roughing the passer?

The score book recorded a personal foul. Both "roughing the passer" and "striking fouls and tripping" are personal fouls under Rule 9, Section 1. Despite what the ref said on the field, the question is whether there was a personal foul on the play.



A "defenseless opponent" includes a passer in the act of or just after throwing a pass per the rules.

Was there forcible contact to the head of a defenseless opponent on the play? Appears so. Fair call.

On the unsportsmanlike act by Kill and staff...



He went on the field without permission. Absolutely fair to call a penalty there.

The 10 guys guys on the field timeout, the penalties, the 97 yards.. brutal drive.

Myrick "fixed it" though. Nice win.

Just go away
 

Fitzgerald was warned/waved off, but he was "on the field without permission".
 

was at the game and guys were going crazy about the holding in the end zone on the open side at the beginning of the scoring drive by NW it happened right in front of the ref and no call? isnt holding/tackling of a defensive player a Safety when it occurs in the endzone?

that was a terrible no call and it would have made the game 9 points and gopher ball. terrible reffing and it should be sent to the league office.

kind of like against Michigan where they put the ball at the 1 yard line when it occured int he Zone

I watched TCU and Baylor and i would say their refs were equally terrible.

maybe we need to go with a ref in the booth watching the game as they obviously cant call the games on the field
 

Total horsesh!t call. I understand protecting the qb, but that was not a malicious or intentional hit on the qb. Furthermore, those kind of calls can lead a ref to determine the game and not the players and coaches. Once refs start affecting the outcome of the game due to highly questionable calls, the integrity of the game becomes an issue and that can lead people to stop watching the games.

Exactly.
 




Defensive backs these days are taught not to turn around, but to watch the receivers eyes.

Okay fine. I won't argue that. But the receiver running into you on an under thrown ball is pass interference on you. You can either turn around and find the ball, or get PI called on you. But it's not the refs fault that you couldn't find the ball and obstructed the receiver from making a play on the ball.

So if they are really teaching players to look at the eyes, then the coaching staffs who teach it are basically saying that we would rather not get beat deep and instead have a PI call happen against us once or twice a game and hopefully it's not at a critical time. I don't know what is best. Our Gophers clearly think a couple PI calls against them is better than trying to make a play on the ball and getting beat for 6. It seems to work for the most part, but we have certainly had some game changing pass interference calls because of this in the past.

They may teach it in HS or college and it seems to be effective at those levels (Gophers being a good example), but this type of defending is not a regular occurrence in the NFL. NFL Quarterbacks and Wide Receivers would exploit that every chance they got.
 

The defender was lunging at the QB way before he threw the ball. It was a terrible call.

Doesn't matter, it is still a foul if he hits him in the face mask and he didn't throw the ball. I saw it live from the 23rd row of the upper deck and it was a foul. Tough break.

I do agree that a potential hold was missed in NW end zone which would have given us a first down. The two illegal formations were tough on NW as well. One took away a huge gain. That's a tough call to swallow.

In the end both team probably have equal complaints. We over came in the end.
 

Doesn't matter, it is still a foul if he hits him in the face mask and he didn't throw the ball. I saw it live from the 23rd row of the upper deck and it was a foul. Tough break.

I do agree that a potential hold was missed in NW end zone which would have given us a first down. The two illegal formations were tough on NW as well. One took away a huge gain. That's a tough call to swallow.

In the end both team probably have equal complaints. We over came in the end.

The illegal formations were the correct calls. The RT was playing a long ways off the line.
 



Just go away
+1

And the ref called "roughing the passer" when he explained the flag. That was not roughing the passer. Maybe the ref misunderstood what the other ref meant, but he called roughing the passer and roughing the passer it was not.












And go away.
 

I think the general feeling was that the game was over-officiated. Just look at the two ineligible man downfield penalties, that call is rarely made twice in one game.

It's rarely called because they usually don't go down field. The officials don't get a second look. They get one at full speed. Holds are missed all the time. The pass interference was a good call. The contact caused the NW player to not be able to jump for the ball, IMO.

There were two flags on the roughing the passer, it was a foul.
 

The score book recorded a personal foul. Both "roughing the passer" and "striking fouls and tripping" are personal fouls under Rule 9, Section 1. Despite what the ref said on the field, the question is whether there was a personal foul on the play.



A "defenseless opponent" includes a passer in the act of or just after throwing a pass per the rules.

Was there forcible contact to the head of a defenseless opponent on the play? Appears so. Fair call.

On the unsportsmanlike act by Kill and staff...



He went on the field without permission. Absolutely fair to call a penalty there.

The 10 guys guys on the field timeout, the penalties, the 97 yards.. brutal drive.

Myrick "fixed it" though. Nice win.

Nobody likes you.
 

There was a rule clarification this year, all acts are just called roughing the passer. Face masking a QB that throws the ball is technically roughing the passer this year.
 



The score book recorded a personal foul. Both "roughing the passer" and "striking fouls and tripping" are personal fouls under Rule 9, Section 1. Despite what the ref said on the field, the question is whether there was a personal foul on the play.



A "defenseless opponent" includes a passer in the act of or just after throwing a pass per the rules.

Was there forcible contact to the head of a defenseless opponent on the play? Appears so. Fair call.

On the unsportsmanlike act by Kill and staff...



He went on the field without permission. Absolutely fair to call a penalty there.

The 10 guys guys on the field timeout, the penalties, the 97 yards.. brutal drive.

Myrick "fixed it" though. Nice win.

The desire for personal validation is quite strong with this one. Very strong...
 

There was a rule clarification this year, all acts are just called roughing the passer. Face masking a QB that throws the ball is technically roughing the passer this year.

OK, let's run with this. Wouldn't it would be to the referee's own benefit to explain to a hostile crowd who you just pissed off exactly why you threw a questionable, game-changing flag?

A couple decades ago college football referees simply declared fouls on a generic "offense" or "defense", for example, "holding on the offense" instead of "holding on #89, offense" or "offsides on #99, defense". This lent to a lot of potential issues with fairness, obviously. Being less descriptive as to what was called and why is to no one's benefit.
 

Horrid call.
QB got hit, as a QB should be hit if the defense is worth a damn.
It wasn't vicious, it wasn't late. It gave NW a chance to outright steal the game when they didn't deserve it.
I swear protecting pretty boy dandy QBs will be the death of this sport.
 

The score book recorded a personal foul. Both "roughing the passer" and "striking fouls and tripping" are personal fouls under Rule 9, Section 1. Despite what the ref said on the field, the question is whether there was a personal foul on the play. A "defenseless opponent" includes a passer in the act of or just after throwing a pass per the rules. Was there forcible contact to the head of a defenseless opponent on the play? Appears so. Fair call. On the unsportsmanlike act by Kill and staff... He went on the field without permission. Absolutely fair to call a penalty there. The 10 guys guys on the field timeout, the penalties, the 97 yards.. brutal drive. Myrick "fixed it" though. Nice win.

Does your 2-year Kill era countdown call include this year?
 

I was listening to the Radio at the time and while the announcers did say it was a marginal call, they seemed more complexed by the lack of two holding calls.


People may have ongoing beefs with GW, but his assessment of the rulebook is fair.
 

I was listening to the Radio at the time and while the announcers did say it was a marginal call, they seemed more complexed by the lack of two holding calls.


People may have ongoing beefs with GW, but his assessment of the rulebook is fair.

2% fair?
 

OK, let's run with this. Wouldn't it would be to the referee's own benefit to explain to a hostile crowd who you just pissed off exactly why you threw a questionable, game-changing flag?

A couple decades ago college football referees simply declared fouls on a generic "offense" or "defense", for example, "holding on the offense" instead of "holding on #89, offense" or "offsides on #99, defense". This lent to a lot of potential issues with fairness, obviously. Being less descriptive as to what was called and why is to no one's benefit.

Correct. He should have said "roughing the passer, contact to the head."
 

The roughing the passer call was BS, and I'm not sure the personal foul on Maxx Williams was truly warranted as well. He looked to be continuing his block and protecting our downed player - 90% hustle, 10% cheap shot...
 

Of all the missed calls by the officials against Gophers this one bothered the most

I don't think too many people are questioning the second penalty.



Don't forget about the blatant missed holding penalty in the end zone that would have resulted in a safety three plays into the drive.

That hold in the end zone was so over the top in the fact the offensive lineman was taking our guy to the ground in the end zone right in front of the head referee. I didn't like the roughing the passer call, but if they would have called the blatant hold in the end zone on Northwestern to begin the drive, none of the roughing passer nonesense or anything else that happened the rest of the drive would have mattered. Another blatant call missed that the Big 10 officials did not make was the obvious holding or illegal contact on Max Williams in the end zone when Mitch threw the ball up on the third down play that resulted in the field goal. The Northwestern guy was riding Maxx in the endzone that whole play and holding one of his arms down as he was going up to catch the pass. The Gophers got pretty cheated on that call. I never expect the Big 10 referees to give the Gophers much because we seem to be the conference whipping boy's as a program from the Big 10 officials but they need to start evening up things a bit. We have a good football team with quality coaches and it is about time the Gophers got their fair share of the calls.
It was clearly a penalty on Northwestern that should have resulted in another set of downs for the Gophers. It was a tough hard football game, which to me at times the officials got a little too involved in. That sideline warning after the big Myrick runback was just the head referee being an anal dink. The personal foul call on Maxx Williams the Northwestern defender was giving Leidner the business on the ground and laying in some cheap shot's I don't blame Maxx Williams for defending his quarterback when the referees are just standing there letting the defender give him the business. As a coach I hope they are not to upset about that one, just if your going to get flagged make sure the other guy pays for it with some pain.
 




Top Bottom