Jonas Mouton Suspended For Eastern

Submitted by Brian on September 18th, 2009 at 4:40 PM

Dave Revsine on the twitters:

Michigan's Jonas Mouton suspended one game for his actions last week vs. ND.

Okay, whatever, let's all move on.

Question: when did the conference get involved in these sorts of things, and can we retroactively suspend James Kamoku for a far more dangerous play?

Comments

StevieY19

September 18th, 2009 at 4:46 PM ^

I was in the camp all along that favored sitting Jonas for a half or an entire game, but not by the Big Ten.

1) They have let numerous other cheap shots go in the past.

and

2) This is going to lead to other moves like Charlie's where you complain about something in hopes of getting a guy suspended. I'm not saying everyone will do it, but I wouldn't put it past at least a couple coaches in this conference.

MileHighWolverine

September 18th, 2009 at 5:17 PM ^

While I agree this is a terrible precedent, RichRod should have taken care of it instead of ignoring it and forcing B10 officials to take control. Especially considering there was video showing very clearly an uppercut to the jaw. Doesn't matter that it was deserved, you cannot do that...EVER. Especially not after what happened in Boise to start the season - how dumb are you to throw a punch at an opposing player right now?

I love RichRod but this is all on him...like it or not, he had to discipline Mouton once the video came out, even if only for the sake of appearances. I cannot believe I am going to say this but here it is: this is Michigan, NOT West Fuckin Virgina!! We do not tolerate that type of behavior from our players. Holding ourselves to higher standards than our competition is one of the prime virtues of being a part of the University of Michigan and all that goes with it.

He should have taken care of it and now we look bad (again) because he didn't.

Seth

September 19th, 2009 at 6:51 AM ^

Also, can the Big Ten suspend players on Notre Dame?

I'm totally with you Stevie. From the moment I saw that video I thought RR should have sat him against Eastern. I know that game got chippy, and he was hardly alone, but RR's inaction is partly responsible for the Big Ten taking action. Now we are without Mouton for a game anyway, and we look like undisciplined goons.

I wouldn't say it's a huge strike, but I'm going to remember this if RR gets accused of discipline problems related to how his players act on the field.

Part of this transition, some have said, is that Michigan is in some ways becoming 'Da U'. There are some things about those teams, however, that will never be appropriate in college football. Guys can get aggressive within the context of the game, but extracurriculars draw penalties and scorn. The only upside could possibly being known as a tough team, but you can't get away with enough of this crap to establish that -- and if you do get known for it, the damage it will do in recruiting and in penalties and in unhappy alums cannot possibly offset the small rep effect.

That said, why is the Big Ten all of a sudden interested in coming down now? They've ignored so much of this crap forever, and now all of a sudden they're doling out punishments to individual players? As much as RR looks stupid for not handling it in-house (which would in the end have cost us nothing), the Big Ten looks even dumber for changing how they operate because Notre Dame's coach complains after the game.

Whom do we call about their guys head-hunting, or the shots to our guys? The NCAA?

NoFace

September 18th, 2009 at 5:00 PM ^

This was Charlie's doing. He said he sent the tape to the BT office, received a quick response from them, but preferred to keep their response private. I guess if the refs don't see it, the big ten is next in line to penalize the player, which makes sense.

EDIT: I don't know that you can really hold RR accountable for anything. I don't think any coach is actively looking for very subtle uppercuts by their players when they review the film. What RR did is what any coach would have done.

MileHighWolverine

September 18th, 2009 at 5:26 PM ^

once the Freep but a big flashing red arrow pointing to Mouton and then followed it up with a super slo-mo replay of the uppercut. Once that kind of stuff happens, the decision is out of RichRod's hands....he has to do something.

I love the guy but he is only hurting himself and giving his enemies more ammunition.

M-Go-Bleu

September 18th, 2009 at 4:50 PM ^

Doesn't even make sense. I mean logically why would the Big 10 conference, which has to be aware about the complaints Charlie "Wei-ner" made, add fuel to the fire. Basically, they are throwing the refs under the bus and RR as well.

tomhagan

September 18th, 2009 at 4:53 PM ^

The positives that can come out of this are a) get some younger players playing time and b) use this as a teaching lesson dont throw punches because you will sit out.

Section 1

September 18th, 2009 at 4:55 PM ^

...this draws a line beneath the whole, inconsequential episode, such that Mouton is not a target for Crable-type scrutiny in the future. But sadly, I doubt it.

I guess it is too late to get Tom Zbikowski of Notre Dame suspended for a game, for his stomping on that Geogia Tech lineman with his cleats. Is Zbikowski now playing in the Northern Manitoba Ultimate Fighting League? Do they have suspensions?

Papochronopolis

September 18th, 2009 at 4:58 PM ^

It must have been a tough decision for RR. Forget whether the Eastern game means anything or not. The type of physical play and aggressive mindset that led to the punch is what allows the defense to make plays, and you don't want that attitude to change. On the other hand, you don't want the conference overruling and going around you as a coach to punish players.

Asquaredroot

September 18th, 2009 at 4:59 PM ^

send video to the Pope of the attempted head shots by ND safeties on Forcier.

Will Weiss discipline his Lineman for attempting to blindside Mouton after the whistle had blown? Of the 2 incidents, which was closer to causing an injury - Mouton's punch or the Lineman's dirty play? The answer is obvious.

I only wish the Big Ten had made it public to everyone that they'll discipline Mouton, but it's up to Notre Dame to step up to the plate and take care of their own dirty play as well.

oldblue

September 18th, 2009 at 5:00 PM ^

This is why RR screwed up in downplaying, or rather, completely ignoring this incident with the press. Now he looks like a guy who doesn't care how out of control his players are and he looks like a guy to whom discipline does not matter. I think these are far from the truth, but he has only himself to blame this time. I am very disappointed that he did not see this possibility coming and head it off by taking control and ownership himself, no matter what he thought of the the guy who initiated the inquiry or the press memebers who persisted with it. I hope he shows better judgment next time.

Ernis

September 18th, 2009 at 5:51 PM ^

So, every time the media creates a shit storm out of some meaningless incident, Rich Rod should do what they say because he's scared of bad PR?

What kind of pusspot with no integrity or values do you want for a coach? Man, oh man.

It's embarrassing that the B10 stepped in.... yeah, because it reveals the degree to which they are the media's puppets.

MileHighWolverine

September 18th, 2009 at 6:03 PM ^

especially this year when we are not 3 weeks removed from seeing a kid get suspended for the season for punching an opposing player.

And let's get real here for a second . . . there is no excuse for punching an opposing player. There is nothing to be gained from it and there is a lot to be lost. It is a stupid move that is indefensible.

bklein09

September 18th, 2009 at 5:02 PM ^

1) It is a direct result of Charlie Weis's complaints. Period. Nothing would have come of this if it were not for Weis being a HUGE (literally and metaphorically) tool.

2) More negative media. Ugh.

3) Has this happened before in the Big Ten? Ever?

Side Notes:

I think they should suspend Charles Woodson and David Boston for three days of life for their fisticuffs in the late 90s.

I hope the team takes this as just one more log on the "us against the world" fire that is burning in their souls.

Let move on and forget this BS. At least it will give us a chance to get some of our backups more experience and see what they can do.

Isaac Newton

September 18th, 2009 at 10:11 PM ^

There is no chance that the BT will lose ND from the schedules of Purdue, MSU, or UM. ND has played Purdue every year since 1946, there contract runs out in 2015 and they're discussing moving to every other year. They've played MSU damn near every year for longer. I got tired of looking for the MSU/ND contract, but I'm confident those two will continue to play each other regularly. And UM and ND just signed a new 20 year contract. By the time those 20 years are out, hell even the six years till Purdue's contract runs out; this little incident will be long forgotten.

madvillian

September 18th, 2009 at 5:09 PM ^

This is unreal. If you watch every game close enough there are at least 5-10 plays where guys are pushing and shoving (and yes, "punching" long after the whistle blows.

To single out this relatively benign action is beyond dumb.

This is an outrage IMO. The B10 has seriously over stepped its boundaries.

I frankly agree with Rich Rod -- there is no punch. I played football at a fairly high level in High School and this stuff happened multiple times every.single.game.

That's the nature of the game, I assume it's even worse in college.

Now, the real play that could have resulted in a serious life altering injury on that play was the block in the back, not the "punch"

I'll say it again: an outrage and a joke.

Shock G

September 18th, 2009 at 6:35 PM ^

So leading with your head and hitting your opponent about the helmet (read: personal foul) shouldn't be a suspendable offense? The NFL fines and suspends people for this all the time and the Big Ten has stated they will start suspending people for this offense, whether it's flagged on the field or not.

http://www.elevenwarriors.com/2009/08/jay-valai-might-have-to-slow-down…

Justifying Mouton's actions as not being suspendable because it's equal to the Reynolds suspension is bogus as well.

Fact of the matter is, it's a suspendable offense and it would have looked a lot better on Rich to have done it himself; hell, it's only EMU coming down the street anyway.

wlvrine

September 18th, 2009 at 7:02 PM ^

To clarify: punches and shoving matches happen all of the time in football at every level. When they do they are flagged for personal fouls. Yardages are marked off and everybody resumes play. Unless the refs think the foul was severe enough, the guilty players do not get immediatly suspended from the game. Nor do they get suspended in subsequent games.
This only happened because there was no foul called and ND felt compelled to "not complain about it"
If the call was properly called a personal foul, there would be no suspension.

Shock G

September 18th, 2009 at 7:52 PM ^

I'm aware of what happens during the game. Playing and breaking down tape have led me to have a firm understanding of the dirt that goes on during the game.

Fact of the matter is this ... new rules are in place and said rules are being evaluated, and apparently suspensions are being doled out.

Dude punched an opponent, just because other things happen during the course of the game doesn't make Mouton's actions any better. Justifying someone's wrongs just because other's also make similar mistakes is adolescent at best.

If everyone else jumps off a bridge ..... /cliche

bklein09

September 18th, 2009 at 5:16 PM ^

As far as RR goes, I have to disagree with anyone who is disappointed in how he handled this situation. Sure, from a PR standpoint it reflects negatively on RR that the Big Ten had to step in. But what about from a player standpoint?

One of the biggest results of the Dolphin Puncher's article was that it made RR look like an evil tyrant that sacrificed his players well-being for the sake of winning. Now we obviously know this isn't the case, but to recruits and parents of recruits who drank the free press koolaide it could create problems down the road.

IMO, if RR came out right away and suspended Mouton when there was no real precedent for something like that, it would only help to support the perception that RR is not a players coach. I think RR is every bit a player's coach. And by forcing the Big Ten to be the one to take action, he showed Mouton and a bunch of recruits that he stands by his players.

Now, a bunch of you might strongly disagree what I just said, but to simplify my argument: Who would we rather have not like RR, the media (like Jim Rome) or the players? I know what my answer is.

*Disclaimer: My argument here is not to condone what Mouton did, but rather to support the way in which RR handled the situation.

mejunglechop

September 18th, 2009 at 7:49 PM ^

IMO, if RR came out right away and suspended Mouton when there was no real precedent for something like that, it would only help to support the perception that RR is not a players coach.

There is certainly precedent for a coach suspending a player punching an opponent. Also where do you get the idea that players will dislike it if their coach punishes a teammate when he punches an opponent? On any team I've ever been on my team would probably think the player got what he had coming. And seriously, tell me what recruit is going to look at this and say, "well maybe Rodriguez overworks his players, but he definitely lets them punch their opponents w/out reprisal. I guess he might be someone I'd like to play for after all." Do we even want this recruit on our team?

Who would we rather have not like RR, the media (like Jim Rome) or the players? I know what my answer is.

This is a false choice. What's with the assumption that either one or the other is destined to dislike us? I guess because what you said was popular (I don't understand how), I should brace for negbang.

Seth

September 19th, 2009 at 7:20 AM ^

I think for anyone who has watched RR since he got to Ann Arbor, the notion that he's not a players coach is simply ridiculous. I can't imagine any recruit really caring whether or not players get suspended for punching other guys during a game. They have all played high school ball, and know what's tolerated in football and what isn't. There's nothing that Mouton did with that hit that helps the team. If RR sits him for Eastern, the punishment is minimal, and recruits never hear about it.

The Freep article wasn't about him being bad to his players, but about catching Michigan in violations. That was the entire interest. Even before the tearful address, public perception never really imagined RR as a player-hater -- the outcries came from journalists trying to protect one of their one, and known RR haters who wanted to nail the sonofabitch, and Spartan fans who can't name more than two players on their own team because of their obsession with Michigan schadenfreude. That was it. Anyone with any football knowledge thought it was a joke to begin with, and a witch hunt after a few days.

RR doesn't need to prove himself a "player's coach" anymore than Lloyd has to prove himself a good man or Reagan a good public speaker. This is known.

He does need to prove to the crotchety old Michigan fan base that his football team will keep at least a semblance of the impeccable program that we have so haughtily lauded for so long.

I wouldn't read too much into there being "no precedent" for this kind of thing. How long has it been now that most fans can get high-resolution video for free of entire games? This has got to be the first season that any old Joe can get that stuff this easily. So now we are going to notice more, because more people have access to video after the game, and can share it quicker. We're in uncharted territory -- of course there's going to be some new precedents set!

brendandavis22

September 18th, 2009 at 5:16 PM ^

I think the big ten is going to be getting tapes of all kinds of stuff from now on. What is to stop a team from sending in tapes of next weeks opposition in attempts to get players suspended? I hope RR doesn't do it but I could see BB, MD and PF doing it. More of Andy's kid I guess...

JamieH

September 18th, 2009 at 5:21 PM ^

So, apparently the Big Ten feels that the punishment for what Mouton did and trying to kill the opposing QB by asphyxiation should be identical?

I don't disagree that Mouton should have been punished. He took a swing at the guy and hit him, even if it wasn't all that hard. But when what Reynolds did was only a game suspension, this should have been equal to about a one quarter suspension.

If Mouton gets a game, Reynolds should have been out for the season. But of course, Jim Delany would never do something that actually made sense.

madvillian

September 18th, 2009 at 5:47 PM ^

I'm sick of it. It's like he also kicks puppies and pushes old ladies into puddles on his way to the big house on saturdays.

My god. This frankly wouldn't have happened before the level of obsession that the internet now allows fans. I'm sure a billion nd nation idiots sent the tape to the B10 and Weiss probably did to after getting emails about it.

You have all these people, who don't know shit about running a BCS contending football team, and in general have no idea how dirty of a game football can be pontificating from on high about how dirty RR is.

I'm mad as hell. I hope we wipe the floor with EMU and then do the same with all the rest of the schedule. I am taking a bunker mentality at this point.

tn wolverine

September 18th, 2009 at 10:32 PM ^

The fact Tressel was able to sit Reynolds for only one game when he criminally attacked someone was ludacris. This pales in comparison, I agree there should be a punishment but the Big Ten has no business butting in, that's Rich Rod's job. He should handle it his own way.

chitownblue2

September 18th, 2009 at 6:12 PM ^

Point conceded. That's really odd. Could it be the whole NCAA "sportsmanship" initiative? I mean, Blount just got suspended for the entire year for cold-cocking another player. I realize that one is in the game, vs. "handshake time" but the penalties are also significantly different.

Regardless, I, morally, don't have a huge problem with him getting a one game suspension for punching someone in the jaw.

jblaze

September 18th, 2009 at 6:09 PM ^

The point is not whether he is punished or not, but who does the punishing and why.

The B10 comes down 1 day before the next game, after whining by Weis. What does this mean? Maybe the B10 refs missed other plays and was "biased" against ND, like Weis' other accusations. Moreover, what precedent does the B10 have in suspending players for non-calls on the field? Who decided 1 game? Why? Why was this brought out on a Twitter account?

This makes the B10 look much worse than Michigan.

They could have privately asked RR to sit Mouton for 1 game.