FB: Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[corn horn]

Carleton is taunting SJU with a "regular" video feed and a "HD" video feed.  Way to go Knights!

http://client.stretchinternet.com/client/carleton.portal#

Talk about reckless disregard for game attendance.

You know they don't charge even a plug nickel for admission to the games at Carleton.

I'm a Johnnie and I'm blindly loyal to all things Collegeville--to the extent that I have adopted the horribly flawed logic that webcasts affect the attendance at games.

It is applicable at all times in all sports in all parallel universes.

Here's proof positive that webcasts negatively affect game attendance. Hamline offered a video feed (with audio) for today's game versus Concordia. Not even 800 showed up at Klaus field.

how many would have turned out without the video feed?  Probably less than 800  combine the weather with the expected blowout and I'd call 800 a good crowd for at hamline

I'm right with you...too hard to be sarcastic in print. I believe people who prioritize going to games will go. When you can't make it, it's great to have the option. The broadcasts are all pretty dry. Single camera (the Hamline camera today was behind a window that was foggy throughout the game, and then had water drops on it for the second half). It doesn't compete with being at a game live in any way...just convenient when other things are going on.

[OzJohnnie]

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.

[SagatagSam]

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 receiver a wedgie and didn't get a flag. I thought the call for interference was spot on.

Woof.

It looked like two nearly identical plays to me. They were both close. If pass interference doesn't get called on the first play, it gets called on the second (and vice versa.)

[USee]

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.

[SagatagSam]

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.

[Chubbs]

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 tight 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 didn't 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.

[hazzben]

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.

[bluenote]

...what happened I thought Bethel would score 45. 

Plus ...+ K for all you Hipsters on the board!....LOL!!! 

[USee]

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.

[retagent]

I agree with Chubbs. The rules are in place in order to have a "FAIR" game for both sides. This "let the players determine the outcome of the game" mantra to me is silly. The players should be allowed to play the game, and, therefore, determine the outcome of the game WITHIN THE RULES.

I didn't see either play, and don't necessarily want to weigh in on that specific play(s). We do have to realize that officials are humans with human emotions, and decision powers. Perhaps the official thought that the first incident was borderline, and decided not to make the call, but when the same "borderline" type play was made again, he decided that was too much to let go and threw the flag. I understand that line of thought, even if I may not agree with it.

[hazzben]

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.

All of this is predicated on the idea that there were two identical plays. They were certainly similar. Same WR and same DB. But it could be the official misses the first one. Was out of position. Didn't think it was a penalty. Etc.

On the second one, he's sees it. He's in better position. Or he just thinks it's more egregious than the first.

It could be the first one was PI and the official realizes, 'man, I missed that one.' The second flag doesn't have to be a makeup call, it could just be another PI and this time he throws the flag he wishes he threw on the first one.

FWIW, I didn't think the refs all of a sudden changed their tune from early in the game to late. They threw flags. On both teams. And I thought they were fair. But since you've already admitted to not having seen half of what you're talking about in regards to this play  , I must ask, did you even see the rest of the game? If not, this is a ridiculous conversation.

[stanbob]

The silence from St Paul is deafening...

[USee]

I did not see the rest of the game as I was at the Wheaton v Elmhurst game and caught the last two series of Bethel/UST online. And that has no bearing on my argument. It should be noted again that I have NO rooting interest in that game and merely stated an observation. It should also be noted that you are obviously a Bethel fan and your bias is to have no problem with the call. In fact, other fans (not necessarily of Bethel) have even noted that no UST fans have said anything about the call and therefore implicitly agree. I would simply note, none of them has said anything explicitly about the call and it can't be assumed they agreed with it either.

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.

[faunch]

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.

Totally disagree with you on this.  If it's a penalty in the first minute w/ score tied 0-0 it's a penalty in the last minute of a close game. 

Just watch it on the replay.  U$T corner got caught w/ his hand in the cookie jar.  Got away with it once but not a second time.

[faunch]

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?