Unverified Voracity Preps For A Road Test Comment Count

Brian

A little on the nose there, God. Let's check in with goings-on in West Lafayette:

Purdue Football is Literally Being Sucked Into The Earth

It is either a busted pipe or a hellmouth opening to end our misery

It is strongly implied that Hammer and Rails would prefer the latter.

What is your favorite color?. It's coming up: a visit to Cable Subscribers Stadium.

ANN ARBOR – Facing fourth-and-goal from the 1-yard line, Michigan coach Jim Harbaugh kept his offense on the field.

He also provided an assist by waving his arms to quiet the Michigan Stadium crowd, and they obliged, just before Khalid Hill plunged into the end zone to cap the Wolverines' opening drive in a 49-10 win over Penn State two weeks ago.

Crowd control is just one benefit of playing at home, which the No. 4 Wolverines (5-0, 2-0 Big Ten) won't have for the first time this season when they travel to Rutgers (2-3, 0-2 Big Ten) for Saturday's 7 p.m. kickoff.

A valiant attempt to inject some interesting into a game with a four-touchdown spread, but that stadium will be half Michigan fans. Michigan won't get its first real road test until the Michigan State game, and, uh... I am not going to put some #disrespekt on it just yet. Suffice it to say that that doesn't seem like quite as high of a mountain five weeks into the season.

The gently rising foothills that will take us to The Game. S&P+ likes us. S&P+ does not like Michigan State and Iowa, and hoo boy did Bill Connelly hear a lot about that latter this offseason. With both those teams underperforming even the modest expectations placed on them by fancystats, Michigan's journey to Football Armageddon II looks downright likely. Absurdly so, in fact.

image

Michigan is a better than two-touchdown favorite and 87%+ to win all of those games except the trip to Iowa City. OSU has a near-identical closing stretch, with the part of potential spoiler played by Wisconsin.

MSU? Well, if those numbers hold they'll be striving for something all season.

Probability of finishing 11-1 or better: 0.0%

Probability of finishing 6-6 or better: 44.7%

Bowl eligibility.

This is going to go well. Immovable object, meet a breathy gasp:

Rutgers can't throw the football
And with Janarion Grant out for the year, there aren't many great options to catch it either. The Scarlet Knights have basically had a pitiful passing attack all year. But last week against Ohio State had to be rock bottom. Rutgers was just 3 of 16 for 33 yards. As a team, the Scarlet Knights are completing 47.4 percent of their passes.

I wonder if we'll see this at some point. Per a Harbaugh interview on 97.1 last week, Jabrill Peppers is inventing new ways to football:

"We put a different play in with him yesterday in practice. Then he got it in the meeting and he left, went back to the defensive meeting and came out to practice," Harbaugh said Thursday on 97.1-FM. "He was a running back and his assignment was to block. But he blocked and then he went out for a route. He got his blocking assignment done and then he continued out into a route. We threw it to him, which was not the design, but from now on -- and we've been running this play for 10 years -- (it will be).

"In 10 years, we've never had a back who got his blocking assignment done (on that play) and got into the route at the same time and he did it the first time like that was the way the play should've been run for the last 10 years. That's the kind of stuff he does. It breaks the mold darn near every time he does something."

We'd have to see Peppers actually get a touch to do so, grumble grumble.

An interesting thing on "team opens at X". Last week I told people that Michigan opened at –9 and moved to –10.5. This turns out to not be accurate. These days most people are hitting up Vegas Insider for their odds, and what happens is one obscure online sportsbook getting out in front of the pack:

Lots of people bet online even though it’s super illegal, and that’s probably where Vegas Insider is getting their info, and that’s what Joe Truthteller means by “Vegas.” You are kind of right:

vegasinsider2

It’s mostly blank spaces on that chart, too. The only major sports book offering anything is on-the-nose-named BetOnline, which rushes to get their lines out before anyone else each Sunday. ...

BetOnline knows they are taking a major risk by offering super early lines, which is why they ramp down the maximum bets until the other (sharper) line originators have a chance to chime in. ...

The main reason I object to referring to the BetOnline number as the opening line, however, is because every single week, the same annoying pattern plays out. BetOnline will release a relatively weak line on many games. A few hours later, the major Vegas originators will weigh in with sharper lines that differ by maybe as many as six points. Twitter people will then talk about how “sharps have pounded the line down to X” or “Vegas has moved the line already.”

A quick shift in the odds is an early line that is superseded by the heavy hitters. Michigan really opened at –10.5 and stuck there, but you could get a small bet in at a dubious online casino at –9. The end.

This week in targeting roulette. Penn State's Curtis Cothran got the boot for a hit almost identical to Branch on Morelli minus about half the force:

That was upheld despite an apparent lack of helmet to helmet contact. Meanwhile Malik McDowell was ejected for making sure his helmet was well out of the quarterback's strike zone:

Sometimes you can't win: Cothran hit with his eyes on the target and got booted. McDowell seemingly went out of his way to keep his head down and got booted.

I've seen some assertions that the McDowell hit was indeed targeting because McDowell lowered his head like that (and hit the guy with his shoulder), but the rule seems to specifically state that targeting requires a hit to the head:

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).

It then goes on to clarify what hits to the head are covered by this in note 1, where the crown of helmet thing comes in:

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 guess the fourth bullet point here does not mention the head and neck, therefore any contact with the crown is targeting, and that's why McDowell got booted? If so that's some terrible wording. It should probably be a similar penalty with its own definition, because lumping what McDowell did in with a rule otherwise very specifically about whacking people in the head is bound to cause confusion.

Etc.: Early NHL draft rankings include four Michigan players and commits. The Supreme Court will not hear the O'Bannon case, leaving both sides disappointed. The NCAA has been declared in violation of anti-trust laws but the 9th Circuit decision leaves everyone in limbo. Trevor Siemian! Still happening! Trying to find OSU weaknesses. Indiana's win over MSU was not a fluke. Minnesota focused on taking out the most dangerous part of PSU's team. Basketball media day takeaways.

Comments

Bando Calrissian

October 4th, 2016 at 1:25 PM ^

Knowing what we know now, and how the rules are now written in terms of targeting and such... That Morelli hit (and the later hit on their backup quarterback, which also knocked him out of the game) looks downright awful. I was at the game, and in the endzone where it happened, and holy hell did Branch hit him hard. On video, it's even worse. 

Moral of the story: that 2006 defense, well, for 11 games or so... Whoa Nelly. Good thing targeting wasn't a thing yet.

Goggles Paisano

October 5th, 2016 at 5:44 AM ^

I have always been a big proponent of throwing that targeting rule out.  They continue to fuck it up every week.  The rule was designed to keep DB's from launching themselves like projectiles into WR's heads.  The rule has now evolved to the point where "playing football" gets you a 15 yd penalty and an ejection.  

matty blue

October 4th, 2016 at 1:38 PM ^

nobody knows what either one is or how it will get called...targeting has the added negative of being reviewed in super-slowmo, making many hits seem worse on repeated viewing.

Yinka Double Dare

October 4th, 2016 at 1:39 PM ^

ESPN announcers for us this week include having Jason Benetti on PBP - he's the White Sox PBP for their home games, as well as a football and basketball guy for ESPN, and he's damn good. 

Blue Sharpie

October 4th, 2016 at 1:43 PM ^

I feel sorry for Darrel Hazell, since he seems like a standup dude. But he is going to get axed after losing to a 1st year coach 50-7. Durkin in his 1st year showed better progress than Hazell in his 4th year. I would like to see PJ Fleck get his job.

Sac Fly

October 4th, 2016 at 3:39 PM ^

When they hired Hazell he got a 6 year contract. That's right, six years and 12 million for a guy who had 1 good season in his 2 years at Kent State. Purdue will not pay 4.45 million, then pay for another guy to coach them.

That's what you get when your athletic director is a moron.

True Blue in CO

October 4th, 2016 at 2:01 PM ^

So the formula to beat OSU is:

1) Keep their run game in check
2) Force them to pass
3) Use time in the pocket for good passing plays against them
4) Get into their young heads by putting them into a situation they have not faced before.

Certain Harbaugh and the staff will plan accordingly. Hoping this match up gets closer to 50/50 on S&P by the week of The Game.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Tuebor

October 4th, 2016 at 2:03 PM ^

McDowell got booted for rule 9-1-3 not rule 9-1-4.

Targeting and Initiating Contact With the Crown of the Helmet  (Rule 9-1-3)

No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.

http://www.afca.com/article/article.php?id=2342

 

McDowell appears to lead with his head.  It is questionable whether or not he initiated contact with his the crown but he clearly goes in head down and when in doubt the flag comes out.  They have a specific section about key indicators of a foul occuring and one of them is "Lowering the head before attacking by initiating contact with the crown of the helmet".  McDowell lowered his head.   They also have hints for players.  One of which is "Tackle: Heads-up and wrap-up".  McDowell did not do that.

BlueManballGroup

October 4th, 2016 at 2:13 PM ^

Yeah I thought it was a good call. There was an angle they showed on tv from behind the QB where McDowell pretty clearly lowers his head like a bull. And the initial contact is from the top of the helmet to the left side of the QB's ribs. The QB is at an angle so at the end of the tackle his shoulder hits the QB and his head has moved to the QB's left hip. That doesn't make it a tackle with the shoulder. The contact was intitiated with the crown of the helmet. Lowering your helmet to hit a QB in the ribcage as they throw should be targeting. I'm surprised so many people are not in agreement with that.

robpollard

October 4th, 2016 at 2:59 PM ^

It tries, but by not quoting the entire rule book, it doesn't clarify much.

The rule is confusing in spots, but it's simpler to read the actual rule book -- it makes McDowell's case easy (at least to me).

It simple -- don't hit a player with the top of your helmet when they are defenseless (as defined by the rule book).

I don't think that's even questionable in this case -- McDowell rams the top of his helmet into the midsection of the QB who has just thrown the ball.  The rule specifically mentions that you can't use the crown of your helmet and one of the "indicators" specifically states that a defenseless player is "A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass."  

That commentary (by Glen Mason?) in the gif is way off base and if the NCAA were smart (which it isn't), they'd educate these folks. Targeting involves far more than just helmet (or shoulder) to helmet hits.

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/FR17.pdf

Alumnus93

October 4th, 2016 at 2:04 PM ^

we will crush Iowa. The team and program is collectively annoyed about the money Ferentz got and that contract really brought out the unhappiness

sagard

October 4th, 2016 at 2:07 PM ^

There are two targeting rules. This whole situation would be solved if they just named them something else, but they're both "targeting."

 

9-3-1: No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.

This rule is intended to protect the targeter. The point is to discourage people from using their heads as weapons. It doesn't matter if you hit a chest, a foot, or a crotch. It's still targeting. This is the rule that McDowell was penalized under. Lowering your head makes it more likely that you will get called for this penalty, as you naturally lead with the crown of your head when you do so. 

9-4-1: Targeting and Initiating Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player

This rule is intended to protect the targetee. This is where "helmet-helmet" contact gets brought up. This is the part the Note explains. The Note does not refer to 9-3-1. 

 

It doesn't make sense to compare players who are ejected under these separate rules, as they are separate rules that tragically share the same name.

NRK

October 4th, 2016 at 3:27 PM ^

Yeah, that was a pretty big miss on Brian's part - if you read the rulebook (go here to get it here for free download: Link), this is discussed all over the place. In fact the very first Point of Emphasis reads as follows:

 

PROTECTION OF DEFENSELESS PLAYERS AND CROWN-OF HELMET
ACTION—In 2008, the committee introduced a separate rule prohibiting forcible contact with the helmet and targeting a defenseless opponent. These actions are now in two rules: Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown 6 (sic) of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3) and Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player (Rule 9-1-4). Use of the helmet as a weapon and intentional (targeted) contact to the head or neck area are serious safety concerns. The penalties for fouls under both 9-1-3 and 9-1-4 include automatic disqualification. The committee continues to emphasize that coaches and officials must be diligent to insure that players understand and abide by these rules.

(my emphasis)

They also give this example later on, which sounds exactly like the play McDowell got ejected for:

Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet—ARTICLE 3 Approved Ruling 9-1-3 I. Passer A12 inside the tackle box is looking for an open receiver.Before or just as he releases the ball, A12 is hit from the side at the ribs, thigh or knee by B79, who dives forward and leads withthe crown (top) of his helmet. This occurs in the (a) first half; (b)second half. RULING: Foul by B79 for targeting his opponent and initiating contact with the top of his helmet. 15 yards, first down. B79 is automatically disqualified (a) for the remainder of the game.(b) for the remainder of the game and the first half of the next game.

(my emphasis)

Space Coyote

October 4th, 2016 at 2:14 PM ^

Remember that Kicker that destroyed Lewis on a KR. Yeah, that wasn't the first time he did that. So when he went up against Minnesota, I guess someone decided to block him. That got the person kicked out of the game.

Space Coyote

October 4th, 2016 at 2:41 PM ^

And I guess to clarify, the player got tossed for unsportsmanlike conduct, not for targeting. So a little different, but I don't know how blocking a guy that is going downfield to make a big hit for the third week in a row or whatever is unsportsmanlike. If he doesn't wanna get hit he should stay back at the tee.

Space Coyote

October 4th, 2016 at 2:54 PM ^

The protection scheme doesn't know it's a touchback, the guy is still running downfield at the 25 yard line, where he's made a bunch of hits to date. It's a stupid call and only a call (especially the fact that the guy was ejected) because it's a kicker. But if a guy isn't acting like a typical kicker he shouldn't be protected like one. It's like when Michigan got a roughing the kicker flag last year for a guy that was threatening to take off and run.

robpollard

October 4th, 2016 at 3:06 PM ^

You can't "block" someone like that when the play is over.

Watch here -- you can hear the whistles being blown (it was a touchback), the other players slowing down and the Minnesota player was still at least 5 yards from the Penn State kicker. A second after the whistles were being blown, the Minn player levels him.

http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/video-penn-state-kicker-takes-vicious-hit-minnesota/