FB: Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[hazzben]

This is going back a few pages, but it has been busy here.

A UST poster said with authority that the hit on Martin that put him out was not an intent to injure. Since the ball had left his hand, what exactly was the intent then? It could no longer affect that play. Also, and this is from memory, Martin had left the pocket, so he had escaped the pass rush. This hit came from either an LB or DB, who knew the status of the play at that time.

I didn't know we had clear evidence it was late? My guess was the intent was to disrupt the QB's throw or sack him if the opportunity presented itself. There are a lot of leaps and assumptions being made on both sides here. While officials are not always correct and do miss things, the one over the play in this case, did not throw the flag. Meanwhile a bunch of us who have not seen the full play are making big leaps.

For those that played, they also know how hard it is to instantly hit the brakes when your chasing down a qb and the ball gets quickly released. Hitting a QB the instant after a QB throws is generally not flagged because it happens almost simultaneously with the speed of the game. This becomes even more challenging when the QB is outside the pocket, given the threat to run is even more present. Officials are put in a very difficult position these days with the rules being muddied, with an end goal that everyone wants to accomplish a much safer game.

Separately, from my anecdotes I find it very interesting how little targeting is called at the D3 level, with the ejection rule in place, especially compared to watching a B1G game. I wonder if that is because they get nervous without the benefit instant replay.

Might be wrong about this because it's not something that I have watched for, but I think that some of these late hits are because the defender left his feet when attempting to make the tackle.  If so, a possible rule change may be to automatically call a late hit penalty in this situation, even if it results in a tackling of the QB. 

The only time you would be allowed to leave your feet would be if you were attempting to block or bat down a pass.  In this case the play would be treated the same as attempting to block a kick, with a 5 or 15 yard penalty called based on the degree of contact with the QB. 

The advantage is that you can learn to go for the ball instead of the QB when you leap.  Also, it should be easier to veer away from the QB if you don't leave your feet while attempting a tackle.  You also may be able to apply the 5 or 15 principle if the hit by the defender is late but he appears to be trying to avoid the hit.

I'm going to go ahead and assume you've never played defense in college football. Because what you just described is utter nonsense. 

[Walter Eagle]

This is going back a few pages, but it has been busy here.

A UST poster said with authority that the hit on Martin that put him out was not an intent to injure. Since the ball had left his hand, what exactly was the intent then? It could no longer affect that play. Also, and this is from memory, Martin had left the pocket, so he had escaped the pass rush. This hit came from either an LB or DB, who knew the status of the play at that time.

I didn't know we had clear evidence it was late? My guess was the intent was to disrupt the QB's throw or sack him if the opportunity presented itself. There are a lot of leaps and assumptions being made on both sides here. While officials are not always correct and do miss things, the one over the play in this case, did not throw the flag. Meanwhile a bunch of us who have not seen the full play are making big leaps.

For those that played, they also know how hard it is to instantly hit the brakes when your chasing down a qb and the ball gets quickly released. Hitting a QB the instant after a QB throws is generally not flagged because it happens almost simultaneously with the speed of the game. This becomes even more challenging when the QB is outside the pocket, given the threat to run is even more present. Officials are put in a very difficult position these days with the rules being muddied, with an end goal that everyone wants to accomplish a much safer game.

Separately, from my anecdotes I find it very interesting how little targeting is called at the D3 level, with the ejection rule in place, especially compared to watching a B1G game. I wonder if that is because they get nervous without the benefit instant replay.

Might be wrong about this because it's not something that I have watched for, but I think that some of these late hits are because the defender left his feet when attempting to make the tackle.  If so, a possible rule change may be to automatically call a late hit penalty in this situation, even if it results in a tackling of the QB. 

The only time you would be allowed to leave your feet would be if you were attempting to block or bat down a pass.  In this case the play would be treated the same as attempting to block a kick, with a 5 or 15 yard penalty called based on the degree of contact with the QB. 

The advantage is that you can learn to go for the ball instead of the QB when you leap.  Also, it should be easier to veer away from the QB if you don't leave your feet while attempting a tackle.  You also may be able to apply the 5 or 15 principle if the hit by the defender is late but he appears to be trying to avoid the hit.

I'm going to go ahead and assume you've never played defense in college football. Because what you just described is utter nonsense. 

OK then.  Thanks for straightening me out. 

[retagent]

This is going back a few pages, but it has been busy here.

A UST poster said with authority that the hit on Martin that put him out was not an intent to injure. Since the ball had left his hand, what exactly was the intent then? It could no longer affect that play. Also, and this is from memory, Martin had left the pocket, so he had escaped the pass rush. This hit came from either an LB or DB, who knew the status of the play at that time.

I didn't know we had clear evidence it was late? My guess was the intent was to disrupt the QB's throw or sack him if the opportunity presented itself. There are a lot of leaps and assumptions being made on both sides here. While officials are not always correct and do miss things, the one over the play in this case, did not throw the flag. Meanwhile a bunch of us who have not seen the full play are making big leaps.

For those that played, they also know how hard it is to instantly hit the brakes when your chasing down a qb and the ball gets quickly released. Hitting a QB the instant after a QB throws is generally not flagged because it happens almost simultaneously with the speed of the game. This becomes even more challenging when the QB is outside the pocket, given the threat to run is even more present. Officials are put in a very difficult position these days with the rules being muddied, with an end goal that everyone wants to accomplish a much safer game.

Separately, from my anecdotes I find it very interesting how little targeting is called at the D3 level, with the ejection rule in place, especially compared to watching a B1G game. I wonder if that is because they get nervous without the benefit instant replay.

I did see the play on the stream. I relayed info at the time in response to a question, that it was a tad late, but I didn't think the lateness was a penalty, since it wasn't all that late. My contention is that he slammed Martin to the ground, which was unnecessary since the ball was gone. He could have easily held up and just used Martin to stop his momentum by giving him a bump, or tackled him without the force to the ground. As I said then, I believe that is what is called a penalty in the NFL, but didn't know the specific rule to determine if it was a penalty in college. Though, IMHO, it should be. There, is that comprehensive enough?

Oh, DoubleO, you still didn't answer my question about what the intent was on that play.

[wm4]

This is going back a few pages, but it has been busy here.

A UST poster said with authority that the hit on Martin that put him out was not an intent to injure. Since the ball had left his hand, what exactly was the intent then? It could no longer affect that play. Also, and this is from memory, Martin had left the pocket, so he had escaped the pass rush. This hit came from either an LB or DB, who knew the status of the play at that time.

I didn't know we had clear evidence it was late? My guess was the intent was to disrupt the QB's throw or sack him if the opportunity presented itself. There are a lot of leaps and assumptions being made on both sides here. While officials are not always correct and do miss things, the one over the play in this case, did not throw the flag. Meanwhile a bunch of us who have not seen the full play are making big leaps.

For those that played, they also know how hard it is to instantly hit the brakes when your chasing down a qb and the ball gets quickly released. Hitting a QB the instant after a QB throws is generally not flagged because it happens almost simultaneously with the speed of the game. This becomes even more challenging when the QB is outside the pocket, given the threat to run is even more present. Officials are put in a very difficult position these days with the rules being muddied, with an end goal that everyone wants to accomplish a much safer game.

Separately, from my anecdotes I find it very interesting how little targeting is called at the D3 level, with the ejection rule in place, especially compared to watching a B1G game. I wonder if that is because they get nervous without the benefit instant replay.

I did see the play on the stream. I relayed info at the time in response to a question, that it was a tad late, but I didn't think the lateness was a penalty, since it wasn't all that late. My contention is that he slammed Martin to the ground, which was unnecessary since the ball was gone. He could have easily held up and just used Martin to stop his momentum by giving him a bump, or tackled him without the force to the ground. As I said then, I believe that is what is called a penalty in the NFL, but didn't know the specific rule to determine if it was a penalty in college. Though, IMHO, it should be. There, is that comprehensive enough?

Oh, DoubleO, you still didn't answer my question about what the intent was on that play.

I'll be honest, after watching a ton of football at UST over the last couple of years, I think the turf itself is contributing to some of these situations.  Martin last week, LaVerne QB the week before...both of those QB's took huge hits to their heads when their helmets hit the turf.  I have no way to quantify how much the turf is contributing, but it my view it's significant.  That surface is 10+ years old and quite matted down and has to have lost some (all?) of it's give.  It's green carpet at this point.

UST is very aggressive on defense and they will hit anything that moves, and are often flagged for personal fouls.  I'm not using the turf to deflect their aggressiveness, rather just pointing out I think it's contributing to these situations. 

[DuffMan]

No way is new-school turf less forgiving than grass, especially in November/December.

[wif]

Lots of talk about UST and the difference between playing hard and intent to injure. I will say this - and this is 100% fact (not conjecture). During the first meeting between SJU and UST, one of SJU's starters (and one of their All MIAC players) comes up limping after a play. This is a player who has endured three ankle surgeries during his college career. Upon seeing the player limp back to the huddle, players on the UST bench "inform" (by way of yelling to them) their teammates - "Number XX is hurt, go after his legs". I am not implying that the UST coaches tell their bench players to do this or that they in anyway condone such behavior, but attitude does tend to reflect leadership.

[bennie]

Lots of talk about UST and the difference between playing hard and intent to injure. I will say this - and this is 100% fact (not conjecture). During the first meeting between SJU and UST, one of SJU's starters (and one of their All MIAC players) comes up limping after a play. This is a player who has endured three ankle surgeries during his college career. Upon seeing the player limp back to the huddle, players on the UST bench "inform" (by way of yelling to them) their teammates - "Number XX is hurt, go after his legs". I am not implying that the UST coaches tell their bench players to do this or that they in anyway condone such behavior, but attitude does tend to reflect leadership.

Wow!!

[OldAuggie]

Great talk by former Anoka Tornado and New England Patriot all pro Steve Nelson emphasizing the importance of playing for something bigger than you.

http://abcnewspapers.com/2015/12/01/you-play-for-the-town-former-patriot-steve-nelson-talks-at-anoka-high-school/

** Steve played one year at Augsburg for his uncle Edor before moving on to NDSU.  That's the MIAC connection.

That Nelson gene pool is strong stuff.

[wm4]

Lots of talk about UST and the difference between playing hard and intent to injure. I will say this - and this is 100% fact (not conjecture). During the first meeting between SJU and UST, one of SJU's starters (and one of their All MIAC players) comes up limping after a play. This is a player who has endured three ankle surgeries during his college career. Upon seeing the player limp back to the huddle, players on the UST bench "inform" (by way of yelling to them) their teammates - "Number XX is hurt, go after his legs". I am not implying that the UST coaches tell their bench players to do this or that they in anyway condone such behavior, but attitude does tend to reflect leadership.

We could (and do) go back and forth on this stuff forever.  Watch #7 for St John's when he's in on the tackle of Dowdle when he runs in the two point conversion.  He literally steps on Dowdle's face, completely intentionally.   Connected to leadership?  Nah, I won't go that far.  At some point, it's football.

[RoyalsFan]

This is going back a few pages, but it has been busy here.

A UST poster said with authority that the hit on Martin that put him out was not an intent to injure. Since the ball had left his hand, what exactly was the intent then? It could no longer affect that play. Also, and this is from memory, Martin had left the pocket, so he had escaped the pass rush. This hit came from either an LB or DB, who knew the status of the play at that time.

Just because Martin had left the pocket doesn't mean that he escaped the pass rush, evidenced by him being hit shortly after releasing the ball. The ref was right there so in his judgement it wasn't a late hit. Also, when a passer is outside the pocket they are then considered more of a runner and they don't get the same calls for roughing the passer like they would if they are still in the pocket. When you are chasing a qb at full speed, it is difficult to pull up instantly. The qb could also fake a throw and pull the ball down and run, so I don't think it was a late/dirty hit with intent to injure.

As a side note, I remember VOJ commenting on the play saying something like since Martin was hurt on the play then that should be evidence enough that it was a late hit/dirty play and should have been flagged - what kind of logic is that?

[Mr.MIAC]

I've never rooted for another conference team. Call me whatever you like, small, petty, jealous, I don't care. Other conference teams do not benefit from the success of their competitors. If that were the case wouldn't the OAC have had more teams representing them deeper in the playoffs given the run MUC has had?

Oh, but they do. If you play in a tough conference then it helps a team's SOS rating which could determine whether or not a team gets a pool C bid or not. Just because one team (MUC) is really good doesn't automatically make the other teams in the conference better.

Fair point. I was thinking of benefits with recruiting and increase in program prestige. If a kid is deciding between multiple schools and winning is an important factor for him, recent success is going to be weighed heavily. At the end of the day, most MIAC schools are competiting for the same group of kids - ok maybe not Bethel  - so I'd prefer they only see SJU as the place to win consistently and on the national level.

My closer Johnnie friends have shared that this is what really concerns them about the rise of UST. Back in the day, SJU was the MIAC powerhouse that could skim the cream off the top of the local recruiting pool. Caruso's arrival at UST, his staff's aggressive recruiting, and the team's success on the field changed all of that. Think about some of the outstanding local recruits that have found great success at UST over the past eight years. There's a good chance many of them would have gone to SJU in a different era.

Over the next five years UST will be dramatically increasing student recruiting nationwide. This will be a boon for the football team. If UST does some great things on the field over the next few years (e.g. multiple Stagg Bowl appearances) then they'll have an easier time attracting top national recruits; they'll also have more sway with the top local recruits and might be able to do more cherrypicking. Back to my closer Johnnie friends' concerns, overtime UST would be on the winning end of a growing talent disparity within the MIAC that other teams, including SJU, would find hard to overcome.

[RoyalsFan]

Might be wrong about this because it's not something that I have watched for, but I think that some of these late hits are because the defender left his feet when attempting to make the tackle.  If so, a possible rule change may be to automatically call a late hit penalty in this situation, even if it results in a tackling of the QB. 

The only time you would be allowed to leave your feet would be if you were attempting to block or bat down a pass.  In this case the play would be treated the same as attempting to block a kick, with a 5 or 15 yard penalty called based on the degree of contact with the QB. 

The advantage is that you can learn to go for the ball instead of the QB when you leap.  Also, it should be easier to veer away from the QB if you don't leave your feet while attempting a tackle.  You also may be able to apply the 5 or 15 principle if the hit by the defender is late but he appears to be trying to avoid the hit.

I'm going to go ahead and assume you've never played defense in college football. Because what you just described is utter nonsense. 

Agree 100%

[art76]

Might be wrong about this because it's not something that I have watched for, but I think that some of these late hits are because the defender left his feet when attempting to make the tackle.  If so, a possible rule change may be to automatically call a late hit penalty in this situation, even if it results in a tackling of the QB. 

The only time you would be allowed to leave your feet would be if you were attempting to block or bat down a pass.  In this case the play would be treated the same as attempting to block a kick, with a 5 or 15 yard penalty called based on the degree of contact with the QB. 

The advantage is that you can learn to go for the ball instead of the QB when you leap.  Also, it should be easier to veer away from the QB if you don't leave your feet while attempting a tackle.  You also may be able to apply the 5 or 15 principle if the hit by the defender is late but he appears to be trying to avoid the hit.

I'm going to go ahead and assume you've never played defense in college football. Because what you just described is utter nonsense. 

Agree 100%

Simply piling on - a person cannot even run without leaving his (or her) feet - otherwise, it is called walking.  Leaping, bounding and jumping are really just various ways of running, when you look at it that way.  Imagine football played only by walking - me neither.

[wif]

Lots of talk about UST and the difference between playing hard and intent to injure. I will say this - and this is 100% fact (not conjecture). During the first meeting between SJU and UST, one of SJU's starters (and one of their All MIAC players) comes up limping after a play. This is a player who has endured three ankle surgeries during his college career. Upon seeing the player limp back to the huddle, players on the UST bench "inform" (by way of yelling to them) their teammates - "Number XX is hurt, go after his legs". I am not implying that the UST coaches tell their bench players to do this or that they in anyway condone such behavior, but attitude does tend to reflect leadership.

We could (and do) go back and forth on this stuff forever.  Watch #7 for St John's when he's in on the tackle of Dowdle when he runs in the two point conversion.  He literally steps on Dowdle's face, completely intentionally.   Connected to leadership?  Nah, I won't go that far.  At some point, it's football.

My example, the Joe Boyle thumb incident from a few years ago, trick plays versus a severely over-matched opponent, a high number of personal foul and roughing penalties..... You are right, at some point it is football, and then it crosses the line. When the culture of the program lends itself to incidents and issues that need to be defended, DESPITE the fact you have by far the best team in the conference. It just doesn't make sense to me, but hey what do I know. To each his own. Caruso and UST are what they are, and I respect their abilities, but I don't respect they way they conduct their business.

[retagent]

This is going back a few pages, but it has been busy here.

A UST poster said with authority that the hit on Martin that put him out was not an intent to injure. Since the ball had left his hand, what exactly was the intent then? It could no longer affect that play. Also, and this is from memory, Martin had left the pocket, so he had escaped the pass rush. This hit came from either an LB or DB, who knew the status of the play at that time.

Just because Martin had left the pocket doesn't mean that he escaped the pass rush, evidenced by him being hit shortly after releasing the ball. The ref was right there so in his judgement it wasn't a late hit. Also, when a passer is outside the pocket they are then considered more of a runner and they don't get the same calls for roughing the passer like they would if they are still in the pocket. When you are chasing a qb at full speed, it is difficult to pull up instantly. The qb could also fake a throw and pull the ball down and run, so I don't think it was a late/dirty hit with intent to injure.

As a side note, I remember VOJ commenting on the play saying something like since Martin was hurt on the play then that should be evidence enough that it was a late hit/dirty play and should have been flagged - what kind of logic is that?

Again!!! I didn't say it was a penalty because it was late. However, my argument is that it might have been UNNECESSARY ROUGHNESS. Just look at those words. I think it was unnecessarily rough. That may be what VOJ was thinking (I'm not a mindreader) The fact that he was injured is obvious evidence that it was rough. I also believe it was unnecessarily so. Whew! I'm getting a headache.