FB: Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[AO]

I have no dog in this fight but did anyone else think the pass interference call on UST at the goal line was suspect? 3rd and 10 and the penalty gives Bethel 1st and goal at the 2. Tough call to make in that situation with the db turned and looking for the ball. Others who were there may have had a better view than the online feed.

I see a lot of holding during this play.  Some teams just get all the breaks. 

[612Auggie]

I have no dog in this fight but did anyone else think the pass interference call on UST at the goal line was suspect? 3rd and 10 and the penalty gives Bethel 1st and goal at the 2. Tough call to make in that situation with the db turned and looking for the ball. Others who were there may have had a better view than the online feed.

The play before that a Tom all but gave the BU reciever a wedgie and didn't get a flag. I thought the call for interference was spot on.

Woof.

I sincerely hope the play before had no bearing on that call. That would make it much, much worse.

I just think in a tight game like that you have to make the players make plays to win. I don't think you make either call unless its really, really blatant and I didn't see that from the video.

Show me in a book of football rules where it says that enforcement of the rules change based on how late in a game an infraction occurs.

If its pass interference in the 1st quarter, then its pass interference in the 4th quarter with the game on the line. 

Same argument was made when the Cobbs bench cleared while the ball was still live.  The old "let the players play" line did hold any water then either.

Bethel's stadium has seen many classic games play out over the last 15 years, and this one was as good as any that came before it.  Awesome stuff, and a tremendous effort from both sides!  Hard to imagine any teams better than UST missing out on the playoffs this year, in the event that they do.

Just to be clear, I didn't say anything about it being late in the game, I said "in a tight game". My point was (and still is---I don't care either way) if you don't call the first one(I didn't see that part of the play), don't call the second one. Or visa versa, call them both. Also, call it the same way you have called it all game. If you are letting them play and be physical, then hold your water on that late call, if you have been calling it all game, call it there. I think it's unfair for the kids if the game isn't called consistently and from all accounts, there was (at a minimum) inconsistency on those two plays. My opinion was, and still is, there should not have been a penalty.

Or case of a player getting away with one because an official didn't want to make "that call" and then the very next play the defense does the same exact thing. 

I might pass a cop in my shiny red sports car one day and not get a ticket but then the next day he tags me for going the same speed.  If I got a break in one instance maybe I should learn my lesson?

I agree that the situation of the game should not determine the call. The rules of the game should not be bent because it is a close game. If that is a play they have allowed all game than its not a penalty, but if it is something that has been a penalty earlier than it has to be called.

[sjusection105]

The MIAC is stacking up nicely heading into the stretch run.
Some interesting match ups-
UST still has to play AUG & CCM
AUG & CCM play each other
BU has GAC & SJU
SJU has GAC & BU

If BU wins out they win the MIAC Championship
CCM can win out but still need help from SJU and GAC to beat BU
SJU can win out but would also need help from GAC ,AUG or UST to beat CCM

Do I have it straight?
Feel free to correct me if I have something messed up 

[ron doney]

Many thoughts on the game at Bethel yesterday.  Bethel certainly has the poise of a champion, did a nice job taking punches and finishing.

Going into the season for the Tommies a loss to Bethel was not considered surprising nor season ending.  All the more reason to be upset about the St Johns loss - yesterday's squad would not have lost to SJ1.  Which begs the question......what do we make of O'Connell and Braddock for next year?   

[art76]

Two notes about yesterday's play:

1. The MIAC as a conference is now 15 and 1 in non-conference play - sweet!

2. Perception/observation after streaming three separate games for a sustained time yesterday. I watched pretty much the whole Bethel/St. Thomas game and then went over to the WIAC game between Stevens Point and Platteville to the end. Man, talk about a difference in play tempo and crispness. This was further reinforced when I went later in the day to watch some of the second half of the Heidelberg/Otterbein game. I have to believe that this is not all due to my interest in BU. And I know perception can fool a person, but it sure seemed to me in the whole scheme of things that the the game in Arden Hills yesterday was a game for the ages, a turning point in the Royals program. I think they could run the table if they can stay healthy. I have never had that perception in years past when they were in contention and made it to the quarter finals. Having gotten behind the eight-ball in the third quarter and then sticking to their game plan to get the win was a wonderful thing to see.

I'll stop gushing now.

[D3MAFAN]

The MIAC is stacking up nicely heading into the stretch run.
Some interesting match ups-
UST still has to play AUG & CCM
AUG & CCM play each other
BU has GAC & SJU
SJU has GAC & BU

If BU wins out they win the MIAC Championship
CCM can win out but still need help from SJU and GAC to beat BU
SJU can win out but would also need help from GAC ,AUG or UST to beat CCM

Do I have it straight?
Feel free to correct me if I have something messed up 

The sad thing that could happen, is that the MIAC could end up having only one playoff team, which subjectively would be a travesty, but from an objective standpoint is only fair according to the rules.

[SagatagSam]

The silence from St Paul is deafening...

Soak it in.

Mr. Reverend Brilliance Without Borders & the Bandwagon Boys will be back next week to trumpet UST's victory over Hamline and act as if October 19, 2013 never existed.

[hazzben]

It doesn't matter if I saw the rest of the game. And it really doesn't even matter what I think. But intellectual honesty requires we look at the situation without our intrinsic bias. That's why I posted here to start with.  My point was you have to call both plays the same way.  The problem may well have been the missed call on the first play, which I didn't see.  You cant call the second one because you missed the first one and visa versa.  Either way there is no excuse to call those two plays inconsistently in that kind of game.

Good luck the rest of the way to both teams.

My point to you is that intellectual honesty requires that you actually have looked at the situation in the first place. Your point is that you have to call both plays the same way. Why? At this point you've admitted you only saw one of the plays and didn't see the entire game. You've asserted that the refs were inconsistent (on that play compared to the entire game and the play before), but how can you make that assertion when you've only seen a fraction of the evidence 

I agree that they shouldn't be trying to do a 'makeup call.' But that's not the only option for what may have happened.

But I will agree with you, good luck to UST, Bethel and Wheaton  the rest of the way.

And I will say this USee, I appreciate how passionately you hold your ground. As a stubborn dutchman, that's something I'm genetically predisposed to appreciate (you could even say I'm biased in this way) 

[ron doney]

I have no dog in this fight but did anyone else think the pass interference call on UST at the goal line was suspect? 3rd and 10 and the penalty gives Bethel 1st and goal at the 2. Tough call to make in that situation with the db turned and looking for the ball. Others who were there may have had a better view than the online feed.

The play before that a Tom all but gave the BU reciever a wedgie and didn't get a flag. I thought the call for interference was spot on.

Woof.

Go back and watch the film. The play before you are talking about was as well defended and clean as it gets.  Show me a screen shot that says otherwise.

[ron doney]

I have no dog in this fight but did anyone else think the pass interference call on UST at the goal line was suspect? 3rd and 10 and the penalty gives Bethel 1st and goal at the 2. Tough call to make in that situation with the db turned and looking for the ball. Others who were there may have had a better view than the online feed.

The play before that a Tom all but gave the BU reciever a wedgie and didn't get a flag. I thought the call for interference was spot on.

Woof.

I sincerely hope the play before had no bearing on that call. That would make it much, much worse.

I just think in a tight game like that you have to make the players make plays to win. I don't think you make either call unless its really, really blatant and I didn't see that from the video.

Going to agree with that. 

What I also saw in the video is the Bethel receiver step on the out of bounds line as the ball came in.  He then is technically ineligible.  Also, that ball looked like it could have been easily "uncatchable."  Not sure the ref had the ball flight in view.

[ron doney]

I have no dog in this fight but did anyone else think the pass interference call on UST at the goal line was suspect? 3rd and 10 and the penalty gives Bethel 1st and goal at the 2. Tough call to make in that situation with the db turned and looking for the ball. Others who were there may have had a better view than the online feed.

The play before that a Tom all but gave the BU reciever a wedgie and didn't get a flag. I thought the call for interference was spot on.

Woof.

I sincerely hope the play before had no bearing on that call. That would make it much, much worse.

I just think in a tight game like that you have to make the players make plays to win. I don't think you make either call unless its really, really blatant and I didn't see that from the video.

I went back and watched both plays again. Ikuenobe was pushing Hilbrands off his route on both plays. I believe both plays were pass interference. Ikuenobe was using his arm to impede the receiver's progress both times.

Perhaps it's a good no-call if the contact is hip-to-hip and he is making a play on the ball--at least the contact in that hypothetical looks more like incidental contact. When you're riding the receiver out of bounds using your arms, it's a completely different story.

I was surprised it didn't get called on the first one. And by surprised, I mean I was jumping up and yelling, nearly waking my napping daughter!

I thought the 2nd one was just as bad and deserved the call as well.

I agree you want to see them make a play. But that goes for the defender too. He has to make a play, not mug a guy after he's gotten beat. When it happened again I don't think the official had any choice but to flag it.

I didn't check, but I seem to recall several guys on the in-game updates board saying they were surprised the first one didn't get a penalty.

I still don't see anything on the first play. Defender had back to the receiver. Both players got two hands to the ball... And both ran to the ball. Just because the receiver had to reach above the defender doesn't mean it was pass interference. 

[hazzben]

A few highlights from the Bethel - Tommie game

One thing I love seeing is after the clip of Hilbrands touchdown on the slant.

Bethel guys running over to celebrate together. Excellent raw emotion of a big game.

On the flip side, love seeing the UST defenders intentionally go over to the DB who got beat and pick him up. Excellent example of a team hanging together. I hate when a guy gets beat and no one gives him the time of day. Especially a DB. Their mistakes get showcased so much more than a screwup by, say, a DT.

[ron doney]

On both plays in question the fact that the Bethel receiver can not or does not keep his feet going to the ball makes it look like the defender "pushes" him.  The receiver does not high point the ball, looks sloppy and doesn't have a chance at catching either pass........but bad receivers make PI calls easier to make.

[SagatagSam]

Here's the only photo evidence. It's next to impossible to grab a screen shot from the webcast.

[ron doney]

Here's the only photo evidence. It's next to impossible to grab a screen shot from the webcast.

Great pic.  Thanks!  Looks like the Bethel receiver is the one in the cookie jar.  He has got his arm over the Tommie's shoulder. 

And no way that ball is catchable.