FB: Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[RoyalsFan]

I don't have a rule book to quote but basically, in college and in high school, so long as the receiver has not reached a downfield position even with the defender, and so long as a pass has not been thrown beyond the LOS, then the receiver is no different than any blocker, and contact can be initiated by the defender any where on the field. There is no reference whatsoever to the five yard no contact rule in high school or college.

Hmmm, that's not the way I interpret the rule:

Illegal Contact and Pass Interference
ARTICLE 8. a. During a down in which a legal forward pass crosses the neutral
zone, illegal contact by Team A and Team B players is prohibited from the time
the ball is snapped until it is touched by any player or an official (A.R. 7-3-8-II).

To me it is pretty clear that downfield contact is illegal anytime until the pass is touched but it's one of those rules that the refs don't enforce.

[USTBench]

Yep, most LB's and DB's are coached to get 'hands on' a receiver as they run down the field. I.e. knock them off their route, shove them, etc. as much as possible before the ball is thrown.

I think the 5 yd rule, if memory serves, is basically the 'Mel Blount Rule.' Legend has it that he was so physically dominant and skilled at getting 'hands on' that opposing WR were basically incapable of running their routes. So they instituted the rule that after 5 yds, you couldn't contact a WR, even if the ball hadn't been thrown yet. I think I saw that on some NFL films tribute to him a few years back. Maybe one of those Top 10 best Corners ever deals...

Bethel DBs used to beat you up all the way down the field. Asked the ref, "Is he allowed to do that after 5 yards." Ref said, "That only applies on Sundays." But that was 2002

So what you're saying is you saw some game action in 2002....... 

Occasionally the coaches would confuse me for someone else. Also, we typically played Bethel about twice a year in JV. But yes, if memory serves me correctly I got in that one. Not that the "player participation" would ever reflect that. Glad I still have some programs and team photos, or else there would be very little proof I was on the team.

[Retired Old Rat]

Yep, most LB's and DB's are coached to get 'hands on' a receiver as they run down the field. I.e. knock them off their route, shove them, etc. as much as possible before the ball is thrown.

I think the 5 yd rule, if memory serves, is basically the 'Mel Blount Rule.' Legend has it that he was so physically dominant and skilled at getting 'hands on' that opposing WR were basically incapable of running their routes. So they instituted the rule that after 5 yds, you couldn't contact a WR, even if the ball hadn't been thrown yet. I think I saw that on some NFL films tribute to him a few years back. Maybe one of those Top 10 best Corners ever deals...

Bethel DBs used to beat you up all the way down the field. Asked the ref, "Is he allowed to do that after 5 yards." Ref said, "That only applies on Sundays." But that was 2002

So what you're saying is you saw some game action in 2002....... 

Occasionally the coaches would confuse me for someone else. Also, we typically played Bethel about twice a year in JV. But yes, if memory serves me correctly I got in that one. Not that the "player participation" would ever reflect that. Glad I still have some programs and team photos, or else there would be very little proof I was on the team.

A personal foul would have put you in the box score.

[USTBench]

Yep, most LB's and DB's are coached to get 'hands on' a receiver as they run down the field. I.e. knock them off their route, shove them, etc. as much as possible before the ball is thrown.

I think the 5 yd rule, if memory serves, is basically the 'Mel Blount Rule.' Legend has it that he was so physically dominant and skilled at getting 'hands on' that opposing WR were basically incapable of running their routes. So they instituted the rule that after 5 yds, you couldn't contact a WR, even if the ball hadn't been thrown yet. I think I saw that on some NFL films tribute to him a few years back. Maybe one of those Top 10 best Corners ever deals...

Bethel DBs used to beat you up all the way down the field. Asked the ref, "Is he allowed to do that after 5 yards." Ref said, "That only applies on Sundays." But that was 2002

So what you're saying is you saw some game action in 2002....... 

Occasionally the coaches would confuse me for someone else. Also, we typically played Bethel about twice a year in JV. But yes, if memory serves me correctly I got in that one. Not that the "player participation" would ever reflect that. Glad I still have some programs and team photos, or else there would be very little proof I was on the team.

A personal foul would have put you in the box score.

My goal, especially on punt (where I'd deliberately sneak into games) was to go unnoticed. Unless it was some big time play, then they'd have to be like, "man, good call by USTBench putting himself in the game, he should start next week!" Never materialized though.

You've never seen anyone practice punt coverage as meticulously as me.

[Whitecarrera]

I don't have a rule book to quote but basically, in college and in high school, so long as the receiver has not reached a downfield position even with the defender, and so long as a pass has not been thrown beyond the LOS, then the receiver is no different than any blocker, and contact can be initiated by the defender any where on the field. There is no reference whatsoever to the five yard no contact rule in high school or college.

Hmmm, that's not the way I interpret the rule:

Illegal Contact and Pass Interference
ARTICLE 8. a. During a down in which a legal forward pass crosses the neutral
zone, illegal contact by Team A and Team B players is prohibited from the time
the ball is snapped until it is touched by any player or an official (A.R. 7-3-8-II).

To me it is pretty clear that downfield contact is illegal anytime until the pass is touched but it's one of those rules that the refs don't enforce.

Well - you're interpreting it wrong. The rule says "illegal contact by Team A and Team B is prohibited."  This is correct, and the operative word is "illegal."  The rule book then goes on to describe what is illegal. On the other hand, legal downfield contact IS allowed.

Nowhere does it describe downfield defensive contact as inherently illegal. By your interpretation, a defensive end would be interfering simply by disrupting a TE release.

Your mistake is equating "downfield" with "illegal", and that's not the case. There is legal downfield contact and there is illegal downfield contact. The rule you cite basically says that illegal contact is illegal. Duh ... I know ... But that's the way the NCAA works sometimes.

[d-train]

Good point; what crummy wording. A better question might be why illegal contact is allowed before the snap or after the ball is touched? "Yes I assaulted him, officer, but the ball was tipped at the line." 

[RoyalsFan]

Well - you're interpreting it wrong. The rule says "illegal contact by Team A and Team B is prohibited."  This is correct, and the operative word is "illegal."  The rule book then goes on to describe what is illegal. On the other hand, legal downfield contact IS allowed.

Nowhere does it describe downfield defensive contact as inherently illegal. By your interpretation, a defensive end would be interfering simply by disrupting a TE release.

Your mistake is equating "downfield" with "illegal", and that's not the case. There is legal downfield contact and there is illegal downfield contact. The rule you cite basically says that illegal contact is illegal. Duh ... I know ... But that's the way the NCAA works sometimes.

Ok - thanks for setting me straight. The rule book is a little vague on exactly what is legal and illegal contact. For example, one definition of legal contact I found:

c. Defensive players legally may contact opponents who have crossed the
neutral zone if the opponents are not in a position to receive a catchable
forward pass.

So what exactly does 'if the opponents are not in a position to receive a catchable forward pass' mean? The only thing that makes sense to me where a receiver technically would not be in a position to receive a pass would be if he was out of bounds. Or I suppose it could mean a defender can legally contact a receiver as long as the ball is not thrown his way, which would make more sense, but still pretty vague the way it is worded.

[OzJohnnie]

A 24-year-old Fremantle supporter was sentenced to EIGHT MONTHS jail yesterday for punching a woman in the throat at a playoff game that Fremantle was hosting. Fremantle fans tend to be feral (Raiders fans could take some tips) and this drunk dummy was not only feral but very unlucky. The mother, also a Fremantle supporter, that asked him to stop behaving like a hooligan as her children were at the game was also an off-duty police officer.

Today he's been banned for life from attending AFL sanctioned games.

Lay off the booze, son.

(I note that murder tends to get you about four years in jail after parole and beingbdrunk is also considered a mitigating factor)

[retagent]

I don't have a rule book to quote but basically, in college and in high school, so long as the receiver has not reached a downfield position even with the defender, and so long as a pass has not been thrown beyond the LOS, then the receiver is no different than any blocker, and contact can be initiated by the defender any where on the field. There is no reference whatsoever to the five yard no contact rule in high school or college.

Hmmm, that's not the way I interpret the rule:

Illegal Contact and Pass Interference
ARTICLE 8. a. During a down in which a legal forward pass crosses the neutral
zone, illegal contact by Team A and Team B players is prohibited from the time
the ball is snapped until it is touched by any player or an official (A.R. 7-3-8-II).

To me it is pretty clear that downfield contact is illegal anytime until the pass is touched but it's one of those rules that the refs don't enforce.

So now you're saying that the refs don't ALWAYS make the right call. Isn't this a little different than your stance on the Martin hit?

[wif]

So here is some fun speculation. I see Haugen from GAC and Caruso of UST split the John Gagliardi MIAC coach of the year honors. For the record, and as much as it pains me to say this, I think Caruso deserved the award outright. While most people saw them as a top contender for the MIAC title this year, they ended up being absolutely dominant in every aspect. To go from a very good 8-3 team to an undefeated, legitimate Natl Champ contender speaks to the strength of the program. OK, let me pause while I swallow the vomit in my mouth....

Anyway, I'm assuming this award is based on a coaches vote? So lets speculate about which coaches voted for Caruso and which voted for Haugen? Of course others may have garnered votes. Fasching won the award last year, so I'm guessing he might not have had much support based on that alone. For my money, Rogesheske or Haege probably get the most out of the least, although Haege had Ayrton Scott, the MIAC MVP. Johnson at Bethel probably had to endure the most key injuries, but another season ending loss to Augsburg takes away some merit points. Horan also had some key injuries, but a late season loss to a team (GAC) that was handled by other other strong teams tarnishes the season a bit. 
I am assuming a coach can't or wouldn't vote for themselves:

Caruso (UST) - Hard to think he'd vote for Haugen after rolling GAC by nearly 60, maybe he felt sorry for him.
Pagel (Carleton) - Haugen, I'm thinking this is a safe bet as a non-vote for Caruso
Horan (Concordia) - Haugen - GAC defeated his Cobbers
Johnson (Bethel) - Caruso, same voting logic as Fasching (see below)
Fasching (SJU) -  - Caruso? Gary is a stand up guy, and as much as I'm sure he hates losing to UST, he knows a good team when he sees it.
Rogesheske (Hamline) - ?? ? Caruso
Haugen (GAC) - Caruso
Stern (SOC) - Haugen
Haege (Augsburg) - Haugen

Based on my guesses, you'd have 4 for Caruso, 4 for Haugen and 1 for someone else - hence the split award.

[sjusection105]

This is so lame where is the Wabash vs UST banter? There was more back & forth about the game last week (Sunday,Monday,Tuesday) and the hit on Martin than this game for the regional crown; pick it up people 

[Mr.MIAC]

This is so lame where is the Wabash vs UST banter? There was more back & forth about the game last week (Sunday,Monday,Tuesday) and the hit on Martin than this game for the regional crown; pick it up people 

I'm starting it up over on their board...

[Schwami]

There is a fair amount of banter over on the NCAC board, and a lot more to come I am sure . . . although less this year it seems than before last year's Wabash - Whitewater game.   

[57Johnnie]

This is so lame where is the Wabash vs UST banter? There was more back & forth about the game last week (Sunday,Monday,Tuesday) and the hit on Martin than this game for the regional crown; pick it up people 

105:
Over the years I have learned that I can save a lot of time by not reading any post over 5 or 6 lines long or reading any post that is requoted more than once.
Bet I haven't missed much.
St. Benedict says a wise man is known by his brevity 

[02 Warhawk]

There is a fair amount of banter over on the NCAC board, and a lot more to come I am sure . . . although less this year it seems than before last year's Wabash - Whitewater game.   

Yea, and we all know how that game turned out. I expect a similar outcome Saturday.

Wabash is a very good team, but not quite at the level of a purple power.