slammed onto his head and back. There was no explanation of why they picked up the flag.
 

Harbaugh was bitching and yelling on the sidelines when the flag was thrown. (that is probably why they picked it up) MI > MN
 


I remember Botticelli getting called when a OL tackled him from behind and into the QB.
 

Barrerio (who's not exactly a Gopher homer) thought that was the biggest mistake the refs made.
 

GopherJack said:
Harbaugh was bitching and yelling on the sidelines when the flag was thrown. (that is probably why they picked it up) MI > MN
Click to expand...

Harbaugh was pulling his typical antics well away from the officials conference. Mason on KFAN thought the flag was initially thrown for a facemask, in which case picking it up would have been the correct call.

Both players get twisted up funny on the tackle and I really don't think he was trying to slam Mitch down it was just a continuation of the tackle. Think it looked worse than it really was.
 

I don't believe that was a penalty but I have a very hard time believing they would have picked up the flag if the roles had been reversed.
 



SelectionSunday said:
Right call to pick up flag. That was not a penalty.
Click to expand...

You are correct in one aspect: it wasn't a "late hit", the question is: was it "unnecessary roughness"? In other words, did the defender use unnecessary force in tackling the QB. My opinion is an emphatic YES. But herein lies the rub. It is a pure judgment call by the refs. The ref standing right next to the play threw the flag, calling it unnecessary roughness and then the conferring refs came in and changed his mind and the flag was picked up. All the while, Harbaugh was working over the sideline officials with his profanity-filled tirade, which in my opinion, had the Gopher bench done anything similar, a flag would have been thrown at them for unsportsmanlike conduct (on the bench). This no-call, was a huge turning point in the game!
 

I thought Captain Munnerlyn got called for something similar last year, and I remember the announcers saying that even though it wasn't late, and the fans won't like it, it was the right call. Mitch was already on the way down, and the defender gave him and extra throw into the ground. That seems like something that more often than not is called. As far as officiating mistakes go, this was a much closer call than some of the pass interference calls that they absolutely botched.
 

bleedsmaroonandgold said:
I thought Captain Munnerlyn got called for something similar last year, and I remember the announcers saying that even though it wasn't late, and the fans won't like it, it was the right call. Mitch was already on the way down, and the defender gave him and extra throw into the ground. That seems like something that more often than not is called. As far as officiating mistakes go, this was a much closer call than some of the pass interference calls that they absolutely botched.
Click to expand...

I thought about that play from the Vikings game as well. Pretty much the same thing.

I don't think it should have been a penalty. But the problem is inconsistency. There is a good chance that is called some of the time. Like someone else said, if it was reversed and it was our player doing it to their QB, would they have picked up the flag?
 

I would have had zero problem with no flag. But for a referee to see the play, conclude that the extra slam was unnecessary and then magically change his mind bothers me a great deal.
 



Go Gophers Rah said:
I would have had zero problem with no flag. But for a referee to see the play, conclude that the extra slam was unnecessary and then magically change his mind bothers me a great deal.
Click to expand...

This. I would say it was something like 60/40 for me, call/no call. But you can't just pick up the flag without any explanation, the ref who threw the flag saw something.

As for Harbaugh, he was on the sideline talking to a side judge while the Referee was in the middle of the field, I'm not sure how him yelling at the side judge who wasn't involved in the call influenced the flag pick-up.
 

go4rob said:
You are correct in one aspect: it wasn't a "late hit", the question is: was it "unnecessary roughness"? In other words, did the defender use unnecessary force in tackling the QB. My opinion is an emphatic YES. But herein lies the rub. It is a pure judgment call by the refs. The ref standing right next to the play threw the flag, calling it unnecessary roughness and then the conferring refs came in and changed his mind and the flag was picked up. All the while, Harbaugh was working over the sideline officials with his profanity-filled tirade, which in my opinion, had the Gopher bench done anything similar, a flag would have been thrown at them for unsportsmanlike conduct (on the bench). This no-call, was a huge turning point in the game!
Click to expand...
The irony is we did get a bench warning when the scum Receiver tripped over his shoelaces and the phantom PI was called, leading to one of their TD's. Winning that game inspite the refs would've been quite the accomplishment and we were only a foot away. smh
 

I thought it was a good no call. I also think the no call when Rudock got injured was correct, but if I was going to throw a flag on one of those two plays, it would have been against the Gophers because of the helmet-to-helmet.
 

2727Gopher said:
I thought it was a good no call. I also think the no call when Rudock got injured was correct, but if I was going to throw a flag on one of those two plays, it would have been against the Gophers because of the helmet-to-helmet.
Click to expand...

TARGETING AND CROWN-OF-HELMET GUIDELINES FOR COACHES, PLAYERS AND OFFICIALS

INTRODUCTION

With the 2013 rule change that makes ejection from the game a part of the penalty for targeting fouls coaches, players and officials need to have a clear understanding of Rules 9-1-3 and 9-1-4. It is very important to understand that these fouls have not changed from previous years, and officials should officiate these plays as in the past. The characterization of defenseless players has been expanded (see below), but otherwise these rules for the fouls remain as they have been. It is the penalty that has changed.

These guidelines are intended to assist everyone involved in the game to understand these rules, which are so important in protecting the safety of the student-athlete.

RULES

Targeting and Initiating Contact With the Crown of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3)

No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.

Targeting and Initiating Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player (Rule 9-1-4)

No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 2-27-14)

Note: Beginning in 2013, ejection from the game is a part of the penalty for violation of both Rule 9-1-3 and Rule 9-1-4.

KEY ELEMENTS

Target—to take aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with an apparent intent that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball.

Crown of the Helmet—the top portion of the helmet.

Contact to the head or neck area—not only with the helmet, but also with the forearm, fist, elbow, or shoulder—these can all lead to a foul.

Defenseless player—a player not in position to defend himself.

Examples (Rule 2-27-14):

A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
A receiver attempting to catch a pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return.
A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick.
A player on the ground.
A player obviously out of the play.
A player who receives a blind-side block.
A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped.
A quarterback any time after a change of possession.
 

2727Gopher said:
I thought it was a good no call. I also think the no call when Rudock got injured was correct, but if I was going to throw a flag on one of those two plays, it would have been against the Gophers because of the helmet-to-helmet.
Click to expand...

I think there's a strong case for an unnecessary roughness penalty for the body-slamming of Leidner. There's absolutely no way there was a penalty on the Rudock hit.
 

Word said:
I think there's a strong case for an unnecessary roughness penalty for the body-slamming of Leidner. There's absolutely no way there was a penalty on the Rudock hit.
Click to expand...

I agree that neither was a penalty, and that the helmet-to-helmet contact was in no way intentional. But the way QBs are protected, that's much closer to a penalty than the hit on Leidner. Yes, he threw him to the ground, but that was part of making the tackle.
 

Like others have said, the Leidner hit was questionable. I wouldn't have been upset if they didn't throw a flag. I became upset when they picked up the flag, especially knowing there is no way they would have done that if the roles were reversed.
 

2727Gopher said:
I agree that neither was a penalty, and that the helmet-to-helmet contact was in no way intentional. But the way QBs are protected, that's much closer to a penalty than the hit on Leidner. Yes, he threw him to the ground, but that was part of making the tackle.
Click to expand...

You are misinterpreting the rules. Ruduck was not a QB at that point, he was a runner. Leidner was a QB. So if you want to use "protecting the QB" as your argument, its Leidner that should have been protected from being slammed.
 

John Galt said:
Like others have said, the Leidner hit was questionable. I wouldn't have been upset if they didn't throw a flag. I became upset when they picked up the flag, especially knowing there is no way they would have done that if the roles were reversed.
Click to expand...

+1 000. This sums it up perfectly.
 

MaroonGold1 said:
You are misinterpreting the rules. Ruduck was not a QB at that point, he was a runner. Leidner was a QB. So if you want to use "protecting the QB" as your argument, its Leidner that should have been protected from being slammed.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what the rules say - Rudock plays QB and the refs know it, so they're going to protect him more than any other player on the field. There was significant helmet-to-helmet contact on the play and he was injured, so from my standpoint, I'm very pleased that the refs showed restraint and didn't automatically throw a flag. There are too many roughing the passer/unnecessary roughness calls when the QB is involved so I appreciate it when they leave their flags in their pockets on a call like that.

And regarding the call on Leidner's tackle, yes they did initially throw a flag, but (even though it hurt my team) I like that they came together to discuss it. Apparently, the ref who threw the flag was convinced by the others that he was wrong. I hate seeing a good play ruined by a ticky-tack call. In this case, Michigan made a good play to force a punt and didn't deserve to have us get a gift first down.
 

MaroonGold1 said:
You are misinterpreting the rules. Ruduck was not a QB at that point, he was a runner. Leidner was a QB. So if you want to use "protecting the QB" as your argument, its Leidner that should have been protected from being slammed.
Click to expand...

Leidner is a TE. Just ask wait!what? :rolleyes:
 

Rudock's injury
https://vine.co/v/e3J231DvKXU

Leidner's sack
http://thebiglead.com/2015/10/31/jim-harbaugh-there-is-no-way-thats-a-personal-foul/

I think the non-call on Rudock was legit and that the hit on Leidner was a personal foul. You cannot throw a QB down like that, especially when he was already down and the player knew it. Good grief, how many rough the passer calls are there when a guy takes an extra step and gives a little bump? This was taking a QB already down on his knees and slamming his back/head against the turf.
 

DarrenTheGreek said:
Rudock's injury
https://vine.co/v/e3J231DvKXU

Leidner's sack
http://thebiglead.com/2015/10/31/jim-harbaugh-there-is-no-way-thats-a-personal-foul/

I think the non-call on Rudock was legit and that the hit on Leidner was a personal foul. You cannot throw a QB down like that, especially when he was already down and the player knew it. Good grief, how many rough the passer calls are there when a guy takes an extra step and gives a little bump? This was taking a QB already down on his knees and slamming his back/head against the turf.
Click to expand...
Looked like part of the motion of the original tackle to me, I'm not sure the MI player could've stopped it. The way he wrapped up Leidner was akward at first and the "slam" looked more like a follow through on that leverage. Hard play, but didn't look dirty or illegal to me. I remember the TV guys thinking the flag was for the second player's knee possibly hitting Leidner in the face.
 

Ski U Master said:
Looked like part of the motion of the original tackle to me, I'm not sure the MI player could've stopped it. The way he wrapped up Leidner was akward at first and the "slam" looked more like a follow through on that leverage. Hard play, but didn't look dirty or illegal to me. I remember the TV guys thinking the flag was for the second player's knee possibly hitting Leidner in the face.
Click to expand...

Part of the motion? He had already taken him to the ground. The flip into the body slam was completely unnecessary. Dirty? Illegal?? Don't know. But it was unnecessary to say the least. Had there been no flag thrown......there would have been little complaint. But since a flag was thrown and picked up.......yeah......they saw what the rest of us saw. The QB slam didn't change.
 

To me it is a simple situation that Mitch has not watched enough Italian soccer in his life. If he lays motionless and does not get up for four or five seconds there is no way they would have picked up the flag. The way his leg was trapped under him and he was slammed over, a little bit of writhing would have kept the ball in our possession.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom