Joe Bolden: "Illegally Held and Thrown Upon Opposing Player" suspension.
Unfortunate that Bolden missed his final matchup with State due to this ridiculous call. Between the tent stake incident last season, and him firing up the crowd taking the long way around the stadium to the tunnel on Saturday- he has been involved in a couple of memorable moments in this rivalry.
While I agree that helmet to helmet hits need to be penalized, this incident and punishment was unwarranted. Can the team appeal this call to the league, and is it possible that the 2 quarter suspension be lifted?
October 19th, 2015 at 10:20 AM ^
He already served the two quarters so no.
October 19th, 2015 at 10:21 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 19th, 2015 at 10:22 AM ^
and then take that and a buck-ninety-nine to Starbucks for a small coffee.
October 19th, 2015 at 10:24 AM ^
But the result stood
October 19th, 2015 at 10:26 AM ^
I prefer the grande so i can get NINTY-SIX CENTS in change.
October 19th, 2015 at 10:27 AM ^
won't ackwoledge error. That is such a big issue right now that they will not double back on it. They know it was a botched call but they will not admit it, not on the targeting issue right now.
October 19th, 2015 at 10:23 AM ^
The team will send video of this along with other plays requesting review and clarification from the league, they do it every game. As others have pointed out, it can't and won't be overturned.
October 19th, 2015 at 11:12 AM ^
The B10 acknowleges errors but, as you say, cannot "overturn" them. The game is over and done with.
October 19th, 2015 at 10:26 AM ^
The B1G will apologize and say they messed the call up. If that makes you feel better, then whatever.
October 19th, 2015 at 12:13 PM ^
I'm sure the College Football Playoff commitee will take the the team with more B1G apologies into consideration over a team with, you know, more wins.
October 19th, 2015 at 10:26 AM ^
I don't have any problem with the MSU player's block. Also, Harbaugh indicated that he should have been penalized for blocking in the back, but since the two were already engaged, there shouldn't be a penalty for a block in the back.
It should simply have been a non-call.
October 19th, 2015 at 10:32 AM ^
during the replay review.
October 19th, 2015 at 10:34 AM ^
Agreed. I'm just saying that there shouldn't have been any penalty on Bolden or on the MSU lineman (Kieler? I don't remember) at all.
October 19th, 2015 at 11:16 AM ^
this is my issue. i get it that on the field it's hard to see everything when it's all moving at such a fast pace, but how in the world can the guy in the booth get it wrong so often?
October 19th, 2015 at 11:23 AM ^
Assess the 15 yards but drop the targeting.
October 19th, 2015 at 11:36 AM ^
If there was no targeting there was no PF. If there was no personal foul WTF penalize the team 15 yards? Exactly what is the penalty that requires 15 yards?
October 19th, 2015 at 11:42 AM ^
You could argue that Bolden hit the QB late, after he was in a protected slide. Although, if he was blocked into him, there's no foul.
I also found it interesting that they used "stands," not "confirmed," when discussing the replay. Apparently, there wasn't enough indisputable evidence to uphold the call of targeting -- which makes sense -- but neither was there enough indisputable evidence to overturn it. But that gets into a very bad area, because the referees are biased toward making the call, knowing that every targeting call is reviewed automatically. If the on-field official doesn't call targeting, and it actually occured, the replay booth can't fix the problem -- but if the official does call targeting, and it didn't occur, the replay official is supposed to correct the situation. So, you have a situation where the player is guilty until proven innocent, with the on-field official needing just an inkling that targeting might have occurred, and the reply official needing to see conclusive evidence that it didn't.
October 19th, 2015 at 12:25 PM ^
At ESPN, they described the targeting call as perhaps the worst call made by any official in any game so far this year, especially after the review. They said allowing the call to stand was inexcusable. And it was. It was perfectly clear to anyone who looked at that play with their eyes open - at least on replay - that the MSU tackle threw Bolden onto Cook. It is inexcusable that the call was allowed to stand.
It is also amazing to me that one official right next to Butt ruled the throw a catch and another across the field had authority to overrule the official standing right next to the play! How can that be allowed to happen???
October 19th, 2015 at 12:41 PM ^
October 19th, 2015 at 1:59 PM ^
he had $ on State.
October 19th, 2015 at 11:45 AM ^
There should have been no penalty whatsoever. None.
October 19th, 2015 at 11:52 AM ^
October 19th, 2015 at 12:42 PM ^
Just last week, they waved off the intent AND the penalty when Rudock got hit. And there, it certainly seemed like there was at least as much intent as Ross displayed.
October 19th, 2015 at 11:06 AM ^
It should have been a non-call but if there was a penalty on the play, it was offensive holding. 74 has both hands outside the shoulders of the engaged defender and has hold of Bolden's jersey and he then uses that engagement to control the defender, throwing Bolden to the ground. That is the definition of an offensive hold.
October 19th, 2015 at 11:13 AM ^
against Michigan, and I want some clarification. If they flagged you, then they ought to be abe to explain the calls. I know the officials discuss them after the game among their crew. They are evaluated by the league after each game by Bill Corrolla's office.
Looking at the targeting call, Cook is running and then makes a late decision to slide so once he starts his slide, he's protected from any kind of hit. Morgan looked like he might decapitate him, but he ducked his lunge, and it seemed as though Morgan was pulling back when he realized Cook was going down.
Then, Bolden gets pushed from behind and falls into Cook without really hitting him in the helmet, at least it didn't seem like a helmet to helmet hit.
I thought targeting the way it's supposed to be enforced requires a commitment by a defender to go for a high hit leading with the helmet. Not saying that Bolden didn't try to take advantage of his situation on the play, and lead with his helmet as he fell.
But if that's how it was judged, how do you make that decision based on intent? If he did, you'd really have to read his mind, because I don't see how you judge it otherwise,
This seems to be the intent of targeting that was called in his case by the calling official and then backed by review.
I mean, I noted this the other day, when Morris was concussed last year in the game against Minnesota, that hit to his head was never considered a targeting hit, and yet the defender launched himself and led with his helmet. The call wasn't made because the hit came after he released the ball and the white hat just ignored it. When Morris came up wobbly, I wondered how that wasn't a classic targeting case.
The problem is that application of this rule is hit and miss. We saw it in the Northwestern game in which Michigan didn't even get the benefit of the automatic markoff for a personal foul when targeting wasn't sustained by review. That is how fucked up the officiating of this call has been in just two weeks.
October 19th, 2015 at 3:52 PM ^
If targeting is reversed the flag is picked up.
October 19th, 2015 at 10:26 AM ^
Would Bolden have been on the field during the "punt"?
October 19th, 2015 at 10:51 AM ^
Maybe not but I bet he 100% would have been on the field for that blown assignment that gave up the long TD to the sparty fullback. That's your ballgame right there potentially.
October 19th, 2015 at 11:00 AM ^
Sure, but the assignment was Delano Hill's to blow and Bolden wouldn't have been playing in his stead.
October 19th, 2015 at 2:37 PM ^
There seems to be an issue as to whether Hill or Ross blew the coverage on that play. I don't know the answer, but if it was Ross, then Bolden might well have been the guy to cover the FB.
October 19th, 2015 at 11:19 AM ^
He also would have been on the field for their two rush TDs.
October 19th, 2015 at 10:27 AM ^
You didn't hear that the last 2.5 quarters are going to be replayed tomorrow at noon after the B1G overturned the call?
October 19th, 2015 at 10:27 AM ^
I watched the game with a group that contained a few State fans. Here was their take: It shouldn't have been a suspension, but should have been a penalty because Bolden didn't do all he could to not fall on Cook after being pushed into him by the OL.
So....yeah.
October 19th, 2015 at 10:30 AM ^
Yeah. he totally should have double tapped the jump button.
October 19th, 2015 at 11:08 AM ^
Maybe he could've used his force jump...
October 19th, 2015 at 10:31 AM ^
That is all.
Oh and I can't wait for the great fire that beautifies East Lansing next year when they get destroyed at home and the couch fires spread to apartments and houses. They're so screwed next year.
October 19th, 2015 at 10:30 AM ^
October 19th, 2015 at 10:33 AM ^
Yup. The referees on the field weren't great, but the replay referees have all the time in the world to make their decisions. No excuse.
October 19th, 2015 at 11:11 AM ^
I agree, but what's bizarre (and no, I don't think they were out to get us) is that when a bad call was made against State, replay overturned the bad calls. For example, that late sideline catch ruled incomplete then overturned; the first two goal line attemps ruled TDs and then overturned. The replay guys sure chose terrible moments to show competancy.
October 19th, 2015 at 10:54 AM ^
I can only assume the replay official must have concluded Bolden violated some letter of the rule. Like maybe he thought he could've turned his head and not gone facemask-to-facemask?
I dunno...grasping at straws. Trying to assume that the guy has a brain and is not in fact the world's biggest idiot
October 19th, 2015 at 10:35 AM ^
October 19th, 2015 at 10:38 AM ^
Yeah, I remember a horrendous replay review going our way 5+ years ago in this game (remember the TD where no feet were inbounds, one foot touched the pylon in the air, and they called it a catch and a TD?). It shouldn't be that hard to have replay officials who know what they're watching and know the rules. I mean, we had OSU's running back and a former MSU starting quarterback both chiming in on this one.
October 19th, 2015 at 11:28 AM ^
I'm pretty sure that the guy who made that call was actually the HEAD replay ref for the entire Big Ten conference. And that was just one in a series of ridiculously terrible calls that guy made over the years before he thankfully retired a few years back. He was correct on replay less often than a coin flip.
I've found that when you have a moron who doesn't know what he is doing in charge, he tends to hire people even worse than him to work under him. So you can imagine the quality of people he staffed up the Big Ten replay ranks with.
It was like he viewed the replay booth as a vacation or some sort of reward to give to long-term officials who weren't actually able to be competent on-field officials anymore, instead of actually going out and finding good people to put into that position.
October 19th, 2015 at 11:05 AM ^
Because they are friends with the people making those decisions. In many cases the guys in the booth are older officials who physically cannot run and keep up with the flow of a game on the field so they stick them upstairs.
And so sometimes their eyesight isnt what it used to be and frequently they arent exactly thrilled with overturning the call on the field made by their collegue.
It was a horenously bad call on the field and even worse when reviewed. And like somebody said - we'll send in the tape. The B1G will go "Whooops. Our bad. Soooorey!" and nothing else will happen.
October 19th, 2015 at 10:37 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 19th, 2015 at 10:38 AM ^
Does the replay official have the ability to overturn the "intent" portion of the penalty or is it strictly "did the crown of the helmet lead, or was there helmet to helmet contact?" I was wondering if this is why a replay booth upholds that call.
October 19th, 2015 at 10:43 AM ^
I'm wondering if the replay booth miscommunicated the player's number...meant to say 3 instead of 35. I thought the only possible target would have been on Morgan.
October 19th, 2015 at 11:37 AM ^
I agree -- we couldn't hear the number clearly, so during the entire replay sequence, we assumed that it was Desmond Morgan who was getting ejected, because his forearm may have struck Cook in the helmet. Of course, we were united in the opinion that Cook ducked, initiating the contact and making it impossible for Morgan to do anything else. We saw Bolden make contact at the end of the play -- we didn't see him get pushed, because we were all focused on Morgan and the in-stadium replay was a close-up anyway -- but it was so obviously not a foul that we were shocked when Bolden got ejected.
I just find it amusing (in a shoot-me sort of way) that in a Michigan / MSU game, somehow it's Michigan with an ejection and a late hit penalty, and MSU with a single chop block call (oh, and a four-yard unnecessary roughness penalty that got called on Michigan and then fixed on the field without a correcting announcement). Given Sparty's reputation, you'd think the officials would have been paying attention to make sure that their legendary "chippiness" didn't boil over into, say, tackling the quarterback by the facemask or anything.
October 19th, 2015 at 11:23 AM ^
if they are going to get that picky about it, there is helmet to helmet on almost every play.