ND v MSU - Implications
First, anyone see the Floyd catch where it was called no TD. I sure thought it looked like he caught the ball and potentially had two feet in. Anyone that knows that guidelines comment on why there isn't much noise about that reversal, yet there is on the play from last week.
It certainly looks like we are in for a dog fight at MSU. They clearly could have won the game today and here is hoping to them making the same kinds of mistakes against us, but it looks like they will certainly be our biggest challenge of the season (ND was big, but on the road in East Lansing looks tougher after watching that game).
September 20th, 2009 at 11:18 AM ^
Because they lost last week, and won this week. There is less reason to whine about a call when you win.
September 20th, 2009 at 11:25 AM ^
I'm pretty sure you have to keep possession of the ball the whole time. Floyd hit the ground and dropped the ball, which means it's not a TD.
September 20th, 2009 at 11:30 AM ^
Does that apply in the end zone?
If a runner jumps over the pile, holds the ball out to cross the goal line and then fumbles the ball, is it not usually ruled a TD?
The only thing I could think of in that particular play re: Floyd was that it appeared that the DB had his hand on the ball as well. Perhaps the ref deemed that Floyd never had SOLE possession of the ball in bounds.
September 20th, 2009 at 11:37 AM ^
Runner's crossing the plane have possession already when the plane is broken, that is why they can fumble, once the ball has crossed the goalline, it is a deadball. A receiver, otoh, has to demonstrate possession, even after landing in the endzone, in order for the play to be ruled a touchdown. Another way to think about it is the order of the play, on a running play, it is TD then fumble, on a catch, the order would be catch/incompletion then TD if caught. Since the ball popping out creates an incompletion, there is no chance for the TD call to be made.
September 20th, 2009 at 11:39 AM ^
The rule is that the ball must enter the endzone with the ball-carrier having established possession. A runner establishes possession pretty much immediately, unless he botches the handoff. A receiver must have possession when he hits the ground and retain possession after he hits the ground before going out-of-bounds. Floyd did not fully have possession after he landed in-bounds.
September 20th, 2009 at 11:43 AM ^
But If it's a mutual catch then the receiver is credited with the ball. Floyd hit the ground with both his knees down and still full possession of the ball. Rolls over on his back and gets up to celebrate as the ball is yanked out.
The ruling was no catch so w/e
September 20th, 2009 at 2:57 PM ^
I haven't seen the play, but the receiver has to maintain possession all the way to the ground.
September 20th, 2009 at 1:11 PM ^
but I saw Floyd hit the ground with possession, then the michigan stater knocked it loose. Not convincingly though, still thought it was a tough call against ND.
September 20th, 2009 at 11:35 AM ^
Floyd and the DB both had a hand on the ball. In general there is a default preference in favor of the receiver in these cases, but when the receiver loses the ball out of bounds that demonstrates that he did not have possession in the first place. There is also some aspect of the rule regarding cases where the receiver goes OOB as part of the act of catching and I believe the rule is that he must maintain control of the ball when he is out of bounds.
September 20th, 2009 at 11:35 AM ^
Comparative results are frequently useless.
September 20th, 2009 at 12:27 PM ^
I hate how definition of a penalty or catch seems to differ from conference to conference and even ref to ref.
September 20th, 2009 at 4:32 PM ^
Of course, if you joined a conference, then 10 of your games would be refereed consistently ( well, somewhat consistently ).
September 20th, 2009 at 5:53 PM ^
App State > Michigan > Florida == App State, best team in the country.
September 20th, 2009 at 11:42 AM ^
Man I hate this rule. You can poke the nose of the ball over the goal line, then get rocked by a defender and fumble, and it's a touchdown. You can catch the ball, get two feet in bounds, then fall to the ground out of bounds and have the defender rake the ball away from you, and it's not a touchdown. That is messed up.
Regardless, I was very impressed by MSU. So much so that I am almost afraid. But then I remember that ND played much of that game without Floyd and with only 75% of Jimmah! and I am less afraid.
But, give Sparty credit. They played hard and well for much of that game. I have faith that our version of the RR spread will score even more easily than CMU's version of the RR spread.
September 20th, 2009 at 11:49 AM ^
If, by rule, this wasn't a catch, the rule should change. 99 out of 100 reasonable people would look at that replay and declare it a catch.
I thought this call was as bad as the Cissoko pass interference against EMU.
September 20th, 2009 at 11:56 AM ^
I think Michigan State got very outplayed.
The score never got out of hand but they just seemed totally outmatched to me. Especially if the Floyd catch was ruled a touchdown I think MSU would've ended up getting blown out. Regardless, they had their chances late and blew them.
There are two way MSU can respond as I see it.
1) Go into Camp Randall and beat a 3-0 (albeit, possibly struggling) Wisconsin team, and actually gain some momentum, having regrouped after the defeat.
Or 2) Go into Camp Randall and lose -- be 1-3 on the season going against Michigan and make the Michigan game their entire season.
If Scenario 1 happens and they come into the Michigan game 2-2 I will be much more worried than if Scenario 2 happens and they come in to the game 1-3 on a 3-game losing streak.
I think MSU's season is largely going to be determined by next Saturday. If they lose to Wisconsin (whether it be a blowout or an MSU choke, or even just a close loss) then I think it will be mighty tough for them to salvage much out of this season. If they beat Wisconsin they could get some confidence back heading into the Michigan game and beyond, which COULD make them pretty dangerous.
September 20th, 2009 at 1:15 PM ^
I agree with the sentiment that a 1-3 MSU team will be more dangerous than a 2-2 team generally, but a rivalry game like this does not require any additional incentives for either side. I think the difference between this year and last is that MSU's bread-and-butter offense has relied on a strong running game, but so far this year they have had only moderate success running the ball. That puts the pressure squarely on Kousins to win in the air, and while White has been a good WR, the rest of the team has underwhelmed. It will be a good game, but I like UM's chances irrespective of MSU's record.
September 20th, 2009 at 1:46 PM ^
In my epinion, of course. A third straight last-second loss is going to be demoralizing and hard to overcome no matter how hard they're pumped up for Michigan. Any other outcome (assuming no serious injuries) is not as big a factor.
September 20th, 2009 at 12:22 PM ^
I think the State game will be just as difficult a win as the ND game.
September 20th, 2009 at 12:24 PM ^
Pretty sure the last line says "biggest challenge of the season"... really? I mean I know that OSU got beat by an overrated USC team but I think OSU and Penn State could be pretty tough games. Sparty does show some signs of life and they aren't someone who should be looked over. How they respond with Wisconsin is going to be big. I almost hope that they do win so that their whole season doesn't rest on the shoulders of our game. Good Talk
PS. Someone please tell Denard to stop throwing
September 20th, 2009 at 1:05 PM ^
Biggest Challenge to date (over ND). Clearly Penn State and OSU are long shots.
September 20th, 2009 at 1:47 PM ^
I don't want to take away from what MSU did, but I think its important to look at all the factors surrounding the game. Michigan State nearly won after Jimmy got injured and was clearly bothered by an ankle/toe injury, Notre Dame's top receiver broke his collar bone, Notre Dame had 99 yards in penalties, MSU needed an onside kick, and a trick play. If Notre Dame were to avoid the injuries, recover that onside kick, and cut the penalties in half, I don't think MSU is in that game.
Michigan and Michigan State is always a dog fight. It doesn't really matter if they are 1-3 or 2-2, the Michigan game is Michigan State's season. It is Michigan State's national championship. Dantonio has had an unhealthy obsession with Michigan since he arrived. It started with Michigan losing to Appalachian State and his comment at his post game presser about having a moment of silent for Michigan and progressed to the "little brother". I think both teams will play hard. Michigan State has not run the ball well this entire year. If Michigan can stop the MSU run and make them one dimensional, I don't think Kirk Cousins or Keith Nichol can beat them. I would take Donovan Warren over Blair White any day of the week.
September 20th, 2009 at 4:37 PM ^
Dantonio wants to beat Michigan to impress the folks back in Ohio. Ultimately, he wants to succeed Tressel. It won't matter if MSU is 1-3 or 2-2; Michigan will get everything MSU has, like always. A young Michigan team, on the road for the first time, will have its hands full.
September 20th, 2009 at 1:52 PM ^
Two games in a row now Sparty has self-destructed at the end of the game to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. That bodes well for us.
September 20th, 2009 at 4:03 PM ^
I think the Wisconsin game next week is HUGE for MSU. In the past we have seen them have a few tough losses and then self destruct for the rest of the season. I know they will play UM tough no matter what their record is, however losing to Wisky will not help their confidence going into the UM game. I think that many MSU fans felt like this year was going to be different. I believe they thought MSU was going to take a big step forward as far as consistently competing in the Big Ten. Here on the west side of the state there is a sports talk radio show host who is a huge MSU fan. I can't remember his name right now. He made some comments before the season began that UM fans better watch out and this year was going to be different, then he ended his comment by saying "little brother has been liftin." I remembered this during the game yesterday and was laughing about it. This comment struck as being stupid for a few reasons: 1.) If little brother has "been liftin" then it has been a horribly inefficient weight program. MSU lost seven in a row to UM before winning last year. So it took little brother seven years of liftin to make any progress. 2.) He basically just conceded MSU is the little brother by making this comment, even though MSU fans don't see things that way. Anyway, I want to listen to his show tomorrow to see what he has to say now. MSU vs UM will be a tough game, but if MSU loses to Wisky the may start to lose their confidence. It will be interesting to see what happens.
they are who we thought they were
September 20th, 2009 at 4:40 PM ^
he meant little brother has been (shop)liftin'?
September 20th, 2009 at 8:51 PM ^
I thought it was a TD because Floyd clearly got one foot down in bounds and maybe even two, but I think this is why he was ruled to not have possession.
From the NCAA rulebook:
"Airborne receiver A85 grasps a forward pass and in the process of going to the ground, first contacts the ground with his left foot as he falls to the ground inbounds. Immediately upon A85 hitting the ground, the ball comes loose and touches the ground. RULING: Incomplete pass. An airborne receiver must maintain control of the ball while going to the ground in the process of completing a catch."