Ball going out is a killer.
- Thread starter Univee2
- Start date
Couldn't see the play but the incidental contact calls are ridiculous. I guess the call for lowering your head is to protect the defensive player as much as the offensive but the refs have gone overboard with it... yea I know, big shock.
They want everything to be governed by rule but common sense has to be a part or the game is just a joke. Too many penalties in todays game.
They want everything to be governed by rule but common sense has to be a part or the game is just a joke. Too many penalties in todays game.
Ball gets targeting on a play where he completely whiffed on the sliding Lewerke. Meanwhile, an MSU player hits a sliding Ramsey with the crown of his helmet in the side of the head and no call? Horrible.
The replay clearly showed he didn’t completely whiff. It was the correct call based on the rule.
Unf he did not whiff and did lead with helmet. Hated it but was right. I hope he stays healthy he is a gamechanger
Another call I saw missed was on one of Ramsey's passes a rusher slapped him in the head trying to knock the ball out of his hands.
He didn’t have to lead with the helmet. Lewerke is deemed a defenseless player the second he slides, and you can’t hit him.
Okay... will give you that. What about the clear targeting on Ramsey in the first half? The defender lowered his head and clearly hit Ramsey in the side of the helmet. I’m sure that wasn’t targeting in Larry’s world.
Ramsey was a runner at that point and not “defenseless”, based on the rule. You need to learn the targeting rule and how it’s defined and correctly applied.
Larry it's the same situation....both quarterbacks were runners, both slid, no difference.
If you are going to be condescending, please know what you are talking about for once.
If you are going to be condescending, please know what you are talking about for once.
Uhh.. falling to the ground and with his knees clearly down and taking a shot to the head? You need to understand the rule Larry:
No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul.
If it's the play I'm thinking of, replay showed the defender hit him with the shoulder. I'm more concerned with the no call on the push off in the end zone (killer) and the ghost PI call on the interception (at least karma gave us a payback).
MSU made more than enough mistakes to lose. We just didn't take advantage.
It’s contact to the side of a players helmet with the crown of the defender’s helmet. What is it about that you don’t understand? Hey, I will completely admit the better team won. You seek to find anything to shit on with IU. A call goes our way, you contend it was wrong. A call goes against us, you justify it was right. I have NEVER seen a poster so anti-IU on this board. We win games and you don’t say anything positive. You surface a few days later to offer your dark cloud. We lose games and you pile on. It’s disturbing that this is your mindset.
I’m simply saying the calls were both correct based on the rules, and the officials agreed in both cases. I know you’re upset, but the rule was applied correctly. The rest of your post is mindless babble.
So hitting a QB in the side of the helmet with the crown of your helmet is not targeting? Leading with the crown of the helmet and hitting a guy squarely in the side of the head is perfectly normal? I think you may have been dropped on your own head too many times to be so incoherent about the rule. You cannot lead with you head and most certainly cannot make contact helmet to helmet. Hell, I’ve seen situations where a guys is running, not sliding mind you, and a defender hits him in the head while the runner is upright and they call targeting. You don’t watch enough football.
Hitting any player defenseless or not defenseless is targeting even if the offensive player lowers his helmet it is the defensive player responsibility to avoid contact which I think in that situation is nonsense
Ball will have to sit the first half of the Rutgers game. He was ejected and the rule states you cannot play the first half of the following game if ejected during the 2nd half of the contest for targeting.
The targeting calls were correct IMO. Ball knew it was targeting as soon as it happened. Can't drop your head
You are right, but the targeting rules are not being applied universally. I.e. I've seen a handful of much clearer and more violent targeting calls reviewed and then overturned.
Yep. Classy kid who wasn’t trying to light up Lewerke at all. Gotta let him go to the ground and pull up.
I don't have a problem with the call Ball got. He went after a sliding QB late and lowered his helmet. By rule, he is in violation. He will learn and unlikely do it again.
My issue is that it was nearly a mirror play vs Ramsey from the first half that had no call, let alone no ejection. If you understand the rule, you understand this was a missed call. It didn't cost IU the game or anything, it was simply missed, End of discussion.
My issue is that it was nearly a mirror play vs Ramsey from the first half that had no call, let alone no ejection. If you understand the rule, you understand this was a missed call. It didn't cost IU the game or anything, it was simply missed, End of discussion.
It did cost us a chance at tying the game before halftime, and instead , gave the ball back to MSU giving them an opportunity to open a 2 score lead at the half instead. The Ball call was correct, the hit on Ramsey was clearly a missed targeting call, and why in the world there was no review is hard to understand.
Both replays were shown numerous times, showing controversial plays is a policy shift at MS that I really appreciate.
Larry won’t acknowledge that play. Larry will never argue a single call against IU because he feels they are all justified for some bizarre reason.
I realize you’re very upset about the game, but you don’t understand the rule.
If he is saying anything different than I am, he either doesn't understand the rule or is upholding the agenda he has maintained over the past 12 user names. Don't waste your time.
Which play are you referencing? The play I'm thinking of was when Ramsey was trying to run for the first and didn't give himself up. The defensive player hit him with the shoulder. There may have been a little contact with the head but it wasn't head on with the crown.
And it absolutely wasn’t targeting. CC and one other poster don’t know the rule.
Exactly. Put that douchebag on ignore like the rest of us. Engaging with him just ruins every single thread.
Plenty of people would rather ignore the facts than engage.
Every time he comes back from being banned with a new name, and before putting him on ignore I give him a chance to demonstrate he wants to discuss sports honestly, objectively and without personal attacks...so far he has failed that test every time.
Ball’s penalty is the exact reason why IU loses football games. If Ball wants to fire the team up then make good, hard hits not stupid plays like that. He should have been angry with himself instead he’s fist bumping other players while he’s walking off the field. Maybe IU doesn’t win the game but the TD from that penalty just makes it harder to overcome. Football games can be won over more talented opponents by playing smarter. Purdue lost two games by two different players who had to show how ‘tough’ they were by committing flagrant fouls to the detriment of their team. Coach Allen needs to hand out a rule book to each player, have them study it, take a test and play only when you understand the rules.
He knew he made a mistake as soon as it happened. The fist bumps were just trying to pump guys up as he was leaving.
Ball is a great kid and a smart player that made a mistake in execution...it wasn't an intentional personal foul. IU has zero of those this year and I credit TA and staff for this.
