FB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[Toby Taff]

I'll start by saying I don't believe UWW lost because of the punt return. In fact, I believe it was either a regretful (I mean regrettable) decision by the coaching staff to punt the ball in bounds or an unfortunately bad punt by the backup punter. Line drives punts to UMHB are dangerous. 

I was looking for a link to the post-game press conference and clicked on this highlight. 

At 26 seconds into this video, it's as blatant and I sure hope, inarguable as it gets.
https://www.ncaa.com/video/football/2018-12-08/diii-football-wisconsin-whitewater-mary-hardin-baylor-highlights

I dunno man. By definition, there needs to be contact to the back, so the blocker's left hand is the only possible culprit. I don't see much.

If you mean 56, he got blocked in the back by his own guy.

I'm talking about #25 on UMHB on lead UWW coverage guy #30. Are you suggesting #30 fell forward on his own?

It was close, but to me it looks like he got him mainly from the side with contact on the shoulder. 50/50 at worst.

I will start with the same disclaimer Emma made. This punt return is not why UW-W lost the game. Having said that, I agree with Emma (and somewhat with WW) on this. To me it is all about the left hand. Emma's instinct was correct about 30 not falling on his own. The end zone view of the play I saw showed a left hand push square in the middle of his back. It happened to two guys on his play. It happened to Ponick (#2) as well. In both cases, blockers initiated contact from the side (as Ret said 50/50). in both cases, immediately upon engagement, the blocker pushed the player with the left hand in the middle of the back. It's clever if you think about it. The officials eyes will be focused on the shoulder to determine whether contact was "in the back" or side. Is it coached? I have no idea, but it was eye opening to see two instances in the same return.

One thing for sure. If i were Coach Kehres at Mount, I would bring it up as something to watch for in the pregame meeting with the referee.

I'm no expert on physics or natural laws regarding bodies in motion staying in motion, yet, it seems to me that if #30 was hit on the side with the blockers helmet in front (not sure if this is part of the rule, it used to be what we coached though), then #30's momentum would have been directed sideways. 30 was contacted at the 17 yard line and landed at the 13 yard line-with his momentum moving mostly forward.

Either way, he's not making the tackle. I think UMHB must have had 14 guys on the field as it looks like there wasn't a single UWW player that was close to being in position to make the tackle.

I teach physics and chemistry and given forward momentum of the player i wouldn't conclude a hit from behind. he moves to his left on contact and takes a step before going down angled away from the point of contact. so there is both lateral and forward momentum. my guess is that he was probably running faster forward than the defense was laterally, and given that he wasn't decleated, but stayed in contact while moving forward the travel during the fall seems right.

[D O.C.]

 

[retagent]

I'll start by saying I don't believe UWW lost because of the punt return. In fact, I believe it was either a regretful (I mean regrettable) decision by the coaching staff to punt the ball in bounds or an unfortunately bad punt by the backup punter. Line drives punts to UMHB are dangerous. 

I was looking for a link to the post-game press conference and clicked on this highlight. 

At 26 seconds into this video, it's as blatant and I sure hope, inarguable as it gets.
https://www.ncaa.com/video/football/2018-12-08/diii-football-wisconsin-whitewater-mary-hardin-baylor-highlights

I dunno man. By definition, there needs to be contact to the back, so the blocker's left hand is the only possible culprit. I don't see much.

If you mean 56, he got blocked in the back by his own guy.

I'm talking about #25 on UMHB on lead UWW coverage guy #30. Are you suggesting #30 fell forward on his own?

It was close, but to me it looks like he got him mainly from the side with contact on the shoulder. 50/50 at worst.

I will start with the same disclaimer Emma made. This punt return is not why UW-W lost the game. Having said that, I agree with Emma (and somewhat with WW) on this. To me it is all about the left hand. Emma's instinct was correct about 30 not falling on his own. The end zone view of the play I saw showed a left hand push square in the middle of his back. It happened to two guys on his play. It happened to Ponick (#2) as well. In both cases, blockers initiated contact from the side (as Ret said 50/50). in both cases, immediately upon engagement, the blocker pushed the player with the left hand in the middle of the back. It's clever if you think about it. The officials eyes will be focused on the shoulder to determine whether contact was "in the back" or side. Is it coached? I have no idea, but it was eye opening to see two instances in the same return.

One thing for sure. If i were Coach Kehres at Mount, I would bring it up as something to watch for in the pregame meeting with the referee.

I'm no expert on physics or natural laws regarding bodies in motion staying in motion, yet, it seems to me that if #30 was hit on the side with the blockers helmet in front (not sure if this is part of the rule, it used to be what we coached though), then #30's momentum would have been directed sideways. 30 was contacted at the 17 yard line and landed at the 13 yard line-with his momentum moving mostly forward.

Either way, he's not making the tackle. I think UMHB must have had 14 guys on the field as it looks like there wasn't a single UWW player that was close to being in position to make the tackle.

I teach physics and chemistry and given forward momentum of the player i wouldn't conclude a hit from behind. he moves to his left on contact and takes a step before going down angled away from the point of contact. so there is both lateral and forward momentum. my guess is that he was probably running faster forward than the defense was laterally, and given that he wasn't decleated, but stayed in contact while moving forward the travel during the fall seems right.

Maybe if you threw in some vector arrows it might help D.O.C. out.

[HSCTiger74]

I'll start by saying I don't believe UWW lost because of the punt return. In fact, I believe it was either a regretful (I mean regrettable) decision by the coaching staff to punt the ball in bounds or an unfortunately bad punt by the backup punter. Line drives punts to UMHB are dangerous. 

I was looking for a link to the post-game press conference and clicked on this highlight. 

At 26 seconds into this video, it's as blatant and I sure hope, inarguable as it gets.
https://www.ncaa.com/video/football/2018-12-08/diii-football-wisconsin-whitewater-mary-hardin-baylor-highlights

I dunno man. By definition, there needs to be contact to the back, so the blocker's left hand is the only possible culprit. I don't see much.

If you mean 56, he got blocked in the back by his own guy.

I'm talking about #25 on UMHB on lead UWW coverage guy #30. Are you suggesting #30 fell forward on his own?

It was close, but to me it looks like he got him mainly from the side with contact on the shoulder. 50/50 at worst.

I will start with the same disclaimer Emma made. This punt return is not why UW-W lost the game. Having said that, I agree with Emma (and somewhat with WW) on this. To me it is all about the left hand. Emma's instinct was correct about 30 not falling on his own. The end zone view of the play I saw showed a left hand push square in the middle of his back. It happened to two guys on his play. It happened to Ponick (#2) as well. In both cases, blockers initiated contact from the side (as Ret said 50/50). in both cases, immediately upon engagement, the blocker pushed the player with the left hand in the middle of the back. It's clever if you think about it. The officials eyes will be focused on the shoulder to determine whether contact was "in the back" or side. Is it coached? I have no idea, but it was eye opening to see two instances in the same return.

One thing for sure. If i were Coach Kehres at Mount, I would bring it up as something to watch for in the pregame meeting with the referee.

I'm no expert on physics or natural laws regarding bodies in motion staying in motion, yet, it seems to me that if #30 was hit on the side with the blockers helmet in front (not sure if this is part of the rule, it used to be what we coached though), then #30's momentum would have been directed sideways. 30 was contacted at the 17 yard line and landed at the 13 yard line-with his momentum moving mostly forward.

Either way, he's not making the tackle. I think UMHB must have had 14 guys on the field as it looks like there wasn't a single UWW player that was close to being in position to make the tackle.

I teach physics and chemistry and given forward momentum of the player i wouldn't conclude a hit from behind. he moves to his left on contact and takes a step before going down angled away from the point of contact. so there is both lateral and forward momentum. my guess is that he was probably running faster forward than the defense was laterally, and given that he wasn't decleated, but stayed in contact while moving forward the travel during the fall seems right.

   That's exactly what I was thinking.   

[dachampishere]

I apologize in advance if this was covered back when it happen in September. However it looks like UW-Lacrosse and coach Schmidt will be going on his third OC in four years. The OC they hired last spring the week of the UW-Whitewater game was reassigned in the athletic department and therefore at that point prior to the game against UW-Whitewater was no longer with the program. None of the newspaper articles I found said why and for obvious reasons the university most likely could not comment on the situation. When I talked to two of my friends who work in the UW-System about this they said that didn't sound very good and the guy obviously did something so instead of firing him and making it a complete Sh$t show they reassigned him and fired him after the season.
Just curious if any of the other board members find this interesting or any of the Lacrosse faithful knew about this when it happened. Once again I apologize if this was indeed talked about back when it happen and I just missed it. As I was caring for my dad 24/7 and he passed away four weeks ago.

[Toby Taff]

I'll start by saying I don't believe UWW lost because of the punt return. In fact, I believe it was either a regretful (I mean regrettable) decision by the coaching staff to punt the ball in bounds or an unfortunately bad punt by the backup punter. Line drives punts to UMHB are dangerous. 

I was looking for a link to the post-game press conference and clicked on this highlight. 

At 26 seconds into this video, it's as blatant and I sure hope, inarguable as it gets.
https://www.ncaa.com/video/football/2018-12-08/diii-football-wisconsin-whitewater-mary-hardin-baylor-highlights

I dunno man. By definition, there needs to be contact to the back, so the blocker's left hand is the only possible culprit. I don't see much.

If you mean 56, he got blocked in the back by his own guy.

I'm talking about #25 on UMHB on lead UWW coverage guy #30. Are you suggesting #30 fell forward on his own?

It was close, but to me it looks like he got him mainly from the side with contact on the shoulder. 50/50 at worst.

I will start with the same disclaimer Emma made. This punt return is not why UW-W lost the game. Having said that, I agree with Emma (and somewhat with WW) on this. To me it is all about the left hand. Emma's instinct was correct about 30 not falling on his own. The end zone view of the play I saw showed a left hand push square in the middle of his back. It happened to two guys on his play. It happened to Ponick (#2) as well. In both cases, blockers initiated contact from the side (as Ret said 50/50). in both cases, immediately upon engagement, the blocker pushed the player with the left hand in the middle of the back. It's clever if you think about it. The officials eyes will be focused on the shoulder to determine whether contact was "in the back" or side. Is it coached? I have no idea, but it was eye opening to see two instances in the same return.

One thing for sure. If i were Coach Kehres at Mount, I would bring it up as something to watch for in the pregame meeting with the referee.

I'm no expert on physics or natural laws regarding bodies in motion staying in motion, yet, it seems to me that if #30 was hit on the side with the blockers helmet in front (not sure if this is part of the rule, it used to be what we coached though), then #30's momentum would have been directed sideways. 30 was contacted at the 17 yard line and landed at the 13 yard line-with his momentum moving mostly forward.

Either way, he's not making the tackle. I think UMHB must have had 14 guys on the field as it looks like there wasn't a single UWW player that was close to being in position to make the tackle.

I teach physics and chemistry and given forward momentum of the player i wouldn't conclude a hit from behind. he moves to his left on contact and takes a step before going down angled away from the point of contact. so there is both lateral and forward momentum. my guess is that he was probably running faster forward than the defense was laterally, and given that he wasn't decleated, but stayed in contact while moving forward the travel during the fall seems right.

Maybe if you threw in some vector arrows it might help D.O.C. out.

I would do diagrams but this message board is hard to upload to. 

[bleedpurple]

http://warhawkfootball.com/index.php?cID=363

[Toby Taff]

http://warhawkfootball.com/index.php?cID=363

If 1 was a block in the back it was Ponick from those pictures, but at speed i don't know.

[bleedpurple]

http://warhawkfootball.com/index.php?cID=363

If 1 was a block in the back it was Ponick from those pictures, but at speed i don't know.

Of course, no pictures can be absolutely conclusive. I've even seen videos that are extremely misleading. What they do show is that Ponick clearly lost stride as the CRU player extended his arm. But it is what it is. Good luck to the CRU. That was one physical game they just played.

[Toby Taff]

http://warhawkfootball.com/index.php?cID=363

If 1 was a block in the back it was Ponick from those pictures, but at speed i don't know.

Of course, no pictures can be absolutely conclusive. I've even seen videos that are extremely misleading. What they do show is that Ponick clearly lost stride as the CRU player extended his arm. But it is what it is. Good luck to the CRU. That was one physical game they just played.

We will see what attrition on our side of the bracket looks like

[bleedpurple]

http://warhawkfootball.com/index.php?cID=363

If 1 was a block in the back it was Ponick from those pictures, but at speed i don't know.

Of course, no pictures can be absolutely conclusive. I've even seen videos that are extremely misleading. What they do show is that Ponick clearly lost stride as the CRU player extended his arm. But it is what it is. Good luck to the CRU. That was one physical game they just played.

We will see what attrition on our side of the bracket looks like

Yes, the million dollar question. The upside of a challenging bracket is getting used to speed and physicality of elite teams, learn more about things to work on, etc.  The downside is the bumps and bruises that come along with it.

[bluenote]

What do you guys feed those big boys on the line? They look like they are corn feed? LMK! 

[emma17]

http://warhawkfootball.com/index.php?cID=363

If 1 was a block in the back it was Ponick from those pictures, but at speed i don't know.

Of course, no pictures can be absolutely conclusive. I've even seen videos that are extremely misleading. What they do show is that Ponick clearly lost stride as the CRU player extended his arm. But it is what it is. Good luck to the CRU. That was one physical game they just played.

We will see what attrition on our side of the bracket looks like

Toby, I hope you're not aware of any particular players that may not be able to go Friday as a result of the semifinal. No doubt many/most are playing through pain at this point, it would be great for UMHB to be as close to full strength as possible, especially in the skill positions.

[Toby Taff]

http://warhawkfootball.com/index.php?cID=363

If 1 was a block in the back it was Ponick from those pictures, but at speed i don't know.

Of course, no pictures can be absolutely conclusive. I've even seen videos that are extremely misleading. What they do show is that Ponick clearly lost stride as the CRU player extended his arm. But it is what it is. Good luck to the CRU. That was one physical game they just played.

We will see what attrition on our side of the bracket looks like

Toby, I hope you're not aware of any particular players that may not be able to go Friday as a result of the semifinal. No doubt many/most are playing through pain at this point, it would be great for UMHB to be as close to full strength as possible, especially in the skill positions.

DT took a helmet to the knee last week and we havent heard the MRI result, though coach said post game he thought he'd go. Hammack is banged up. We've had a few linemen in and out. Nothing specific, just I guess we'll see the impact

[bleedpurple]

http://warhawkfootball.com/index.php?cID=363

If 1 was a block in the back it was Ponick from those pictures, but at speed i don't know.

Of course, no pictures can be absolutely conclusive. I've even seen videos that are extremely misleading. What they do show is that Ponick clearly lost stride as the CRU player extended his arm. But it is what it is. Good luck to the CRU. That was one physical game they just played.

We will see what attrition on our side of the bracket looks like

Toby, I hope you're not aware of any particular players that may not be able to go Friday as a result of the semifinal. No doubt many/most are playing through pain at this point, it would be great for UMHB to be as close to full strength as possible, especially in the skill positions.

DT took a helmet to the knee last week and we havent heard the MRI result, though coach said post game he thought he'd go. Hammack is banged up. We've had a few linemen in and out. Nothing specific, just I guess we'll see the impact'

I could see Thomas being questionable. That hit was pretty brutal.