October 10th, 2015 at 5:49 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 10th, 2015 at 5:49 PM ^
The rule sucks tho
October 10th, 2015 at 5:52 PM ^
I felt like it was mostly called by the rule, but maybe the rules need to be changed a bit. That being said I would think it was a better rule if it was against Northwester, because I'm an unabashed homer.
October 10th, 2015 at 7:02 PM ^
My understanding of the rule is that targeting requires leading with the crown of the helmet, and it looked to me like it was face-to-face.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
October 10th, 2015 at 6:58 PM ^
hit Rudock when he was down and then he was hit by a second guy. It's bullshit that they reversed the other call. Ross had no intent to injure. This rule needs to be changed. Total bullshit that this young man has to sit out half of the MSU game.
October 10th, 2015 at 5:50 PM ^
October 10th, 2015 at 5:50 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 10th, 2015 at 6:15 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 10th, 2015 at 7:28 PM ^
It's possible to appeal this I think. I'd be surprised if this isn't appealed and overturned. it's pretty clear he was trying to back off and the only reason it's high is becasue the NW guy is small.
October 10th, 2015 at 5:50 PM ^
What kind of reaction do you think you're going to get on this board? 5 minutes after the call?
And why couldn't you ask in the open thread?
Questions answer a question...don't you love me? See, another question.
October 10th, 2015 at 5:54 PM ^
I don't want a reaction, I generally want to view whether or not the members of this blog felt this was a reasonable call or not.
I didn't ask on the open thread because I was looking for a higher range of answers.
October 10th, 2015 at 6:08 PM ^
My point was...why would you ask a Michigan board 5 minutes after it happened?
Do you think you're going to get a bunch of rational, deep thought?
If you really wanted a genuine answer to your question...you would've asked it at a time when you could've gotten an objective answer.
October 10th, 2015 at 6:14 PM ^
October 10th, 2015 at 5:51 PM ^
Turrible call.
October 10th, 2015 at 5:51 PM ^
The hit didn't look egregious but the rule is the rule and he had time to pull back. It's probably the weakest targeting hit I've ever seen upheld though.
October 10th, 2015 at 5:51 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 10th, 2015 at 5:52 PM ^
Seemed pretty much text book targeting. Clearly defenseless receiver, clearly hit him helmet to helmet. Doesn't mean there was ill intent, but if that's not targeting there's no such thing.
October 10th, 2015 at 6:31 PM ^
My issue is that earlier Rudock already had his butt on the turf and the defender clearly leads with the helmet, and hits Rudock helmet-to-helmet. Why was that pulled back and Ross' penalty not?
October 10th, 2015 at 5:52 PM ^
Harbaugh will challenge this call over the week. Book it.
October 10th, 2015 at 5:52 PM ^
Hope it doesn't hurt us next game.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 10th, 2015 at 5:53 PM ^
It was the right call. Just wish they made the right call against the NW player who hit Rudock.
October 10th, 2015 at 5:54 PM ^
October 10th, 2015 at 5:59 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 10th, 2015 at 6:29 PM ^
October 10th, 2015 at 6:00 PM ^
forgive the op, he is slow
October 10th, 2015 at 6:02 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 10th, 2015 at 6:28 PM ^
October 10th, 2015 at 5:55 PM ^
October 10th, 2015 at 8:51 PM ^
October 10th, 2015 at 5:55 PM ^
It was marginal. Penalty, maybe.......but the ejection seems ridiculous.
October 10th, 2015 at 5:55 PM ^
He left his feet. Was around the head. Ball was gone. I don't think it's so immoral that his soul is in danger, but yeah I think it qualifies.
I don't get hitting a quarterback sliding with the crown of the helmet in the QB's helmet and it not only not getting targeting but not even 15 yards.
At least we won't have to listen to NW saying they were robbed of anything.
October 10th, 2015 at 5:56 PM ^
Can we appeal? This seems like something that should be decided by someone other than the replay ref.
October 10th, 2015 at 5:58 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 10th, 2015 at 5:57 PM ^
Targeting in general needs to be reviewed by the rules committee. The spirit of the rule has been infected with fear of head trauma. It's being applied erroneously and it sucks.
October 10th, 2015 at 5:56 PM ^
October 10th, 2015 at 5:56 PM ^
October 10th, 2015 at 5:57 PM ^
After looking at it again, it probably was targeting, but man. What are you supposed to do if your the LB there?
October 10th, 2015 at 6:00 PM ^
October 10th, 2015 at 6:04 PM ^
Watch it again. His feet never leave the ground.
October 10th, 2015 at 6:00 PM ^
I think I'm glad Morgan was red shirted last year.
October 10th, 2015 at 6:01 PM ^
October 10th, 2015 at 6:01 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 10th, 2015 at 6:02 PM ^
The rule needs some nuance. Not every head-to-head hit warrants an ejection and suspension.
October 10th, 2015 at 6:12 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 10th, 2015 at 6:18 PM ^
Exactly. This is similar to the NCAA basketball rule on all contact to the head. Definitely seems like there should be more latitude given to the defender based on intent to injure vs playing hard through the whistle. We watch the play in slow-mo, but it never happens that way in real time.
October 10th, 2015 at 6:04 PM ^
I thought the reversed call on NU was a terrible piece of refereeing, but not because the call was reversed. They didn't call the second guy to jump on Rudock for a personal foul, and they should have. I think they didn't call it because they were calling targeting. But once the targeting was overturned (which I thought was wrong by the rule but whatever), given that it wasn't a hard enough hit to also be a personal foul, the second foul needed to have been called.
October 10th, 2015 at 6:16 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 10th, 2015 at 6:16 PM ^
Thank you Mr. Horse. Have a bowl of kitty litter.