Firing up a thread to talk about non-NIU games outside of the usual NIU game thread. Interesting games and MAC matchups tonight:

Ohio State at Minnesota: Fox
Boise State vs UCF: ESPN
East Carolina vs Appalachian State: ESPNU
USF vs NC State: ACC Network

MAC Games:

Bowling Green at Tennessee: SEC Network
Western Illinois at Ball State: ESPN+
Wagner at Buffalo: ESPN3

Ball State struggling with Western Illinois. Tied 7 - 7 at the half.

(09-02-2021 07:41 PM)HuskieTap22 Wrote:  Ball State struggling with Western Illinois. Tied 7 - 7 at the half.

Ball State does not impress me as some kind of world beater.

I have been watching, I mean they are OK. But the MAC is open. Buffalo looks good.

Down in lake Lanier getting ready for GT...and turned on Buffalo. Who is wagner?

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

(09-02-2021 07:41 PM)HuskieTap22 Wrote:  Ball State struggling with Western Illinois. Tied 7 - 7 at the half.

You mean Balls Tate

BGSU down 14-6 at half vs Tennessee.

(09-02-2021 07:49 PM)BigChilla Wrote:  

(09-02-2021 07:41 PM)HuskieTap22 Wrote:  Ball State struggling with Western Illinois. Tied 7 - 7 at the half.

Ball State does not impress me as some kind of world beater.

I have been watching, I mean they are OK. But the MAC is open. Buffalo looks good.

They didn’t last year. They were lucky to beat NIU in Muncie. The coaches really blew that game. NIU should have won that game.

This year’s game is at Huskie Stadium. Coaches better not blow it again. It should, once again, be an NIU victory.

Noticed Ball State has three players on the sideline, each wearing a bright-colored baseball cap backwards (orange, blue, green) making signals with their arms/hands. I'm guessing since their signals are each different on each down, they are color-coded for different plays, and one is real and the other two fake.

Boise putting a smack down on UCF.

I thought that targeting no-call at the end of the OSU-Minn game was ridiculous. The OSU defender left his feet and blasted the receiver in the helmet with the crown of his helmet, pretty much the definition of targeting.

(09-02-2021 11:46 PM)NIU1981 Wrote:  I thought that targeting no-call at the end of the OSU-Minn game was ridiculous. The OSU defender left his feet and blasted the receiver in the helmet with the crown of his helmet, pretty much the definition of targeting.

I agree 100%. No targeting penalty called by the refs because it would mean a first half suspension for the Oregon game.

(09-02-2021 11:46 PM)NIU1981 Wrote:  I thought that targeting no-call at the end of the OSU-Minn game was ridiculous. The OSU defender left his feet and blasted the receiver in the helmet with the crown of his helmet, pretty much the definition of targeting.

That did definitely appear to be targeting live, but after watching the replay it wasn't as clear cut. The defenders helmet did appear to make contact with the back corner of the WR's helmet, but bc it wasn't called on the field, the replay would have had to show incontrovertible evidence of targeting to add it. Personally, I would have been OK with the call either way it went.

How about the slow-motion zoom shot of the Minn RB Ibrahim and you could literally see something tear in his calf/lower leg.

(09-02-2021 08:42 PM)NorthCoast Wrote:  

(09-02-2021 07:49 PM)BigChilla Wrote:  

(09-02-2021 07:41 PM)HuskieTap22 Wrote:  Ball State struggling with Western Illinois. Tied 7 - 7 at the half.

Ball State does not impress me as some kind of world beater.

I have been watching, I mean they are OK. But the MAC is open. Buffalo looks good.

They didn’t last year. They were lucky to beat NIU in Muncie. The coaches really blew that game. NIU should have won that game.

This year’s game is at Huskie Stadium. Coaches better not blow it again. It should, once again, be an NIU victory.

And a chance to have the silver sow...I mean the silver cornstalk back in our possession at the Yordin Center is keeping up at night with excitement.

It's the Bronze Stalk. And even I can't believe I remembered that. Shows you how dearly beloved it is to all of us.

Also, SIU played at SEMO, and SEMO had to close part of its main grandstand due to unsafe conditions. They put up some temp bleachers which will remain in use for this season.

https://www.kbsi23.com/sports/southeast-...-concerns/

In the pic, it's the side with the pressbox and red chairback section.

(09-03-2021 12:35 AM)TXHuskieJA26 Wrote:  

(09-02-2021 11:46 PM)NIU1981 Wrote:  I thought that targeting no-call at the end of the OSU-Minn game was ridiculous. The OSU defender left his feet and blasted the receiver in the helmet with the crown of his helmet, pretty much the definition of targeting.

That did definitely appear to be targeting live, but after watching the replay it wasn't as clear cut. The defenders helmet did appear to make contact with the back corner of the WR's helmet, but bc it wasn't called on the field, the replay would have had to show incontrovertible evidence of targeting to add it. Personally, I would have been OK with the call either way it went.

How about the slow-motion zoom shot of the Minn RB Ibrahim and you could literally see something tear in his calf/lower leg.

I agree with this - I wasn’t really sure if it should be called, and when it wasn’t called - after the replay I wasn’t sure it should be called either, so no chance in my mind replay could have reversed anything. Only m very initial look I thought it was a good solid hit. Then on slow motion the part that I thought could have made the call happen was “forceable contact to the head or NECK area.” I thought the side of the defenders helmet hit the receiver in the lower part of the helmet/back of the neck. Again, I wasn’t super sure about it though so whatever the ref thought on the field had to stay…in my opinion.

(09-03-2021 12:35 AM)TXHuskieJA26 Wrote:  

(09-02-2021 11:46 PM)NIU1981 Wrote:  I thought that targeting no-call at the end of the OSU-Minn game was ridiculous. The OSU defender left his feet and blasted the receiver in the helmet with the crown of his helmet, pretty much the definition of targeting.

That did definitely appear to be targeting live, but after watching the replay it wasn't as clear cut. The defenders helmet did appear to make contact with the back corner of the WR's helmet, but bc it wasn't called on the field, the replay would have had to show incontrovertible evidence of targeting to add it. Personally, I would have been OK with the call either way it went.

How about the slow-motion zoom shot of the Minn RB Ibrahim and you could literally see something tear in his calf/lower leg.

It was clear targeting

(09-03-2021 12:35 AM)TXHuskieJA26 Wrote:  

(09-02-2021 11:46 PM)NIU1981 Wrote:  I thought that targeting no-call at the end of the OSU-Minn game was ridiculous. The OSU defender left his feet and blasted the receiver in the helmet with the crown of his helmet, pretty much the definition of targeting.

That did definitely appear to be targeting live, but after watching the replay it wasn't as clear cut. The defenders helmet did appear to make contact with the back corner of the WR's helmet, but bc it wasn't called on the field, the replay would have had to show incontrovertible evidence of targeting to add it. Personally, I would have been OK with the call either way it went.

How about the slow-motion zoom shot of the Minn RB Ibrahim and you could literally see something tear in his calf/lower leg.

About the targeting non-call against Ohio State.... How many of our guys have been thrown out for FAR LESS in the last couple of years?

Spoiler-- the answer is A LOT.

Easily targeting. Unintentional but that doesn’t make it any less targeting. Did the refs think the KO came from getting hit in the shoulder? I understand no call on the field. Only 1 replay exposed the helmet2helmet. Not to mention defenseless receiver. I hate when my brain goes to - OSU has a big game next week and someone didn’t want that guy suspended the entire game. But it does when it’s the ncaa elite.

(09-03-2021 08:48 AM)7 Wrote:  

(09-03-2021 12:35 AM)TXHuskieJA26 Wrote:  

(09-02-2021 11:46 PM)NIU1981 Wrote:  I thought that targeting no-call at the end of the OSU-Minn game was ridiculous. The OSU defender left his feet and blasted the receiver in the helmet with the crown of his helmet, pretty much the definition of targeting.

That did definitely appear to be targeting live, but after watching the replay it wasn't as clear cut. The defenders helmet did appear to make contact with the back corner of the WR's helmet, but bc it wasn't called on the field, the replay would have had to show incontrovertible evidence of targeting to add it. Personally, I would have been OK with the call either way it went.

How about the slow-motion zoom shot of the Minn RB Ibrahim and you could literally see something tear in his calf/lower leg.

It was clear targeting

I mean at least 2 people disagree, the replay ref and I.

There are so many ways the replay ref can say it wasn’t targeting - the thing is I would agree if it was called on the field as targeting there was nothing to overturn it.

How many steps does a guy get until he isn’t defenseless? I am not trying to be a jerk, I am asking an honest question. This would eliminate at least the defenseless part of the conversation.

Then the question of helmet to helmet. I thought he hit him in the back of the helmet for sure, maybe that wasn’t his first point of contact, but he DID hit him. I do t think he hit him with the crown of his helmet though. Was enough to be targeting? It was bang-bang and the ref on the field didn’t call it. Was it enough to overturn a targeting call if it was called on the field? I would say no way.

It isn’t illegal for a tacklers helmet to touch the runners helmet. Crown as the first point of contact is targeting. Forceful contact to the head and neck is targeting. And of course the forceful contact on a defenseless player is a flag.

You can debate the first 2, but the replay guy clearly thought no on those… but then of course you have to decide if forceful contact happened.

(09-03-2021 09:42 AM)BigChilla Wrote:  

(09-03-2021 08:48 AM)7 Wrote:  

(09-03-2021 12:35 AM)TXHuskieJA26 Wrote:  

(09-02-2021 11:46 PM)NIU1981 Wrote:  I thought that targeting no-call at the end of the OSU-Minn game was ridiculous. The OSU defender left his feet and blasted the receiver in the helmet with the crown of his helmet, pretty much the definition of targeting.

That did definitely appear to be targeting live, but after watching the replay it wasn't as clear cut. The defenders helmet did appear to make contact with the back corner of the WR's helmet, but bc it wasn't called on the field, the replay would have had to show incontrovertible evidence of targeting to add it. Personally, I would have been OK with the call either way it went.

How about the slow-motion zoom shot of the Minn RB Ibrahim and you could literally see something tear in his calf/lower leg.

It was clear targeting

I mean at least 2 people disagree, the replay ref and I.

There are so many ways the replay ref can say it wasn’t targeting - the thing is I would agree if it was called on the field as targeting there was nothing to overturn it.

How many steps does a guy get until he isn’t defenseless? I am not trying to be a jerk, I am asking an honest question. This would eliminate at least the defenseless part of the conversation.

Then the question of helmet to helmet. I thought he hit him in the back of the helmet for sure, maybe that wasn’t his first point of contact, but he DID hit him. I do t think he hit him with the crown of his helmet though. Was enough to be targeting? It was bang-bang and the ref on the field didn’t call it. Was it enough to overturn a targeting call if it was called on the field? I would say no way.

It isn’t illegal for a tacklers helmet to touch the runners helmet. Crown as the first point of contact is targeting. Forceful contact to the head and neck is targeting. And of course the forceful contact on a defenseless player is a flag.

You can debate the first 2, but the replay guy clearly thought no on those… but then of course you have to decide if forceful contact happened.

I think the defenseless part in this instance is less about the number of steps and more about the receiver not being in control of his body yet. No idea what the actual rule is. Sometimes these things slide by on technicalities because the rules aren’t written well.