Timing on MSU suspensions

Submitted by Section 1 on October 18th, 2011 at 4:05 PM

First, some meta-stuff.

I realize there are a lot of threads on this topic.  Reflective of very large interest, they all get rather large and filled up in a short period of time.  So I am not particularly sorry about starting another one.

Second, for reasons that I'll get into, I think that there is some urgency with the issue of public pressure being exerted on Jim Delany, Bill Carollo and the B1G offices, to act on suspensions of William Gholston and Marcus Rush.

Developments of the last couple of hours are that Mark Hollis has issued a statement saying that MSU is looking into the matters:


And then Mark Dantonio did his usual Tuesday presser and said that they were, uh, looking into the matters:


The news on both of those fronts is that MSU did not use the day to preemptively suspend Gholston for one game (which, by any reasonable account is inevitable), which is something I feared.  I had a bad feeling, that a fast announcement of a one-game suspension of Gholston might end the entire matter, cutting off debate about additional games for a Gholston suspension, and a suspension of Marcus Rush as well.

Now, a new Spartan strategy may be emerging:  Delay.  Put off the Notice/Response/Appeal/Et cetera timeline until such time as they can string it out so that their starters on defense can all be available for Wisconsin, and maybe even foul things off until Sparty hosts Minnesota in 17 days.

Many of you will have seen Adam Rittenberg's online column about the B1G protocols for unsportslike behavior investigations. 


I confess, it threw me when I first read it.  Because I distinctly recall no such protocol when Jonas Mouton was suddenly and summarily suspended by the Conference, on a Thursday before a Saturday game.  Michigan did not appeal or object.  But I never thought that we could appeal or object.

Then it occurred to me; at the time of the Mouton supsension, the first of its kind that most of us could recall in the Conference, many of us (I know I did) commented that it was such a crappy ad hoc affair, that the Conference would have to set out some clear guidelines for future cases.  And in fact, I now think that the Conference Rules that Rittenberg pointed everybody to were rules that Delany cooked up in response to the observations about how irregular the Mouton suspension was.  That is, they post-date the Mouton suspension.

And they might now give Sparty a chance to delay and obfuscate things until Wisconsin and perhaps even Nebraska have passed.

Now this is even worse than an attempt by Dantonio to confine the damage to Gholston (and keep Marcus Rush on the field).  Dantonio and Hollis might be trying to foul off any player discipline to the week of Nebraska or even Minnesota.

This should only increase the public stink over this mess.  Call Jim Delany's office, and let him know about your concerns.

(847) 696-1010





C _Roh

October 18th, 2011 at 5:51 PM ^

Please do not forget to lobby for the suspensions of Craig Roh for trying to snap Edwin Baker's head off after the end of the play while a ref is watching as well as Jordan Kovacs for trying to rip of the head of Dan Persa.

C _Roh

October 18th, 2011 at 6:02 PM ^

Clearly jumping on somebody's head and ripping their helmet off by their facemask is not nearly as bad as tackling a quarterback 10ths of a second after he releases a pass. This entire board is delusions. You are the biggest bunch of sore losers. Pathetic.


October 18th, 2011 at 6:50 PM ^

The amount of violence involved with these plays is something that we could spend hours and hours debating.


For example, I contend that while yes, Kovacs did grab Persa's facemask, the nature of the helmet and the fact that it came off was far less dangerous than twisting the helmet around with someone's head in it. Also, watching that play live, it seemed to me that because Persa ducked, it was more that Kovacs' hand ended up on his facemask rather than a blatant attempt to grab it. I would also argue that while Roh's play wasn't the cleanest in the world, I would say that Gholston's facemask on Denard was, again, considerably worse. And EVEN if you argued that Roy Roundtree was just as violent, I'd argue that they were grappling - rather than lying on the bottom of a pile.

On top of that, you are looking at incidents by three separate players - Roundtree, Kovacs and Roh. Whereas, with Gholston - one is an incident, two is a trend, and three is assault. Fuck that guy.

double blue

October 18th, 2011 at 7:02 PM ^

Baker is not at the bottom of a pile after a play has been whistled dead where Roh comes in w the only intent to injure. He is in the act of tackling him solo.
<br>Peres ducked and got hit. The play was whistled dead because the helmet came off not after.
<br>Logic must not be taught at msu.


October 18th, 2011 at 7:13 PM ^

That's a still photo.  We can't tell from that photo if Roh's hand pulled his facemask or if it just happened to be there when the camera flashed.  Given that the official standing right next to him didn't throw a flag, I'm guessing this "infraction" was less than Gholston-esque.


October 18th, 2011 at 6:06 PM ^

I actually would rather the whole process did get delayed a week.  Wisconsin is gonna smoke them regardless.  Nebraska would be a tighter battle and they'll need Gholston to put them over the top. Let them shoot themselves in the foot by pussyfooting around.

Section 1

October 18th, 2011 at 6:24 PM ^

I'm not personally predicting a two-game suspension for Gholston, but others have.  And indeed, looking at his crime spree on Saturday, I think that there is an excellent case to be made for a two-game suspension for Gholston.

And that case, for a two-game suspension for Gholston, might go something like this;  "Mr. Delany, Mr. Carollo; let's presume that an incident like one of the Gholston infractions happens with 1:15 remaining in the third quarter.  And the player is immediately ejected.  Would that 17-minute ejection constitute the player's entire suspension from play?  Or would we add another entire game?  I would suggest that we should make this message be that if you do things like this, you will be ejected, and if not, suspended for more than one game when there is a clear intent to injure, and when there are multiple fouls."

So what I don't want to happen, is to have Gholston get a two-game suspension and have one of them be Minnesota.  Let's get Gholston suspended, now, and worry about Nebraska later.


October 18th, 2011 at 6:31 PM ^

and I normally don't favor a player being suspended. However, when a guy tries to twist a players head off and that same player throws a punch a suspension should be automatic.


October 18th, 2011 at 6:42 PM ^

If Jonas Mouton gets one then Gholston should get two from his two plays.  For those of you that watched CFL Matt Millen was saying that it was a harmless play and Chris Fowler was like what the hell.


October 18th, 2011 at 7:30 PM ^

Link to the CFL video you're talking about: Herbie and Millen on MSU's William Gholston

So Millen claims that helmet twist goes on all the time in the NFL? Is that true?

What surprises me is that players think they can get away with this kind of stuff when there are HD cameras filming games from every angle now. That wasn't the case two decades ago when Millen was playing.


October 18th, 2011 at 6:51 PM ^


There was a third Gholston incident that did not get called, and another assault on Denard - If you watch early in the 4th quarter maybe about 11-12 minutes left? Gholston sacks Denard.  After Denard is clearly down for a few seconds, he pulls on the back of Denards pads, pulling Denard onto his neck and roll his hips over Denard - purposely trying to again hurt Denards neck.  Check the video yourself to see.


October 18th, 2011 at 6:55 PM ^

People ought to be calling what happened what it actually was.

Forget the punch, that happens. For that, Gholston should have been ejected from the game, regardless of what might have been said to him that hurt his feelings.

Clearly, Gholston was intent on causing injuries.

Not once, but repeatedly;

1- Coming into a pile knee first at Denard was an intent to do injury.

2- Twisting Denard's helmet was an intent to do injury.

3- Then, what was done to Taylor Lewan's arm was an intent to do injury.

Intent to cause injury ought to be taken as serious.

These are reasons enough that Gholston ought to be banned from playing sports at any school.


October 18th, 2011 at 7:05 PM ^

In one of the threads yesterday I posted this exact same thought.....somehow they will delay the suspension until after the Wisconsin game. This is right out of the Jim Tressel playbook with Tat Gate and the Sugar Bowl. Jim Delaney could have stepped in then and he didn't do it. He's not going to do it now. He cares more about possibly having a 'good game' than what is doing the right thing. 

The B1G should have a standard rule: you throw a punch, landed or not landed, you're ejected from that game and suspended the next. No appeals. If Mike Martin or Denard Robinson did it the week before playing Ohio, I would feel the same way. Sorry....you screwed up now. Face the consequences. 


October 18th, 2011 at 7:29 PM ^

 "If Mike Martin or Denard Robinson did it the week before playing Ohio, I would feel the same way. Sorry....you screwed up now. Face the consequences."

I understand opposing fans think I am just emotional and I truly don't believe this.

Seriously, I do.  If you break the rules, you don't play and if you don't weigh in, you don't wraaastle.  Simple as that.

Beavercreek Blue

October 18th, 2011 at 9:30 PM ^

As I do not agree with Ghoulston's play no one on here can do anything about it. So move on and cheer for your team. Quit with the pull Denard lines and play Gardner. It's one loss and Michigan got beat by a bigger and stronger team. Michigan did however play close most of the game which is an improvement from prior years. Most of you said at the beginning of the year you would be happy with 8-4 who did you expect them to lose to?


October 18th, 2011 at 7:34 PM ^

Section1 is the only one who has even suggested a suspension for Rush.

The crazy bastard is trying to turn this into another one of his crusades.


October 18th, 2011 at 8:13 PM ^

That is patently false pandering. Either people in Bolivia are oblivious or you are purporting a straw man of Neanderthal proportions. I personally have read more than twenty suggestions that Marcus Rush should be included. 

This clip clearly displays intent to injure: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21qTQUXi8gc

Intent to injure is not something that can be tolerated in any sport, especially after the play. Michigan fans would not be complaining if Denard had been injured with the ball in his hands during a live play as long as the hit was clean. If Worthy buried him under the ground during live action, nobody would be complaining (except perhaps us about our offensive line). Nobody would be suspended. Obviously, this is not the case. 

Other notable cases of intent to injure that have not received enough attention: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1MS_rmh5Qc&feature=related


The first clip is not nearly as bad as the second. Worthy got too aggressive after the play, but he did not really do anything that would normally injure a player. The second, however, is disgusting and does not belong in sports. 



October 18th, 2011 at 10:11 PM ^

Shortly, after Gholston intentionally twisted the helmet and neck of Denard, then laid out as if nothing happened,

Rush sacked Denard and did basically the same thing.  Look at the other Rush hits and actions after his hits and sacks, then review the last hit where he intentionally intended to harm Denard by piledriving  his head into the turf  after the initial sack.

These actions taken as a whole may lead to a game suspension.  Yes, it is football.  Yes, the object may be to knockout a key player from the game, but it does cross the line where the actions may cause harm to a player   -- especially a quarterback  ---  college or pro.  In the pros, a fine may be levied,  in college it may be a game suspension.


As to the Gholston Twist,  that is not football and with the punch, he may be suspended for both the Wisc. and Neb. games.


October 18th, 2011 at 7:47 PM ^

If you take a closer look at the initial hit Rush put on Denard, he karate chopped Denard's neck with both hands.

Watch the open area between Denards shoulder pads and the base of his helmet - the MF'er was trying to break Denard's collarbones. Seriously, take another look at the initial "strike" - it's two open handed karate chops to the exposed base of his neck - and THEN he wraps him up and throws him down.

It's not the take down that injured Denard - IT WAS THE CHOPS TO THE NECK!!!