FB: Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[art76]

As I noted last week, #9 Hamline goes to #1 St. John's for the blowout game this week. (Pat and Keith talk about the disparity in the MIAC in this morning's podcast.)

Bethel travels to Augsburg, and will also be another game where the final score shows disparity.

St. Thomas travels down to Gustavus for the third final score of disparity.

Carleton has the final bye in the MIAC this year.

Game of the week will be when Concordia travels to St. Olaf for a game that may be decided by less than a score. Pat shared that there has only been one of those in the MIAC so far this season. I'm still liking the home field advantage and suspect that the Oles will also defeat the Cobbers this year.

[DuffMan]

Game of the week will be when Concordia travels to St. Olaf for a game that may be decided by less than a score. Pat shared that there has only been one of those in the MIAC so far this season. I'm still liking the home field advantage and suspect that the Oles will also defeat the Cobbers this year.

After seeing the Oles and Cobbers in back-to-back weeks, I think the Cobbers are a much better team and will win this one handily.

[USTBench]

Well, if the first offense is really from kicking a kid in the head, then this kid is a complete knob, and his parents are knobs for soliciting money to hire an attorney. Sorry to say, but if Junior kicked a kid in the head, then posted an unnecessary roughness call on a defenseless QB as a "highlight" on his Hudl to show college coaches, he deserves this timeout.

Reminds me of this kid from East Grand Forks at UND football camp in 1998. His favorite thing to do was light kids up after the whistle while we were all in nothing but helmets and shoulder pads. We were all there to get better, improve technique, trade helmet decals and maybe catch the eye of a college coach. This kid was there to ruin seasons. Which he almost did multiple times (once by putting the crown of his helmet on a kid's chin from either Fergus Falls or Detroit Lakes). Can't remember if he got the boot, but I think he got the "lighten' up Francis" talk.

[hazzben]

Sounds like a real winner, at least mom and dad aren't enabling him at all 

[faunch]

I heard that the first DQ / suspension came week 6 which meant he sat week 7. Then returned week 8 and got booted again.

[miac952]

Chew on this one...
https://usatodayhss.com/2018/minn-football-players-family-turns-to-lawyer-gofundme-to-fight-suspension

Hmm... that's interesting. With substantive penalties and no means of appeal or review it seems to me there's a pretty bad lack of due process.  Despite the fact that the rules state officials' decisions are final, I feel that is more for things like a holding penalty not a four-game suspension which can be meted out after the match with film review and player injury assessments, etc.


It will be interesting to see if this goes anywhere.

Wowza!  Now that's a pretty chippy hit. I think I'd take that one off the low light reel.

I think the hit was unnecessary and cheap and probably worthy of a 15 yard penalty or perhaps being shown the door for the remainder of the game, but not four games. But then he put it on his Hudl page, so I think he should be suspended until the end of time.

There is a little more to the four game part then the family is leading on. He gets four games this time due to repeat offender status. He kicked a player in the Mounds View game this year, thus doubling the penalty this time around.

I think for this case, they have a point, especially given the discrepancy with the official's report after the game. BUT, his history adds weight to this. From all accounts  he is a good kid; his parents meanwhile.....

[hazzben]

I heard that the first DQ / suspension came week 6 which meant he sat week 7. Then returned week 8 and got booted again.

See, that's why I think he should have only gotten one game. I want to see if he could keep his streak going! 1 game on, 1 game suspended, 1 game on, 1 game suspended, ...

Which leads to the next logical question, is he TDT's 1st or 2nd cousin? 

[sfury]

This kid reminds me of a story that Robert Zimmerman knows as well...

In 8th grade we had a dominant team thanks to our 6-foot running back who averaged about 20 yards per carry. In one game the other team had a linebacker who kept taking dirty shots, late hits, all kinds of crap. On the final play of the game, with us leading, the coach sent a running back in to relay the call to me, our game manager of a QB. A simple running play. With an addition. "Get Red Man." The kid was wearing a red sweatshirt under his jersey. Everyone knew what it meant. At the snap I handed the ball off to the running back and our 9 teammates chased after the linebacker in question. We had big kids. Mean kids. They captured him and planted him onto the field and then dogpiled. By the time they emerged from the pile they were all cheering and the kid was on the ground moaning and writhing. Their parents were outraged, I think our parents appreciated it and we sort of had to be separated. A real 8th grade brouhaha. After the game coach told us not to talk about the incident. Real Nixonian. But at that moment, our team loved him. I don't know if going after that 13-year-old asshole was the right call. But it was justice.

[DuffMan]

This kid reminds me of a story that Robert Zimmerman knows as well...

So, Robert Zimmerman = Red Man? 

[DuffMan]

The kid was wearing a red sweatshirt under his jersey.

He wore a sweatshirt under his pads?  The kid got what he deserved! 

[MiacMan]

Sounds like a real winner, at least mom and dad aren't enabling him at all 

These folks have no respect for the game and deserve a lesson they will not soon forget. It's things like this that are killing the game. It's no wonder mothers today will not allow their sons to play football.

[johnnie_esq]

But then he put it on his Hudl page, so I think he should be suspended until the end of time.

+K for that. 

I'm glad Hudl didn't exist in our day.  Heck, I'm glad social media didn't exist back then.

Yeah, you put it on your Hudl page as a "look what I can do college coaches" and you lose all credibility for your appeal.

It does highlight how much football has changed. 20 years ago, blind side blocks like this were fairly common and would rarely (ever??) draw a flag. This one was cheap, what I have a problem with is blind side blocks that are actually a part of the play and springing a teammate for a bigger gain. As long as a guy doesn't go above the shoulders, those kinds of blocks are part of the game. Keep your head on a swivel young man 

As a HS coach, blindside hits are a point of emphasis this year with officials with an attempt to take out dangerous, unexpected hits out of the game, with a particular concern about crackback blocks in changes of possession. The lesson from the MSHSL is to coach it out of existence, and where it appears that a player is intentionally trying to make the block in a hard manner (as opposed to uncoordinately doing so), to eject the player.  If the kid makes the block from the front and leads with the hands, no problem- and you still spring the big play accordingly; but this kid intends a knockout blow, which is what the rules are trying to outlaw.

We spent a great deal of time on this, as WR also need to lead with hands on crack blocks inside also.  Huge difference in coaching that up from the old rule.  But the repeat offender status with the clear rule violation means it is cut and dry.

No sympathy for the kid for me.  The game has changed and this was clearly against the rules, which were publicized to all coaches and officials.  This wasn't a week 1 mistake;  this was a week 7 one.  The referee's decision is final, and as a repeat offender, he was likely warned to keep it in control.  The kid didn't listen.

[DuffMan]

Wow, a return by Johnnie_Esq after only 2.5+ years. 

[sjusection105]

This kid reminds me of a story that Robert Zimmerman knows as well...

In 8th grade we had a dominant team thanks to our 6-foot running back who averaged about 20 yards per carry. In one game the other team had a linebacker who kept taking dirty shots, late hits, all kinds of crap. On the final play of the game, with us leading, the coach sent a running back in to relay the call to me, our game manager of a QB. A simple running play. With an addition. "Get Red Man." The kid was wearing a red sweatshirt under his jersey. Everyone knew what it meant. At the snap I handed the ball off to the running back and our 9 teammates chased after the linebacker in question. We had big kids. Mean kids. They captured him and planted him onto the field and then dogpiled. By the time they emerged from the pile they were all cheering and the kid was on the ground moaning and writhing. Their parents were outraged, I think our parents appreciated it and we sort of had to be separated. A real 8th grade brouhaha. After the game coach told us not to talk about the incident. Real Nixonian. But at that moment, our team loved him. I don't know if going after that 13-year-old asshole was the right call. But it was justice.

Red Man AKA Scott Farkus.....

[OzJohnnie]

I've got no issue with that hit being a penalty.  It brought back some PTSD of having my teeth rattled by a blind hit in high school.  It does seem strange, though that suspensions are handed out at the game with no review or appeal (apparently - maybe that part is wrong).  How do the refs know if he was suspended before? How does that act as a multiplier on the penalty?

We've only got limited information, but it seems that in regard to suspension that it may be a bit ill-defined, regardless of the penalty this kid earned on that specific play.  Surely, there is more structure to the awarding of suspensions that what is implied.