Well this settles the targeting/not targeting argument

[Ron Johnson Super Fan]

Is indisputable evidence the standard for these targeting reviews? I know that is the standard for other replays.

The NHL does a pretty neat think with disciplinary hearings where the Director of Player safety narrates a multi-angle, slow-motion replay of the incident and explains what factors they considered and how they interpret parts of the video and what the ultimate decision is. I would love to see the Big Ten do something like that with this video. Transparency is nice.

The Big Ten doesn't want transparency. The call went the way the Big Ten wanted it to go. Getting a team into the playoff is a big deal and they don't need a little pissant like Minnesota coming along to screw things up.

 

[Section2]

when the officials were discussing the call - you could actually see the one official bullying/snarky laughing at the ref who made the call. 2 weeks in row of picked up flags.

I thought the same. The white hat was looking at the unpire like "oh boy, we'll need to overturn that or we're dead". I also thought the reaction to the replay from the crowd was ridiculous. They reacted like the video clearly showed him hitting the chest. Even the announcers thought it was targeting.

 

[josh087]

So sickening. Why even play the games? Maybe B10 should start a "Non Helmet School Low Revenue Division"

It could have MN, IA, PU, NW, IU, Illini, Rutgers

B10 could have a presser announcing new alignment "We guarantee no more fixed games for these teams, although they won't be eligible for College Football Playoff."

Doesn't the BIG want Michigan State to be in the playoff too? So why did Nebraska get a BS call to beat them? The conspiracy is only for OSU? No other BIG teams? OSU is the only one they want in the playoffs?

 

[MNVCGUY]

Doesn't the BIG want Michigan State to be in the playoff too? So why did Nebraska get a BS call to beat them? The conspiracy is only for OSU? No other BIG teams? OSU is the only one they want in the playoffs?

+1 - People are totally free to disagree with the call but this conspiracy/"fix is in" BS is really tiring. If the Big was truly fixing games there is no way they wouldn't have reversed that call in the Nebraska/MSU game. So they are fixing things by giving OSU 7 points early in a game but not on a game winning play for Nebraska? Or they are fixing the outcome of our game against Michigan yet there we sat on the half friggin yardline with 19 seconds on the clock.

Think of all the moving parts involved with a massive mafia style game fixing setup like fans seem to think exists. Someone would talk, it would be impossible to keep everyone quiet.

 

[gopherdudepart2]

This should be submitted to the NCAA and the head of officials for the Big10. I'm not saying the whole crew should be suspended but the head referee who was the one clearly trying to talk the other official out of the targeting call, and the replay official should both be suspended a game and forfeit pay to charity.

 

[MNBadgerGuy]

A lot of tinfoil hats being worn here.

Watching it live I didn't think it was a targeting call. Still frame images and slo-mo shots make it look different, but I didn't disagree with picking up the flag at the time of the call.

Bad break and the targeting rule in general needs a major overhaul.

 

[Ron Johnson Super Fan]

A lot of tinfoil hats being worn here.

Watching it live I didn't think it was a targeting call. Still frame images and slo-mo shots make it look different, but I didn't disagree with picking up the flag at the time of the call.

Bad break and the targeting rule in general needs a major overhaul.

I was under the impression that the replay booth watches reviewed plays using slo-mo shots. Do they not?

 

[Iceland12]

A lot of tinfoil hats being worn here.

Watching it live I didn't think it was a targeting call. Still frame images and slo-mo shots make it look different, but I didn't disagree with picking up the flag at the time of the call.

Bad break and the targeting rule in general needs a major overhaul.

What a surprise.

 

[GophersInIowa]

A lot of tinfoil hats being worn here.

Watching it live I didn't think it was a targeting call. Still frame images and slo-mo shots make it look different, but I didn't disagree with picking up the flag at the time of the call.

Bad break and the targeting rule in general needs a major overhaul.

To overturn calls needs sufficient evidence. They didn't have it. Therefore you stay with what is called on the field.

I don't think people would be nearly as upset if they just didn't call it to begin with. It is a hard call to make when live. But they get slow motion looks when it is being reviewed.

 

[Section2]

A lot of tinfoil hats being worn here.

Watching it live I didn't think it was a targeting call. Still frame images and slo-mo shots make it look different, but I didn't disagree with picking up the flag at the time of the call.

Bad break and the targeting rule in general needs a major overhaul.

Watching it live you didn't see the hit, so no wonder. Kindly GFY.

 

[Some Day...Is Coming!]

Straight from the NCAA rule book:

"Additionally, a postgame conference review remains part of the rule, and conferences retain their ability to add to a sanction."

The Big Ten could still do something if they have any integrity whatsoever.

Also from the rule book:

"The replay official must have conclusive evidence that a player should not be ejected to overturn the call on the field."

It is absolutely impossible that the replay official had "conclusive evidence" to overturn the call on the field by the official standing 10 feet away from the hit, staring straight at it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LesBolstad]

Doesn't the BIG want Michigan State to be in the playoff too? So why did Nebraska get a BS call to beat them? The conspiracy is only for OSU? No other BIG teams? OSU is the only one they want in the playoffs?

I would answer this by saying either: A) The dumass ref called a force-out so it could not be reviewed thereby would not qualify for the theory; or B) No, they don't want MSU in playoff as they do not get high ratings on TV like UM or OSU and they needed a loss to eliminate them (B10 would never get 2 teams in playoffs); C) With NE going down the toilet this year and it being a home game, they were awarded a win to satisfy their huge fan base.

 

[Some Day...Is Coming!]

A lot of tinfoil hats being worn here.

Watching it live I didn't think it was a targeting call. Still frame images and slo-mo shots make it look different, but I didn't disagree with picking up the flag at the time of the call.

Bad break and the targeting rule in general needs a major overhaul.

Watching live, it was obvious to me it was targeting, it was also obvious to the official about 10 feet from the hit, staring straight at it, who threw his flag immediately. It was also obvious he dipped his head and used the crown of his helmet, which is also a targeting foul.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bottlebass]

Doesn't the BIG want Michigan State to be in the playoff too? So why did Nebraska get a BS call to beat them? The conspiracy is only for OSU? No other BIG teams? OSU is the only one they want in the playoffs?

No the B1G wants 2 teams in the playoff. Best chance of that is one from the East and one from the West. By allowing Nebraska to beat Michigan State it allows Iowa strength of schedule to increase so if two undefeated teams make the conference championship team the loser has a better chance of still making the CFP.

 

[wait!what?]

i'd beat down Leidner for throwing the downfield duck later in the game but after gettin blasted like that.....who can blame him for not being totally on his game. jeez refs---remember, these guys are playing for free school and a better meal plan.

 

[cncmin]

I would answer this by saying either: A) The dumass ref called a force-out so it could not be reviewed thereby would not qualify for the theory; or B) No, they don't want MSU in playoff as they do not get high ratings on TV like UM or OSU and they needed a loss to eliminate them (B10 would never get 2 teams in playoffs); C) With NE going down the toilet this year and it being a home game, they were awarded a win to satisfy their huge fan base.

This. Pick one or all of these. MSU is not the same helmet school, and they were rated by the powers that be (e.g., ESECPN) too low; they'd never make the final four picks. OSU, on the other hand, can, and an MSU loss helps to ensure they make the B1G championship game out of the East.

Besides, since that call was not reviewable, there was no way to overturn that call even if they wanted. Well, if it were OSU against the Gophers, they'd have found some way, but I digress...

 

[cncmin]

Having "goons" retaliate may help to mitigate these kinds of issues. Works in hockey, works in baseball (pegging batters). What if the threat of retaliation is a chop block to the knees of a good defender? Just saying.

 

[killme]

Having "goons" retaliate may help to mitigate these kinds of issues. Works in hockey, works in baseball (pegging batters). What if the threat of retaliation is a chock block to the knees of a good defender? Just saying.

IMO, that would be classless. I'm pretty sure this bunch strives for a different standard.

 

[cncmin]

IMO, that would be classless. I'm pretty sure this bunch strives for a different standard.

Classless, probably, but so is targeting an opposing team's QB and then having the officials and the Conference as a whole stick up for you, too. If you're the "little" guy and you always let someone beat you down, then you get nowhere, ever.

 

[bleedsmaroonandgold]

After that play on saturday I never want to hear any BS about "protecting the players" ever again.
In the NFL you can brush your hand against a QB's facemask or helmet and it's 15 yards.
The rule for college should be the same, or eliminate it all together. Call it roughing or stop pretending you actually care about player safety.

Yep. A colleague of mine at work (not a Gopher fan) said it best: if that is not targeting, then you do not have a targeting rule.

 

[Mulligan]

Classless, without a doubt and equally chicksh*t, but so is targeting an opposing team's QB and then having the officials and the Conference as a whole stick up for you, too. If you're the "little" guy and you always let someone beat you down, then you get nowhere, ever.

FIFY

 

[bleedsmaroonandgold]

+1 - People are totally free to disagree with the call but this conspiracy/"fix is in" BS is really tiring. If the Big was truly fixing games there is no way they wouldn't have reversed that call in the Nebraska/MSU game. So they are fixing things by giving OSU 7 points early in a game but not on a game winning play for Nebraska? Or they are fixing the outcome of our game against Michigan yet there we sat on the half friggin yardline with 19 seconds on the clock.

Think of all the moving parts involved with a massive mafia style game fixing setup like fans seem to think exists. Someone would talk, it would be impossible to keep everyone quiet.

One of the following three things must be true:

1) All of us are watching the video back on page one with maroon colored glasses, and we are all wrong and the hit was not targeting.
2) A professionally trained replay official with access to all of our modern technology and video replay managed to innocently get that call wrong (and not only get that call wrong, but find that there was conclusive evidence that it was not targeting).
3) The call was overturned based on some factor other than whether or not it should have been a penalty.

You clearly think number 3 is "tiring" and "BS". That's fair. Which of the first two do you think it is?

 

[nsmike]

The Big 10 was very quick to come out and say that they got the call right in the MSU-NU game. There has been silence on the targeting call, to me, that telling.

 

[Iceland12]

The Big 10 was very quick to come out and say that they got the call right in the MSU-NU game. There has been silence on the targeting call, to me, that telling.

They can't review the call on whether he was pushed out or not (he wasn't) so the review was "right". Yeah, still waiting for their response on the targeting call. Wonder if they'll ever talk about it.

 

[MNVCGUY]

One of the following three things must be true:

1) All of us are watching the video back on page one with maroon colored glasses, and we are all wrong and the hit was not targeting.
2) A professionally trained replay official with access to all of our modern technology and video replay managed to innocently get that call wrong (and not only get that call wrong, but find that there was conclusive evidence that it was not targeting).
3) The call was overturned based on some factor other than whether or not it should have been a penalty.

You clearly think number 3 is "tiring" and "BS". That's fair. Which of the first two do you think it is?

I see it as a combo of #1 and #2. If you read this thread you will see that not everyone, myself included, thinks the play was clearly targeting. I think they could have/should have called unnecessary roughness but I don't think the kid deserved to be ejected for that hit. My guess would be that is where the replay official fell as well. He didn't view it as targeting and since that was the only call on the field the end result is the flag gets picked up and the play stands. It shouldn't shock anyone that the majority of people on this board think it was targeting. If you ask the same question on an Ohio State board the majority of people would say it wasn't. If you tossed it out there to a non partisan group you would probably get a 60/40 split one way or the other.

What it boils down to for me at least, is if this multi level, game fixing, ring of cheating was taking place you would have more then just the fans of the team that came out on the losing end complaining about it. Sites like deadspin, networks like CNN, and all the other media outlets out there would be all over it because it would be a massive story.

I mean if you read a lot of the comments in this and some of the other treads it would appear that many in here believe that the BIG is essentially the WWE and the results are pre-determined. Seems to me like the gambling community would be all over that, the schools themselves might have a bit of an issue going along with it, and the government would get involved. But apparently it is only obvious to the fans of the teams that feel they are getting screwed.

 

[GophersInIowa]

I see it as a combo of #1 and #2. If you read this thread you will see that not everyone, myself included, thinks the play was clearly targeting.

By the rule it is though. He led with his helmet and made contact with a defenseless player's neck and head area.

but I don't think the kid deserved to be ejected for that hit.

This part of the rule sucks, but it is the rule. If they commit the penalty, they are automatically ejected. There are many players who have been ejected when common sense says they probably shouldn't be. But the rule is the rule. Either enforce it or don't.

My guess would be that is where the replay official fell as well. He didn't view it as targeting and since that was the only call on the field the end result is the flag gets picked up and the play stands.

The ref announced it was not targeting because there wasn't contact to the head and neck area. We know that is completely false. That is the key part. He announced why they thought it wasn't targeting. They reversed the call . Once again, the rule is pretty simple. If you lead with your head and contact is made with a defenseless player's head/neck area, it is a penalty.

They should change the rule to have two levels of targeting similar to basketball with flagrant 1 and 2. The more serious instances should result in an ejection.

Like I said the rule sucks, I get that. A player shouldn't be ejected for a play like that. But the call was made on the field, and they overturned it for a reason that was completely false. So obviously they didn't have indisputable evidence to overturn the call. As an official, you can't say "I don't like the rule so I'm not going to call it like I am supposed to".

 

[GophersInIowa]

I will also add that, although I don't think there is some deep conspiracy with the conference and the refs, refs are human and can be influenced by the importance of the situation/play. Even if it is subconscious, they know that every game has a heightened importance for a team like Ohio St. I'm not saying it happened in this situation or anything, but I don't think it is impossible for some refs to be influenced at times.

 

[tjgopher]

If you tossed it out there to a non partisan group you would probably get a 60/40 split one way or the other.

That's fine.

The rule specifically states this:

When in question, it is a foul.

Those words - exactly as they appear - are in the rulebook as it relates to targeting. There is no grey area. They want to protect players. The ONLY way a replay official can overturn a targeting/ejection call is if there is NO QUESTION that it wasn't. CLEARLY, there IS question here. A lot of it.

By RULE, that means IT IS A FOUL.

 

[MNVCGUY]

That's fine.

The rule specifically states this:

When in question, it is a foul.

Those words - exactly as they appear - are in the rulebook as it relates to targeting. There is no grey area. They want to protect players. The ONLY way a replay official can overturn a targeting/ejection call is if there is NO QUESTION that it wasn't. CLEARLY, there IS question here. A lot of it.

By RULE, that means IT IS A FOUL.

All valid points and although it won't be done publicly I am sure the replay judge will have to explain his reasons for not ruling it as targeting, and will be handled accordingly. My issue isn't with people thinking it should have been called one way or another, my problem is with those that are acting like it is all part of some elaborate plot to fix games orchestrated by the Big Ten office and the officials. That was a big play in the game but it was also still fairly early in the game and there is no way to say that one play cost us the game because there is no telling how things would have played out. Heck Mitch could have thrown a pick 6 on the very next snap.

 

[BarnBoy]

Was the camera angle from post #2 shown live on the broadcast, or was that something that came out later?

Lots of talk of the referees and the B1G Conference, but could ESPN also be influencing these types of calls based on which camera angles they decide to show from their control truck?

I think if there was a conspiracy to get behind, that would be more likely.

I am not sure how it works or if that idea is complete horse poo...