Leidner Out Vs. MD

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

Looks like about 1:10:20 of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9RMZwknhQU

It really doesn't look like any head contact on the video (I'm not saying it wasn't, just that you can't see it in the video). I can see how the refs missed the targeting call and how the staff could have missed a possible concussion-type hit.

Live I thought it was helmet to helmet for sure.

On the replay Mitch's helmet doesn't move, if someone hit it you'd think it would respond but I didn't see anything like that.

Also Mitch gets up slow but heads back to work, gets the play, communicating. That's a not very obvious concussion there if that is it.

 

[Vandy]

Looks like about 1:10:20 of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9RMZwknhQU

It really doesn't look like any head contact on the video (I'm not saying it wasn't, just that you can't see it in the video). I can see how the refs missed the targeting call and how the staff could have missed a possible concussion-type hit.

The reverse angle shot shown on the big screen during the game showed clear, solid, head to head contact.

 

[howeda7]

Until all this surfaced I have heard next to no one speculating on here that Leidner had a concussion so I am not sure how you can fault the medical staff for not noticing during the game. If the kid doesn't report any symptoms there is no sure fire way for the staff to know.

Except he was asked flat out in the press conference if Mitch had a concussion and said no.

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

The reverse angle shot shown on the big screen during the game showed clear, solid, head to head contact.

See and I thought it showed the opposite. Mitch's helmet on the big screen didn't move when he was supposedly hit helmet to helmet.

 

[Spoofin]

Someone asked earlier if listing Rhoda could be a smokescreen for Croft. Last week we listed guys as out that played. The depth chart is a joke. Someone should start a poll on who is actually going to start Saturday. I don't think I can do that from my app.

At this point I'd vote ML7.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

Someone asked earlier if listing Rhoda could be a smokescreen for Croft. Last week we listed guys as out that played. The depth chart is a joke. Someone should start a poll on who is actually going to start Saturday. I don't think I can do that from my app.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Position chart.

 

[Unregistered User]

Nice to see all the kind words of encouragement and sympathy for Mitch.

Terrible thing to happen to a player.

This place is a ****ing cesspool.

 

[MaxyJR1]

See and I thought it showed the opposite. Mitch's helmet on the big screen didn't move when he was supposedly hit helmet to helmet.

Mitch was a runner, not a thrower on this play. He is a runner and not a defenseless player, so the targeting rules do not apply on this play.

 

[MaroonGold1]

See and I thought it showed the opposite. Mitch's helmet on the big screen didn't move when he was supposedly hit helmet to helmet.

Clear helmet to chin contact is a foul. It doesn't have to make his helmet move


No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)

Note 1: "Targeting" means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:

Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area
A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground
Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

Nice to see all the kind words of encouragement and sympathy for Mitch.

Terrible thing to happen to a player.

This place is a ****ing cesspool.

Did you give your hug to Mitch in person or just came to complain?

 

[Vandy]

See and I thought it showed the opposite. Mitch's helmet on the big screen didn't move when he was supposedly hit helmet to helmet.

IMO, the reverse angle seemed clear at the time...helmet to helmet... Albiet, I was on appx beer #3... The crowd hooted pretty good at the replay thinking the same.

 

[El Amin Fan]

Heal up Mitch. Concussions need to be treated carefully. Hopefully this doesn't linger for him. He's a good kid.

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

Clear helmet to chin contact is a foul. It doesn't have to make his helmet move


No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)

Note 1: "Targeting" means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:

Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area
A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground
Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet

I'm not arguing the rule.

I'm saying the big screen video didn't show actual contact. On the screen one helmet was in front of the other on that downfield view. That doesn't mean there was contact.

 

[Vandy]

Someone asked earlier if listing Rhoda could be a smokescreen for Croft. Last week we listed guys as out that played. The depth chart is a joke. Someone should start a poll on who is actually going to start Saturday. I don't think I can do that from my app.

At this point I'd vote ML7.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You could be right. Could Mitch clear protocal at any time up to Saturday?

 

[1983]

If these two awful losses weren't the start, I believe this is officially the slow march to the end of the Claeys era.

There is a ladder on the band wagon for those who want to get off. There is no conspiracy. According to the experts on here, this is a blessing anyway. So if we win without our starting QB does the sprint to a contract extension begin?

 

[gopherdudepart2]

I don't think it was the same thing as Morris either. But if you watch the TV replay, Mitch pretty clearly got a helmet to helmet hit on the sideline (refs missed), and laid on the sideline for a short period of time and sort of stumbled to his feet...

I agree with this, I was yelling at the officials after Mitch got helmet to helmet contact going out of bounds, and one of them just glared at me like I was crazy. That was clearly helmet contact and border line a targeting call. For some reason because he is a big strong guy, Leidner gets hosed on these helmet hits, and these referees in the Big 10 should have game checks fined for all of the late and helmet hits they have missed on Mitch. Not sure why Mitch didn't go through the concussion protocol during the game, with head injuries and stuff these days you have to error on the side of precaution. Big 10 officiation is never kind to the Gophers, but the helmet hits that Mitch has experienced this year and last with no calls has gotten out of control from the Big 10 officiating group. If anything the AD should be sending a strongly worded complaint to the head of officiating in the Big 10 about the head hunting that has gone uncalled against the Gophers QB.

 

[MNVCGUY]

Live I thought it was helmet to helmet for sure.

On the replay Mitch's helmet doesn't move, if someone hit it you'd think it would respond but I didn't see anything like that.

Also Mitch gets up slow but heads back to work, gets the play, communicating. That's a not very obvious concussion there if that is it.

Agree, if that is the play it happened on I don't see any reason for faulting the staff in not spotting it. It was a big hit, understandably one that he might be a little slow to get up from but that doesn't automatically mean concussion. He gets up, runs back on the field, seems very alert (moves a RB before the snap) and executes the offense. While Pirsig was hurt Mitch was almost certainly talking to coaches on the sideline and he must have seemed fine, looks fine when he goes back out for the next few plays as well (not wobbly, disoriented). I am not a medical professional but in my amateur opinion I can understand why he wasn't immediately put in the concussion protocol after that play.

 

[MaxyJR1]

Clear helmet to chin contact is a foul. It doesn't have to make his helmet move


No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)

Note 1: "Targeting" means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:

Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area
A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground
Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet

1. the player is not defenseless, discussion should end here.
2. There is no launch
3. It's not unnecessary, Mitch is a runner in bounds.

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[MaroonGold1]

There is a ladder on the band wagon for those who want to get off. There is no conspiracy. According to the experts on here, this is a blessing anyway. So if we win without our starting QB does the sprint to a contract extension begin?

These posts are always so fun and insightful. If you are negative about an 0-2 big10 team just get off the bandwagon!

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

Agree, if that is the play it happened on I don't see any reason for faulting the staff in not spotting it. It was a big hit, understandably one that he might be a little slow to get up from but that doesn't automatically mean concussion. He gets up, runs back on the field, seems very alert (moves a RB before the snap) and executes the offense. While Pirsig was hurt Mitch was almost certainly talking to coaches on the sideline and he must have seemed fine, looks fine when he goes back out for the next few plays as well (not wobbly, disoriented). I am not a medical professional but in my amateur opinion I can understand why he wasn't immediately put in the concussion protocol after that play.

Yeah, you just watch how he moves and communicates after the play. He gets up, runs back out there. Everyone seems to understand him. Does not seem to be having any problems of any kind.

 

[MaroonGold1]

1. the player is not defenseless, discussion should end here.
2. There is no launch
3. It's not unnecessary, Mitch is a runner in bounds.

Where in the rules does it say a player has to be defenseless in order for it to be a foul? You can't launch at a player with the crown of your helmet, no matter who has the ball (yes, he launched)

 

[MaxyJR1]

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

IF the play is the one we're talking about .... yeah he seems fine.

 

[MaxyJR1]

Where in the rules does it say a player has to be defenseless in order for it to be a foul? You can't launch at a player with the crown of your helmet, no matter who has the ball (yes, he launched)

Read what you posted.

No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)

Note 1: "Targeting" means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:

Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area
A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground
Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet

 

[Word]

Mitch was a runner, not a thrower on this play. He is a runner and not a defenseless player, so the targeting rules do not apply on this play.

So it's legal to launch and hit helmet to helmet as long as the person is running?

Sent from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk.

 

[MaroonGold1]

So it's legal to launch and hit helmet to helmet as long as the person is running?

Sent from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk.

No. There is an earlier section in the rulebook that doesn't say "defenseless"

 

[Governor Sibley]

Does this mean Leidner HAS to sit for Saturday? Or could his status change?

If he doesn't practice all week, I assume it's a moot point.

 

[Breakin' The Plane]

Does this mean Leidner HAS to sit for Saturday? Or could his status change?

If he doesn't practice all week, I assume it's a moot point.

It can change. Still was listed as "OUT" last week and played.

 

[Hates Monikers]

Does this mean Leidner HAS to sit for Saturday? Or could his status change?

If he doesn't practice all week, I assume it's a moot point.

It lists who would be out of the game were played today. We've had guys listed as out in the past who played (Still last week, for one, I think).

 

[Some guy]

Does this mean Leidner HAS to sit for Saturday? Or could his status change?

If he doesn't practice all week, I assume it's a moot point.

Most concussion protocols take about 4-5 days after symptoms have cleared to be fully cleared. I would say if he is still doing no practice at all on Wednesday he is out.

He could be out of contact stuff but doing non contact stuff. Meaning he is already on day 2 or 3 of the protocol.