B1G Statement on MSU Call and Refs
Without saying whether the call itself was right or wrong, the B1G said the refs handled the "mechanics of the call" correctly. Here is the link: http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/14086557/big-ten-says-of…
FYI, I saw this on Red Cedar Message Board. If you haven't gone over there to read since last night, you really should. It is...just wow...
Some of my favorites:
1. The B1G planned this to keep lowly MSU out of the playoffs
2. This specific officiating crew has screwed them three times now. It's a crew specifically assigned to MSU games to screw them over
3. Vegas engineered this to make a ton of cash
4. MSU should leave the B1G for the ACC
November 8th, 2015 at 11:08 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 8th, 2015 at 11:11 PM ^
And they're correct...the mechanics WERE correct on the call.
It was just the wrong call.
It's simple, if a player runs out of bounds it can be reviewed, but the review can only confirm/deny whether there was contact made by the defender on the player who ran out of bounds. There was.
The review cannot determine whether the contact had any impact on the player going out or whether it caused the play to go out/stay out. It's just "did someone touch them while they were out of bounds." The answer is yes and the play has to stand.
It was as shit call because the defender in no way made the WR go out of bounds. The reciever ran out on his own and the defender touched him, that's it.
I get the point of the rule, the ref on the field should be able to determine the level of impact and whether the contact made a difference...at least more than a replay official. But it's still stupid.
That said, MSU deserved to lose the game, just like 1-2 others on the season. Shut the fuck up and go play Maryland this weekend you little bitches.
November 8th, 2015 at 11:46 PM ^
November 8th, 2015 at 11:59 PM ^
Because he didn't know where he was, ala the Lions safety from a few years ago?
Dude ran out of bounds. Don't let bias get in the way of your argument, though. Actually, it is better that they got screwed. It just makes my smirk that much more pronounced.
November 9th, 2015 at 6:01 AM ^
November 9th, 2015 at 2:01 AM ^
I actually disagree and think it was the right call. Armstrong went left (and out of bounds) to avoid the corner's left hand contacting him (which was occurring). The contact was minimal and Armstrong didn't have to go out bounds to avoid it, but it's still enough to satisfy the rule's contact and causation requirements for maintaining eligibility. And the ruling on the field was also the appropriate way to have called it in terms of the intent of the rule (which is to prevent receivers from hiding out of bounds and then pulling a "gotcha" after being forgotten).
Maybe if there was a "gotcha" you look at the level of contact and causation to avoid simply applying the exception in a technical sense, but otherwise, where no deception was intended or occurred, if there's any contact and going out of bounds is any way due to the contact, there's no benefit to the game in ruling the receiver ineligible.
Theoretically, the rule should just be based on whether there was deception or not in going out of bounds, but that's probably harder for officials to determine than contact/causation. So the rule's written that way as a best approximation for applying the intent of the rule. In this situation, ruling Armstrong ineligible for lack of contact and causation would've gone against the intent of the rule simply to enforce a needling technicality, and since there was some level of contact and causation, there's clearly no basis to have ruled him ineligible (even technically).
November 9th, 2015 at 5:46 AM ^
The defenders left arm clearly DID make contact, and tried to impede the receiver in a questionable manner. Did he shove the receiver hard enough to force the receiver out of bounds? Now that is clearly a Judgment Call, which officials on the field are qualified to make; Replay Officials are not. It could easily have been called holding or PI, except MSU is rarely called for such a thing.
[My theory is that Durkin probably saw how much handsy stuff MSU has been getting away with the last few years, and decided Michigan- especially Lewis- should be doing the same. But I digress].
So this one time, their reputation for being "agressive" with their hands and arms worked against them. Boo Hoo.
November 9th, 2015 at 5:53 AM ^
November 9th, 2015 at 7:41 AM ^
The rule isn't just about deception. They also want to prevent a receiver from running out of bounds to go around a defender. To put it simply, they want everyone to stay in the field of play. The exception to the rule was added to prevent a DB from forcing a player out of bounds and making them ineligible, giving them an advantage.
I've only seen two bad angles, so I can't tell if the receiver was moving toward the sideline and the defender was moving with him or if the defender was slowly pushing the receiver out. Regardless, I'm fine with the non-call. If he had thrown a flag, he would have the same conversation from a different perspective. Neither player appears to be trying to break the rules, so I'd prefer to just let them play the game, which is what he did.
November 9th, 2015 at 7:20 AM ^
It's not like Nebraska hadn't been moving up and down the field at will the last 4 mins of the game.
MSU should be thankful Nebraska left time on the clock for Sparty to try and fail to get the GWFG.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 9th, 2015 at 8:17 AM ^
November 9th, 2015 at 4:02 PM ^
Yes/it depends.
If the ref had flagged Nebraska for illegal touching, there would have been a 10-second runoff option for MSU, which they certainly would have taken.
But there was no flag on the play. If they had reversed the "contact-->OOB" ruling, the pass just would've been incomplete, and it would have been 3rd & 10 for Nebrasak.
November 8th, 2015 at 11:19 PM ^
I do find it amusing that the conference rushes to put out a statement and tell everyone when they think they're right on a controversy, but nary a peep when they're obviously wrong.
November 8th, 2015 at 11:32 PM ^
November 8th, 2015 at 11:40 PM ^
November 8th, 2015 at 11:44 PM ^
November 8th, 2015 at 11:48 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 8th, 2015 at 11:48 PM ^
November 9th, 2015 at 7:47 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 8th, 2015 at 11:52 PM ^
November 9th, 2015 at 12:26 AM ^
when MSU fans have access to the internet.
November 9th, 2015 at 12:38 AM ^
Doesn't McDonald's have free wifi?
November 9th, 2015 at 9:28 AM ^
They typically have signs up indicating a 15 minute limit to using WiFi. That probably coincides with the break that they get while on their shift.
November 9th, 2015 at 1:26 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 9th, 2015 at 1:33 AM ^
Eligibility Lost by Going Out of Bounds: "No eligible offensive receiver who goes out of bounds during a down shall touch a legal forward pass in the field of play or end zones or while airborne until it has been touched by an opponent or official (A.R. 7-3-4-I-II). [Exception: This does not apply to an eligible offensive player who attempts to return inbounds immediately after going out of bounds due to contact by an opponent (A.R. 7-3-4-III)]."
This doesn’t require the defender’s contact to force the receiver out of bounds for eligibility to be maintained. It only requires that the receiver have gone out of bounds “due to” contact by the defender (and then have immediately returned inbounds). Armstrong was contacted by the corner’s hands and went left (and out of bounds) to get away from it, then came back inbounds (while still encountering contact then).
Conceivably, Armstrong could have done something else to avoid the contact, but the rule doesn’t require that going out of bounds be the only option, just that the act of going out of bounds be due to contact by the receiver in some shape or form. There’s no minimum threshold for level of contact or for level of causation. Also, in view of the intent of the rule, the call made on the field would seem to be the appropriate call. There’s a reason the rule doesn't specify a minimum level of contact or minimum level of causation.
November 9th, 2015 at 6:34 AM ^
Great write up, but Armstrong is the QB. The WR was Brandon Reilly.
Another thing to note is that the MSU DB clearly had his hand on Reilly and was trying to keep his inside position, which naturally forces him out of bounds.
November 9th, 2015 at 2:17 AM ^
November 9th, 2015 at 7:46 AM ^
Cum towel? Are you 14?
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 9th, 2015 at 5:36 AM ^
Bye Felicia!
November 9th, 2015 at 5:52 AM ^
They are clearly freaking out. They know this is the first signs of twilight of their day in the sun. It is ending soon.
November 9th, 2015 at 6:28 AM ^
#1. MSU has played extremely aggressive in their secondary for years with their hands on WRs a lot. If you live by that then you die by that too. The MSU CB had his hand pushing on the WR and there is no doubt about that...the MSU BS whines about the MSU DB having his head looking back has nothing to do with whether or not he made contact that directed the WR out of bounds.
#2. I know a son of a former BigTen head ref and word is Dantonio and Narduzzi are the two biggest D-Bags that whine and moan about every call and don't even understand how the ref procedure for calling a penalty works. They will bring up calls from years ago when they whine. The will threaten head refs with their job for not overturning a call that they can't overturn as they did not see the specific action area in question.
#3. I hope MSU goes to the ACC...what would you D-Bags do with your hockey team?
November 9th, 2015 at 9:06 AM ^
Either way, that game shouldn't have to come down to one play- but it did. Deal with it. If I were a Sparty, I'd try...TRY... To think logically... You stole a game from Michigan with SO MANY missed calls (face ask) and phantom calls (targeting) and you lose a game to Nebraska due to a "missed call"... Pick your poison.
November 9th, 2015 at 6:42 AM ^
November 9th, 2015 at 7:02 AM ^
"Per NCAA rules, the instant replay crew cannot review the severity of contact, as that is a judgment call handled by the officials on the field," the Big Ten said in a statement to ESPN.com.
This was actually said on the air right after it happened too, or something along these lines - I forget by who precisely, but the mechanics of how this could be reviewed and what could be reviewed were explained to some extent.
Of course, Dantonio said what you would expect most coaches to say, that basically there were plenty of things they could have done which would make that call a mere sidenote, not the deciding call in the game as it was. Also, Nebraska was moving the ball well enough that even if they ruled no contact, it might not have mattered. Football is weird like that, as we all know.
November 9th, 2015 at 8:20 AM ^
A Husker fan posted video of the play from his cell phone in his comments on CornNation:
It was a judgment call that could have gone either way. I don't think this is a play to bitch about the officiating on.
November 9th, 2015 at 8:24 AM ^
KARMIC DISRESPEKT!
November 9th, 2015 at 8:33 AM ^
Either way I slept like a fucking baby this weekend!!
November 9th, 2015 at 9:01 AM ^
Okay. Take Rutgers and Maryland, we'll take UNC, Pitt, and GT.
November 9th, 2015 at 9:14 AM ^
By that I mean, would we walk to Ypsilanti to adopt our new little brother or drive?
November 9th, 2015 at 10:36 AM ^
Karma can be a real bitch
November 9th, 2015 at 10:43 AM ^
VERY quiet this morning. Not a peep after their boasting from a few weeks ago.
I'm not saying a word either.
November 9th, 2015 at 11:02 AM ^
MSU has been playing wirh fire in several of their games, and have squeaked by. They were ahead and didn't close out this game. They can blame it on the refs, but they didn't control the game at the end, and that's on them.
November 9th, 2015 at 12:57 PM ^
http://nzh.tw/11542606
November 9th, 2015 at 12:59 PM ^
All I know for sure is that Colquhoun would have probably been able to hang on to the ball when he intercepted it in the endzone, if his arms weren't so tired from holding all those cornhuskers.
November 9th, 2015 at 5:02 PM ^
It's just odd how all the complaints about officiating are coming from fanbases always thinking it's only them getting screwed. When folks start pointing out bad officiating going primarily in their favor, I'm all ears.
November 9th, 2015 at 5:27 PM ^
Also on the RCMB apparently they think Delany favors Michigan and OSU? Delany hates Michigan. They got 2 home games in a row against Michigan because of the B1G crappy scheduling. Also didn't he have a fued with Bo? Reading their forums is actually quite funny. lol