MN vs “B1G powers that be” game thread…

Donate To GopherHole
DarrenTheGreek said:
I will re-watch as well. Wish the stadium crew would be better at showing replays but they aren't.

I completely stopped watching the NBA about 15 years ago because the officiating was such a joke and it was obvious the league is largely a scripted event. If the NCAA/B1G insists on going the same route they'll probably experience a similar decline in overall interest.
Click to expand...
The biggest potential death knell for major college football, plain and simple: lack of parity.

Just right there, on the table, like that.
 

Watching live at the stadium I thought it was a target. At least it would be incomplete.

Then the officials deemed it a catch and fumble, which by rule they deemed the player was no longer defenseless. (I think the three steps were still out of control and not a football move at that speed)

The hit itself was not egregious by rule, but I think is a play that should be looked at for the betterment of the game. He didn't launch and shoulders and helmet hit at same time. Both players collided and went backwards.

#22 does turn his should to take hit which is probably the the move that officials saw to make it a catch and football move.

Official made mistake to not give a reason for not targeting on the play.
 

MplsGopher said:
The biggest potential death knell for major college football, plain and simple: lack of parity.

Just right there, on the table, like that.
Click to expand...
been this way for 100 years
 


Who wants to watch the CFP on TV when it's the same G-D four teams every friggin' year??

I won't.


Best thing by far about the NFL, is that every year is a new year, new talent every year, worst teams get the best new talent, etc.

Love that.
 



MplsGopher said:
Who wants to watch the CFP on TV when it's the same G-D four teams every friggin' year??

I won't.


Best thing by far about the NFL, is that every year is a new year, new talent every year, worst teams get the best new talent, etc.

Love that.
Click to expand...
I root against OSU every year and they always lose. It's great!
 

MaxyJR1 said:
Watching live at the stadium I thought it was a target. At least it would be incomplete.

Then the officials deemed it a catch and fumble, which by rule they deemed the player was no longer defenseless. (I think the three steps were still out of control and not a football move at that speed)

The hit itself was not egregious by rule, but I think is a play that should be looked at for the betterment of the game. He didn't launch and shoulders and helmet hit at same time. Both players collided and went backwards.

#22 does turn his should to take hit which is probably the the move that officials saw to make it a catch and football move.

Official made mistake to not give a reason for not targeting on the play.
Click to expand...

You can’t be serious. Haven’t you implied you’re an official for youth games?
 

Pompous Elitist said:
You can’t be serious. Haven’t you implied you’re an official for youth games?
Click to expand...
Don't recall the last time I worked a youth game. The result has everyone thinking it was egregious. IMO it was 50/50. The officials could have been wrong and maybe it's upheld if called on the field.

If everyone in the world thinks it's targeting, it should probably be targeting. Football needs to continue to update the rule to make the game safer.
 



Buckeye fan here.

I joined to wish Ibrahim well and did so on another post. He is an impressive player and we want you at your best for the rematch in Indy. ;)

I agree that our player, as the rules currently stand, should have been called for targeting. His helmet did in fact hit the receivers helmet. I don't see how you dont make that call on review.

With that said, all this "it's Because it's OSU" is pretty ridiculous. We have seen many, many similar calls go against us. See the Clemson game we lost in the playoffs 2 years ago. Even in this game, I saw many uncalled holds against the gophers on some of your best plays, so it really does go both ways.

This rule needs changed. Many of these plays deserve a penalty but not an ejection. Basketball has flagrant 1 and 2. This could easily be done for this call in college football.

Good luck to the Gophers the rest of the way.
 

tbrew85 said:
We have seen many, many similar calls go against us. See the Clemson game we lost in the playoffs 2 years ago.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your post.

Here, in this specific instance, people are saying it was the Big Ten office that "dictated" it. Sure, that's probably absurd. But, how could the ref miss such an obvious call? He has those headphones on with a guy in the booth ...


And next weekend is a huge intra-conference matchup with Oregon. And if the guy gets called for targeting there, he's out for that game, at least the first half, right?

🤷‍♂️
 

tbrew85 said:
Buckeye fan here.

I joined to wish Ibrahim well and did so on another post. He is an impressive player and we want you at your best for the rematch in Indy. ;)

I agree that our player, as the rules currently stand, should have been called for targeting. His helmet did in fact hit the receivers helmet. I don't see how you dont make that call on review.

With that said, all this "it's Because it's OSU" is pretty ridiculous. We have seen many, many similar calls go against us. See the Clemson game we lost in the playoffs 2 years ago. Even in this game, I saw many uncalled holds against the gophers on some of your best plays, so it really does go both ways.

This rule needs changed. Many of these plays deserve a penalty but not an ejection. Basketball has flagrant 1 and 2. This could easily be done for this call in college football.

Good luck to the Gophers the rest of the way.
Click to expand...
I do agree with you that I don't care for the because its tOSU logic -- but your counterpoint isn't really analogous. A call going against OSU in the playoff against Clemson is not akin to a call going for OSU against Minn, Purdue, Illinois, etc in the regular season. The B1G would like a team in the playoff, you have the best shot, and therefore it would make sense that calls could go your way with more frequency.

Regardless, I can't disagree more that this play would have fallen into the penalty but not ejection category (if this is what you are saying). Ransom led with the crown of his head and knocked MBS22 spark out. In the extended gif you can see him unconscious.
 

WAGopher said:
I heavily disagree with you. That was blatant targeting. Don’t let yourself be influenced by the weak ass Fox commentators. Look at the video. It was helmet to helmet with no attempt by the defender to wrap him up with his arms. It was all about trying hit him as viciously as he could. This is exactly what the rule is intended for.

And to not even review the possible targeting? It just makes me sick, and lessons my respect for the B1G.
Click to expand...
If there was a lesser non ejection level, this would not be it. Agree with WA, that's the major penalty right there. A lesser penalty might occur when a ball carrier drops his head at the last minute, causing helmet to helmet. This was NOT that. Those commentators are way off on this one, lots of bias showing through.
 



tbrew85 said:
Actually, if you watch the other angles, Ransoms face mask hit your guys helmet, it was not the crown of his helmet. He led with his shoulder. In any event, his helmet did contact your guy and should have been called.
Click to expand...
I am too lazy to try and find the gifs now that Fox has taken them down -- but yes when looking at MBS22's back we can see Ransom hit MBS with his shoulder pad -- but that doesn't negate the fact he lead with his head. Having looked up the definition I agree that it wasn't his crown, just the top of his head. I just don't see the facemask hitting him here.

Edit: heres a gif that I don't agree with if you are using for your facemask argument.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot-162.png
    Screenshot-162.png
    891.4 KB · Views: 9
Last edited:

^^ I don't see how any reasonable person can look at that screenshot and not agree that it violates every iota of the spirit of what was meant to be avoided.

Being intentional or not, doesn't matter.
 

tbrew85 said:
Actually, if you watch the other angles, Ransoms face mask hit your guys helmet, it was not the crown of his helmet. He led with his shoulder. In any event, his helmet did contact your guy and should have been called.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it matters if it were the crown or not. It just needs to be forcible contact to the head/neck area against a defenseless player. I could be wrong though. Under that definition, Brown-Stephens wasn’t in a position to adjust/protect himself from the hit. It should’ve been called.
 

tbrew85 said:
Buckeye fan here.

I joined to wish Ibrahim well and did so on another post. He is an impressive player and we want you at your best for the rematch in Indy. ;)

I agree that our player, as the rules currently stand, should have been called for targeting. His helmet did in fact hit the receivers helmet. I don't see how you dont make that call on review.

With that said, all this "it's Because it's OSU" is pretty ridiculous. We have seen many, many similar calls go against us. See the Clemson game we lost in the playoffs 2 years ago. Even in this game, I saw many uncalled holds against the gophers on some of your best plays, so it really does go both ways.

This rule needs changed. Many of these plays deserve a penalty but not an ejection. Basketball has flagrant 1 and 2. This could easily be done for this call in college football.

Good luck to the Gophers the rest of the way.
Click to expand...
Yea you saw calls for against you in a game you played against Clemson.
You will not see that in the big ten, as they want you in the playoff.

You sure won’t see a targeting call the week before you play Oregon.
 

CentralGopher said:
Dude hit Morgan up high at the neck/head after the ball was gone. That wasn't soft, that was exactly how the rule was written.
Click to expand...
I was assuming it was legit, based on his also saying that the target that wasn’t looked like a clean play… 😜
 

tbrew85 said:
Buckeye fan here.

I joined to wish Ibrahim well and did so on another post. He is an impressive player and we want you at your best for the rematch in Indy. ;)

I agree that our player, as the rules currently stand, should have been called for targeting. His helmet did in fact hit the receivers helmet. I don't see how you dont make that call on review.

With that said, all this "it's Because it's OSU" is pretty ridiculous. We have seen many, many similar calls go against us. See the Clemson game we lost in the playoffs 2 years ago. Even in this game, I saw many uncalled holds against the gophers on some of your best plays, so it really does go both ways.

This rule needs changed. Many of these plays deserve a penalty but not an ejection. Basketball has flagrant 1 and 2. This could easily be done for this call in college football.

Good luck to the Gophers the rest of the way.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your comment. Congratulations on the Buckeye victory. The talent is remarkable and the coaching is very good. Forgive us for our suspicions/hunches for they are not completely irrational. In our last two games with OSU (I may be missing a game in between) two targeting calls against OSU called on the field have been negated upon further review and an obvious targeting situation completely ignored.
 


We could argue the nuances all day long but I think even most Buckeye fans were very surprised that call wasn't made. It should have been. I don't, however, think that there is some grand scheme for or against any particular team during a game.

And I agree, I was mistaken about the face mask. I was conflating this with the play that was initially called targeting and was then overturned.
 

tbrew85 said:
I don't, however, think that there is some grand scheme for or against any particular team during a game.
Click to expand...
Probably not.

Will you acknowledge at least that if targeting had been called, he would be missing at least a half against Oregon next weekend?
 

tbrew85 said:
With that said, all this "it's Because it's OSU" is pretty ridiculous. We have seen many, many similar calls go against us. See the Clemson game we lost in the playoffs 2 years ago. Even in this game, I saw many uncalled holds against the gophers on some of your best plays, so it really does go both ways.
Click to expand...

Please see Mitch Leidner 2015 targeting reversal call.
 


MaxyJR1 said:
Watching live at the stadium I thought it was a target. At least it would be incomplete.

Then the officials deemed it a catch and fumble, which by rule they deemed the player was no longer defenseless. (I think the three steps were still out of control and not a football move at that speed)

The hit itself was not egregious by rule, but I think is a play that should be looked at for the betterment of the game. He didn't launch and shoulders and helmet hit at same time. Both players collided and went backwards.

#22 does turn his should to take hit which is probably the the move that officials saw to make it a catch and football move.

Official made mistake to not give a reason for not targeting on the play.
Click to expand...
The crown of the OSU player's helmet drilled Brown-Stephens earhole and knocked him out. It was targeting all day long. Helmet to helmet hit with the defender's head down. It was egregious. Everyone of these athletes can tackle or hit without lowering their head and using the crown of their helmets. It's just that when they are not penalized for it, it takes longer to change the behavior. That was a clear cut targeting penalty. It's why the rule was created.
 


Watch the video I posted and tell me that's not the definition of targeting. MaxyJR1 you need to reassess your assessment. Head led and hit way harder than shoulders. Shoulders kissed, earhole was torpedoed by crown of defender's helmet.
 

Some Day...Maybe said:
Watch the video I posted and tell me that's not the definition of targeting. MaxyJR1 you need to reassess your assessment. Head led and hit way harder than shoulders. Shoulders kissed, earhole was torpedoed by crown of defender's helmet.
Click to expand...
Almost makes you wonder if they even discussed targeting on the play. Safety fouls are supposed to be called when in doubt it's a foul, to help get the play out of the game.
 


Argue that ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^. Crown of helmet to earhole at high speed to vulnerable player. The OSU player could have easily used his shoulder and went lower but the helmet is a big, hard, padded weapon. This isn't tough, this is the opposite of tough. Tough is drilling someone in the mid-section with a shoulder. This ^^^^^ is what the game needs to get rid of, and they will never get rid of it by blatantly allowing hits like this to go un-penalized. Players can change, and will change, if you penalize hits like this enough. Absolutely no reason for it. Can't use the top of the helmet to hit guys, shouldn't be allowed. Especially to players in vulnerable positions. Use the shoulder. The onus is on the defender.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom