Wisc WR Rushing Calls Pass Interference on J. Lewis' Interception

Submitted by RakeFight on

Didn't see this posted.  Wisconsin WR George Rushing resorted to Twitter to imply Jourdan Lewis' magnificent interception should have never happened because of pass interference.

Lewis goes on to put Rushing in his place, "Just be happy you on ESPN..."

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/10/03/wisconsin-wr-george…

MGoBoard
Football
jourdan lewis

FauxMo

October 4th, 2016 at 5:11 PM ^

This is the first time in human history "oh dear" and "that shade" have been used in a sentence where the sentence didn't go something like, "Oh dear, the sun is very bright today, Betty, perhaps we can retire under that shade tree yonder with a nice glass of iced tea?" 

Joined: 06/17/2010

MGoPoints: 137610

Brhino

October 4th, 2016 at 4:24 PM ^

Hey guys I got some grapes from the store does anyone want some?

...

No wait guys don't eat the grapes, they are super sour.  Seriously why are these grapes so sour?  Weird.

Joined: 09/08/2009

MGoPoints: 19502

ppudge

October 4th, 2016 at 4:25 PM ^

Maybe he would have gotten an interference call if he had actually stopped running and come back to the underthrown ball. But since he's not that good, he just kept running.

Joined: 10/19/2008

MGoPoints: 11458

maizenbluenc

October 4th, 2016 at 5:33 PM ^

just re-watched the video this morning - Jourdan was turned looking at the ball and in the act of catching it. Rushing had just started to turn his head when Lewis pulled the ball in. I think his head turn was too late, he was a few steps too far downfield, and he would not have been able to catch it anyway.

Joined: 07/21/2009

MGoPoints: 10630

Squash34

October 4th, 2016 at 8:06 PM ^

Yep. Even if the wr actually slowed down and jumped for the ball and Lewis made contact while also going for the ball it's not pi because the defender has a right to go get it too. This kid is basically saying a hand on his hip is pi even if it is not doing anything to impede his route. Which is laughable and pretty week.

Joined: 09/13/2016

MGoPoints: 3062

jakeyjake5000

October 4th, 2016 at 5:30 PM ^

Huge Badger fan here.  Attended 27-10 and 13-10 losses in 1998 and 2000 at the Big House.  This point is exactly spot on.

As much as I wish they would've called holding on this play (which would've been the correct call, dude had his left arm hooked around Rushing's hip for a long time), the appropriate response is to grow some balls and do something about it.  A lot of times when receivers are dominated physically, they think they're getting interfered with.  And a lot of phyiscally dominating receivers get interfered with on every play.  Thing is, they still make the play.

On this play in particular, if he wasn't held, it would've simply been an easier INT.  So, in the competitive nature of the sport, the foul didn't cause the failure to convert the 4th down.  Now, if dude was overthrown by 10 yards while being held, that's a different story.  My hope is actually that refs try to make these sorts of judgements when calling or not calling a penalty, because frankly it's sickening when an offense is bailed out by an inconsequential action that by the book is a penalty.

As the rule is written, I think this should've been called a foul, but I don't think the outcome of the game would've changed, and there were probably 20+ opportunities for Badger players to make a play that might have actually impacted the outcome, and they didn't make them.  Even if they somehow tie it up on that drive (requiring a few more miracles), the only chance they'd have in overtime is a turnover, and even then they had no FG kicker, so it might have been scoreless for the first 6 OT's, before the refs awarded the victory to whomever could advance the ball past the 20 first.

Peace out, and see you again in December!

Joined: 10/04/2016

MGoPoints: 28

gbdub

October 4th, 2016 at 6:44 PM ^

Thing is - there is always some handfighting and holding. A still picture is useless, because unless there's obvious pulling, shoving, or otherwise redirecting a player, it is rarely ever called. From the picture, it's clear Lewis is mainly playing the ball, and has his other hand on the receiver to maintain contact while his eyes are off (and yeah, probably to trip Rushing when the ball gets there in case he makes the catch). But the ball was short and if anything Lewis "impeded" Rushing closer to the ball.

"As the rule is written, I think this should've been called a foul". As written, pass interference requires an "obvious" "intent to impede" the receiver's opportunity to catch a legal forward pass. A hand on the forward hip for an underthrown ball is hardly obvious impeding, short of shoving or spinning Rushing. Incidental contact when both players are playing the ball is also legal. The main thing is that Lewis clearly wasn't "disregarding the ball" - any contact he made with Rushing was a legal attempt to get to the pass (i.e. he didn't just run the guy over to keep him from coming back to the ball).

Joined: 02/16/2010

MGoPoints: 26761

Indiana Blue

October 5th, 2016 at 7:46 AM ^

that coverage would never be called holding.

also ... the fumble on the first drive WAS a fumble.  I re-watched and the ball carrier CLEARLY does not have the ball as you see his hand is NOT holding the football as he is going down.  

Finally ... unless UW-M beats ohio we'll see you next year.

Go Blue!

Joined: 09/19/2010

MGoPoints: 5677

mGrowOld

October 4th, 2016 at 4:25 PM ^

And I, MgrowOld of the bloggisphere, call all three of our field goal attempts in that game "good"!

So you can have your lousy 15 yard penalty Rushing - you're still down by 16 points to us late in our fantasy, hypothetical alternative universe.

Joined: 10/04/2010

MGoPoints: 213283