FB: Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[cobbernation]

Looking at the stats from the SJU/STO game.  Did meidt go for 2 in the first quarter or was it a botched snap?  Only asking because isn't STO's kicker all world?

Also, looks like the J's had trouble running the ball but ease passing it.  Is STO's front 4 and middle 3 pretty good at stopping the run?

[Willy Wonka]

To show that I'm not trying to single out the hated Oles, I'll offer up a different sort of direction for this board to take.

Bethel posters: It's been brought to my attention that you've received VERY fortunate calls each of the last two weeks. It could easily be argued that each directly affected the outcome of your games, turning losses into wins. I'd like to hear your take on the following situations, since they've ressurrected your once-dreadful season.

BU vs. UST: Facing a third-and-15ish (maybe fourth down, I forget now) late in the fourth quarter while trailing, B-Weezy lobbed up a deep pass that fell incomplete. However, a ref threw a flag for pass interference on a play I've heard described as a "phantom call."

The Royals scored the go-ahead touchdown a few plays later and recovered a UST fumble deep in their own territory with less than a minute to play to lock up the win. Without the highly questionable flag, a loss seems nearly inevitable.

GAC vs. BU: Facing a third-and-long (again, I think, as I wasn't there) the Royals fumbled near the sidelines sometime in the first half. A Gustie player dove to save the ball from rolling out of bounds and slapped it backwards. A teammate scooped it up and scampered in for an apparent defensive touchdown.

The play was called back on a flag for batting the ball backwards, apparently. Maybe Mongo can elaborate on the situation and play, but this seems highly questionable.

My question is then this: Have the Royals benefitted from obvious reffing meltdowns, or is that just their Hail Mary's finally paying off?

[repete]

If a potential MIAC MVP who's been featured prominently in the Strib each of the last two weeks getting himself in troubs isn't news, I'm in the wrong business.

Naw, you might be in the wrong business because you ought to realize that there's a big difference between what you think you know and what you can ethically print/broadcast.

At least some level of fairness out to apply to message boards and Pat does a pretty good job watching that.

Calling out Oles because they won't deal with your unsubstantiated rumor -- which has sourcing problems, no attempt at balance or any discernible effort on your part for collaboration -- probably ain't gonna win you a Pulitzer.

[BUguy]

To show that I'm not trying to single out the hated Oles, I'll offer up a different sort of direction for this board to take.

Bethel posters: It's been brought to my attention that you've received VERY fortunate calls each of the last two weeks. It could easily be argued that each directly affected the outcome of your games, turning losses into wins. I'd like to hear your take on the following situations, since they've ressurrected your once-dreadful season.

BU vs. UST: Facing a third-and-15ish (maybe fourth down, I forget now) late in the fourth quarter while trailing, B-Weezy lobbed up a deep pass that fell incomplete. However, a ref threw a flag for pass interference on a play I've heard described as a "phantom call."

The Royals scored the go-ahead touchdown a few plays later and recovered a UST fumble deep in their own territory with less than a minute to play to lock up the win. Without the highly questionable flag, a loss seems nearly inevitable.

GAC vs. BU: Facing a third-and-long (again, I think, as I wasn't there) the Royals fumbled near the sidelines sometime in the first half. A Gustie player dove to save the ball from rolling out of bounds and slapped it backwards. A teammate scooped it up and scampered in for an apparent defensive touchdown.

The play was called back on a flag for batting the ball backwards, apparently. Maybe Mongo can elaborate on the situation and play, but this seems highly questionable.

My question is then this: Have the Royals benefitted from obvious reffing meltdowns, or is that just their Hail Mary's finally paying off?

I have yet to attend a BU game yet this year, so I cannot elaborate on the calls.  Although from what I heard on the UST broadcast, the PI call was questionable, but this was coming from announcers who had an obvious UST bias. 

I'm not sure about the illegal batting call, but I believe we had one of those called against us a couple years back.  I don't really like the rule...Tough break Gustie's, I guess.  Anyone else care to elaborate on this who may have been a witness.

Also, I've never said/done/completed a hail mary in my life, but maybe Bethel has a few Catholics on the team now to pull things in our favor ;-)

[Pat Coleman]

Thanks for deleting my post last night, Pat. I'm sure it was warranted, seeing as it was my most civil post in roughly 3 years.

Funny how the Oles continues to avoid discussion about the Gant situation, despite having full details available to them. While I won't be so lame as to claim a non-denial as any sort of admission, it's telling that you refuse to answer even simple questions associated with the non-event.

If a potential MIAC MVP who's been featured prominently in the Strib each of the last two weeks getting himself in troubs isn't news, I'm in the wrong business.

"News is what someone wants to suppress. Everything else is advertising." Reuven Frank, former president of NBC News

If you're a reporter, do some reporting.

I explained why I deleted the post. If you have a problem with the TOS you can post somewhere else.

[DustySJU]

How could all the St. Cloud area SJU fans have missed the photo of DustySJU and family in today's paper??  Must have been the lack of UnderArmour   and the Kasey Keeler shades 8) 8) 8)  Developing......

If I could figure out how to post the photo I would, some help here Duff

RedTooth/Mr. Shoes;  DustySJU says "very nice"!   8)

[OzJohnnie]

My most vivid GAC memory is of a home coming two or three years after I graduated.  One of those friggin' male wasps that has been kicked out of the nest flew into a can of Coke I had been sipping for most of the second half...

I have no memory of what happened at the game, but I still talk like Rocky every time I think about my lip hurting.  Oh, jeez.  It's coming on again! Adrian!!!!!

[frankrickard]

To show that I'm not trying to single out the hated Oles, I'll offer up a different sort of direction for this board to take.

Bethel posters: It's been brought to my attention that you've received VERY fortunate calls each of the last two weeks. It could easily be argued that each directly affected the outcome of your games, turning losses into wins. I'd like to hear your take on the following situations, since they've ressurrected your once-dreadful season.

BU vs. UST: Facing a third-and-15ish (maybe fourth down, I forget now) late in the fourth quarter while trailing, B-Weezy lobbed up a deep pass that fell incomplete. However, a ref threw a flag for pass interference on a play I've heard described as a "phantom call."

The Royals scored the go-ahead touchdown a few plays later and recovered a UST fumble deep in their own territory with less than a minute to play to lock up the win. Without the highly questionable flag, a loss seems nearly inevitable.

GAC vs. BU: Facing a third-and-long (again, I think, as I wasn't there) the Royals fumbled near the sidelines sometime in the first half. A Gustie player dove to save the ball from rolling out of bounds and slapped it backwards. A teammate scooped it up and scampered in for an apparent defensive touchdown.

The play was called back on a flag for batting the ball backwards, apparently. Maybe Mongo can elaborate on the situation and play, but this seems highly questionable.

My question is then this: Have the Royals benefitted from obvious reffing meltdowns, or is that just their Hail Mary's finally paying off?

I was not at the game, but I was listening to the Gustie broadcast on the radio.  The announcers weren't sure what the exact result of the play should be.  They were adamant that it was intentionally batted and kept from out of bounds.  The officials convened and made the correct call giving Bethel the ball and a 15 yard penalty from the spot of the illegal batting as is result of said penalty.  However, the refs did follow the letter of the law, it seems that this rule needs to be ammended for out of bounds plays as it has been for punts around the goal line.  You can bat the ball back into the field of play on a punt to keep it from going into the end zone.  It seems like you should be able to keep the ball from going out of bounds as well.  Gustavus got penalized for trying to make a play on a loose ball.  Obviously the Gustavus player should have known that he could not do that, not even tried for the ball and Bethel would have kept the ball with a loss on the play.  Instead of a Gustie TD or even a Bethel loss, Bethel gains 15 yards and a first down because of an attempt to make a play on a live ball going out of bounds.

[johnnie_esq]

GAC vs. BU: Facing a third-and-long (again, I think, as I wasn't there) the Royals fumbled near the sidelines sometime in the first half. A Gustie player dove to save the ball from rolling out of bounds and slapped it backwards. A teammate scooped it up and scampered in for an apparent defensive touchdown.

The play was called back on a flag for batting the ball backwards, apparently. Maybe Mongo can elaborate on the situation and play, but this seems highly questionable.

I pulled out my NFHS rule book regarding the illegal batting call because I had not heard of it.  Sure enough, it is right there: No player shall bat a loose ball other than a pass or a fumble in flight, or a low scrimmage kick in flight which he is attempting to block in or behind the expanded neutral zone. A K player may bat toward his own goal line a grounded scrimmage kick which is beyond the neutral zone and may also bat a scrimmage kick in flight beyond the neutral zone, if no R player is in position to catch the ball.

Note that the penalty allows you to bat a "fumble in flight"; however, a fumble on the ground cannot be batted at all. 

Of course, batting is an intentional act-- in other words, the player must be trying to punch or push the ball to someone else or out of bounds.  If the player tries to catch the ball and unintentionally pushes it to someone else, it is ok and no penalty accrues. 

[BUguy]

To show that I'm not trying to single out the hated Oles, I'll offer up a different sort of direction for this board to take.

Bethel posters: It's been brought to my attention that you've received VERY fortunate calls each of the last two weeks. It could easily be argued that each directly affected the outcome of your games, turning losses into wins. I'd like to hear your take on the following situations, since they've ressurrected your once-dreadful season.

BU vs. UST: Facing a third-and-15ish (maybe fourth down, I forget now) late in the fourth quarter while trailing, B-Weezy lobbed up a deep pass that fell incomplete. However, a ref threw a flag for pass interference on a play I've heard described as a "phantom call."

The Royals scored the go-ahead touchdown a few plays later and recovered a UST fumble deep in their own territory with less than a minute to play to lock up the win. Without the highly questionable flag, a loss seems nearly inevitable.

GAC vs. BU: Facing a third-and-long (again, I think, as I wasn't there) the Royals fumbled near the sidelines sometime in the first half. A Gustie player dove to save the ball from rolling out of bounds and slapped it backwards. A teammate scooped it up and scampered in for an apparent defensive touchdown.

The play was called back on a flag for batting the ball backwards, apparently. Maybe Mongo can elaborate on the situation and play, but this seems highly questionable.

My question is then this: Have the Royals benefitted from obvious reffing meltdowns, or is that just their Hail Mary's finally paying off?

I was not at the game, but I was listening to the Gustie broadcast on the radio.  The announcers weren't sure what the exact result of the play should be.  They were adamant that it was intentionally batted and kept from out of bounds.  The officials convened and made the correct call giving Bethel the ball and a 15 yard penalty from the spot of the illegal batting as is result of said penalty.  However, the refs did follow the letter of the law, it seems that this rule needs to be ammended for out of bounds plays as it has been for punts around the goal line.  You can bat the ball back into the field of play on a punt to keep it from going into the end zone.  It seems like you should be able to keep the ball from going out of bounds as well.  Gustavus got penalized for trying to make a play on a loose ball.  Obviously the Gustavus player should have known that he could not do that, not even tried for the ball and Bethel would have kept the ball with a loss on the play.  Instead of a Gustie TD or even a Bethel loss, Bethel gains 15 yards and a first down because of an attempt to make a play on a live ball going out of bounds.

I've seen the call before, and the penalty seems a bit excessive, if anything it should be awarded to the team that fumbled at the spot of the fumble or maybe a 5 yard penalty.

[Touchdown Tommy]

Good afternoon fellas,

Frank you are 100% right.  That is a terrible rule and needs to be changed.

Chewey: How come you and Brice are avoiding the Stiftungsfestivities???

RE: Patricks

Sounds like no Stiftungsfestivities this week due to the anal retentiveness at GAC, so don't miss Patricks.  Ranked #1 by yours truly on JF.COM earlier this season for Postgame Spots.

[stanbob]

TDT, I trust that Patricks is a place you have actually been to    Actually it is looking like I will be moving back to Minnesota next summer and intend to take in every game I possibly can and I do value your input on said selections.

[Touchdown Tommy]

AO, do you still wear your clown outfit this late on a sunday?

BOL, this could be the Post of the Year...

[faunch]

If you got suckered by one of your neighborhood kids into buying one of those "Entertainment/Happenings" coupon books....be sure to take it down to Patrick's in St. Peter on Saturday. It has a 2 for 1 offer in it. 
Sorry I won't be making the trip....If I did I might need a good divorce lawyer since I've been gone the last 2 Saturdays!

[DuffMan]

If you got suckered by one of your neighborhood kids into buying one of those "Entertainment/Happenings" coupon books....be sure to take it down to Patrick's in St. Peter on Saturday. It has a 2 for 1 offer in it. 

Serious???  Awesome