FB: Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[RoyalsFan]

The other thing that I didn't notice live was on the UST interception in the endzone at the 1:40 mark - had the UST player not stepped in front of the pass, I think there was a PI penalty about to occur, with the UST player draped on the back of the intended BU receiver, so the INT was clutch.

I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure the INT doesn't negate PI. But I also am not sure what you mean by a PI penalty 'about' to occur. If it should have been PI without the INT, it should also have been PI with the INT. With that being said, I didn't think there would have been PI regardless, looked like good coverage to me.

No, it's the opposite. The PI would negate the Int.

Yes, that is saying the same thing I said, just a bit differently.

[USTBench]

Regarding the targeting call.

1.  It was a really violent hit. I get why the flag came out if for nothing more than a reaction by the official.

2.  But it seemed like he hit him square in the chest with his shoulder. Which would make sense since the TE was reaching up for the ball and the CB was giving up 5-6 inches in height. What made it look bad was that the impact into his chest made his head snap hard as his momentum came to a screeching hault.

It was right in front of the BU bench but no coaches really reacted or were chirping to officials. Rather the other official came running in to conference with the line judge and ref. I think they got it right, and probably handled it correctly. Throw the flag then talk it out if there's doubt. What you can't do well is not throw it. Imo, when a crew picks up a flag it is rarely because they got pressured to do so and almost always because they had a good conference to discuss what everyone saw.

And also, Wartburg and ML are boring. I'm with Duff, where's all the chatter?!?

True that, and it was probably the right thing to pick up the flag. The targeting rule specifically addresses the head and neck area. There were some of the elements of targeting, but not enough to make the call IMO. There was an upward thrust from a crouched position leading with the shoulder, but the young man hit our TE square in the chest. Very violent, but a clean hit.

That being said. It was totally targeting and we should have gotten the call. 

[DuffMan]

I was sure Max Jackson was going to get tossed for a hit on the QB vs. TM, not because I thought it was targeting, but because it was a violent hit on a QB that drew a flag.  They ended up calling it unnecessary roughness, though.

[GoldandBlueBU]

And also, Wartburg and ML are boring. I'm with Duff, where's all the chatter?!?

Not surprising about ML, but I recall Wartburg supporters being more active hear in the stretch that BU was seeing them regularly...

[RoyalsFan]

Given how much we got outplayed, it's weird to think that without that punt block (I know, I know) we might have won.

I definitely had that thought after the game - the UST defense bent a lot, but beyond the big Gibas and Roste runs in the first two posessions, they didn't break all day and were able to keep Bethel out of the endzone.

That's one issue I have with Coach J - he likes going for it on 4th down rather than take 3 points. I know Bethel has had some kicking problems, but last week they put in a new kicker and he converted all 7 (?) PATS last week and had already kicked 2 that day, so I would have liked to see them take the 3 points on 4th and goal from the 3. Yes, I know, it wasn't guaranteed, but there was a good chance he would have made it and it would have made it a 2 score game at the end instead of a 1 score game.

[jamtod]

Given how much we got outplayed, it's weird to think that without that punt block (I know, I know) we might have won.

I definitely had that thought after the game - the UST defense bent a lot, but beyond the big Gibas and Roste runs in the first two posessions, they didn't break all day and were able to keep Bethel out of the endzone.

That's one issue I have with Coach J - he likes going for it on 4th down rather than take 3 points. I know Bethel has had some kicking problems, but last week they put in a new kicker and he converted all 7 (?) PATS last week and had already kicked 2 that day, so I would have liked to see them take the 3 points on 4th and goal from the 3. Yes, I know, it wasn't guaranteed, but there was a good chance he would have made it and it would have made it a 2 score game at the end instead of a 1 score game.

Did that lead to the drive where we nearly got safetied?

In D3, I'm almost always ok with foregoing the FG and going for the points. Maybe sometimes it doesn't work out, but I like the aggressive approach.

[RoyalsFan]

Shows what I know!

I guess I was under the impression that given that the ball never had a chance to make it to the intended receiver - as it was picked about 4-5 yards in front of him, that the UST guy riding his back wouldn't have mattered regardless.

That's like saying they should never call defensive holding away from the play since the ball wasn't going to that receiver. But of course we know that is not the way it works. A foul is a foul. The only time they would wave off PI is if the ball is ruled uncatchable.

[RoyalsFan]

Given how much we got outplayed, it's weird to think that without that punt block (I know, I know) we might have won.

I definitely had that thought after the game - the UST defense bent a lot, but beyond the big Gibas and Roste runs in the first two posessions, they didn't break all day and were able to keep Bethel out of the endzone.

That's one issue I have with Coach J - he likes going for it on 4th down rather than take 3 points. I know Bethel has had some kicking problems, but last week they put in a new kicker and he converted all 7 (?) PATS last week and had already kicked 2 that day, so I would have liked to see them take the 3 points on 4th and goal from the 3. Yes, I know, it wasn't guaranteed, but there was a good chance he would have made it and it would have made it a 2 score game at the end instead of a 1 score game.

Did that lead to the drive where we nearly got safetied?

In D3, I'm almost always ok with foregoing the FG and going for the points. Maybe sometimes it doesn't work out, but I like the aggressive approach.

No, that was the drive where a punt was downed at the 1 yard line, if my memory serves me correctly.

[jamtod]

Given how much we got outplayed, it's weird to think that without that punt block (I know, I know) we might have won.

I definitely had that thought after the game - the UST defense bent a lot, but beyond the big Gibas and Roste runs in the first two posessions, they didn't break all day and were able to keep Bethel out of the endzone.

That's one issue I have with Coach J - he likes going for it on 4th down rather than take 3 points. I know Bethel has had some kicking problems, but last week they put in a new kicker and he converted all 7 (?) PATS last week and had already kicked 2 that day, so I would have liked to see them take the 3 points on 4th and goal from the 3. Yes, I know, it wasn't guaranteed, but there was a good chance he would have made it and it would have made it a 2 score game at the end instead of a 1 score game.

Did that lead to the drive where we nearly got safetied?

In D3, I'm almost always ok with foregoing the FG and going for the points. Maybe sometimes it doesn't work out, but I like the aggressive approach.

No, that was the drive where a punt was downed at the 1 yard line, if my memory serves me correctly.

Too many drives where we started pinned inside the 5. Too few 90 yard runs by Josh Parks.

[OzJohnnie]

And also, Wartburg and ML are boring. I'm with Duff, where's all the chatter?!?

Not surprising about ML, but I recall Wartburg supporters being more active hear in the stretch that BU was seeing them regularly...

I think it's because the national competition has matured. We know what to expect. Ten or twelve years ago in the Golden Age of Chirpy Banter exactly how different teams stacked up was uncertain and there was a lot of room for naive bravado. Now we pretty much know that the championship is going to only three to five teams in the country every year and if your team isn't utterly powerful then your lesser side is in for a guaranteed thumping (I was even surprised how we dominated against Thomas More.  I was a little worried because they were a legit top 30 side. But from the way the Johnnies played TM was little different than STO.  An unexpectedly strong performance.)  A little harder to chirp in that scenario.

[repete]

Don't care all that much about that team of the week thing on the D3 homepage  .... but since we're getting nothing from MLC and Wart AND it involves Brockport, a half-hearted whine:

Their QB plays into the fourth quarter of a rout to get his 4th TD, while Erdmann leaves 6 seconds into the second half with 7 TDs ... against a better team. 

[RoyalsFan]

Too many drives where we started pinned inside the 5. Too few 90 yard runs by Josh Parks.

I think your memory is a little fuzzy. There was only 1 drive started inside the 5, and that was the punt downed at the 1. The INT in the end zone was returned to the 10. All other drives started at the 18 or better. Unless you want to count the 1 drive as too many.

[jamtod]

Too many drives where we started pinned inside the 5. Too few 90 yard runs by Josh Parks.

I think your memory is a little fuzzy. There was only 1 drive started inside the 5, and that was the punt downed at the 1. The INT in the end zone was returned to the 10. All other drives started at the 18 or better. Unless you want to count the 1 drive as too many.

Yes. I do want to say that. I forgot that that 4th down attempt was the one that we intercepted.

We had a few punts that we badly misjudged where we should be standing to return, that ended up rolling and not getting a return.

I blame my poor memory on the hot chocolate. Somebody must have spiked mine.

[GoldandBlueBU]

Shows what I know!

I guess I was under the impression that given that the ball never had a chance to make it to the intended receiver - as it was picked about 4-5 yards in front of him, that the UST guy riding his back wouldn't have mattered regardless.

That's like saying they should never call defensive holding away from the play since the ball wasn't going to that receiver. But of course we know that is not the way it works. A foul is a foul. The only time they would wave off PI is if the ball is ruled uncatchable.

Makes sense.  The uncatchable part is the false connection that I made.  I assumed that since the ball never had a chance to be caught due to the INT, it was by definition "uncatchable".

Maybe that's why I never played further back than the D-line in HS.  That or talent.  Couldn't have been talent. 

[MiacMan]

Too many drives where we started pinned inside the 5. Too few 90 yard runs by Josh Parks.

I think your memory is a little fuzzy. There was only 1 drive started inside the 5, and that was the punt downed at the 1. The INT in the end zone was returned to the 10. All other drives started at the 18 or better. Unless you want to count the 1 drive as too many.

Yes. I do want to say that. I forgot that that 4th down attempt was the one that we intercepted.

We had a few punts that we badly misjudged where we should be standing to return, that ended up rolling and not getting a return.

I blame my poor memory on the hot chocolate. Somebody must have spiked mine.

Do you mean that warm water that they stir with a hersey bar and sell to you for $2? You had to spike it or it wouldn't have had any flavor.