How precisely does the bushleague b1g not make a comment about the BLATANT result-changing non-call in scUM-Illinois game?

[CJFisJoePaII]

If you bother to watch the play, the Illini defender jumps towards the sideline and is the player who initiates contact. That makes it more of a judgement call with the refs. The defender is attempting to wreck the timing of the pass patern. The tight end is attempting to run a six yard inward curl. Every game has dozens of such judgement calls that refs go either way on.

Here is a video of the play:

View embedded media

You are completely full of shit that the Illini defender initiates the contact OR that the scUM receiver attempts to run past him on sideline side. After running directly into his chest, the scUM eligible receiver attempts to wall and drive Illini defender to inside and in fact the defender finally escapes to the scUM receiver's very clear INTENTIONAL block to the scUM players left-hand side (i.e., toward the sideline) while the scUM receiver rolls off the Illini defender to the Illini players right. It would be the diametric opposite if the defender had initiated the contact and attempted to trap scUM player against sideline.

You scUM fans are so pathetic - this is BEYOND BLATANT and OBVIOUS Offensive Pass Interference and to claim otherwise is laughable.

This excerpted directly from the NCAA Rulebook - Rule 7-3-8-b - Offensive Pass Interference:

b. Offensive pass interference is contact by a Team A player beyond the neutral zone that interferes with a Team B player during a legal forward pass play in which the forward pass crosses the neutral zone. It is the responsibility of the offensive player to avoid the opponents.​

​

Bolding of last sentence added by me. Complete nonsense that the scUM receiver is remotely permitted to do what he did as confirmed by 100% of the "A.R."s (Approved Rulings in the Rulebook associated with Rule 7-3-8-b - Offensive Pass Interference. A.R. 7-3-8 IV -VI):

IV. At the snap, A88 is on the end of the line of scrimmage 10 yards from the tackle position and A44 is in the backfield, four yards to his inside. Just before the Team A passer releases the ball, A88 contacts B1 five yards beyond the neutral zone. The pass is thrown to A44, who has moved in front and to the outside of the spot where A88 had contacted B1. RULING: Team A foul, offensive pass interference. Penalty—15 yards from the previous spot. V. Before the ball is thrown, wide receiver A88 moves four yards downfield directly toward and in front of the defender, B1. At this spot, B1 pushes A88, who then uses his hands to contact B1. RULING: Team A foul, offensive pass interference, if the legal forward pass is beyond the neutral zone. Penalty—15 yards from the previous spot. VI. Before the ball is thrown, wide receiver A88 slants to the inside where linebacker B1 attempts to block him. A88 uses his hands to shove B1 away. RULING: Team A foul, offensive pass interference, if the legal forward pass crosses the neutral zone. If B1’s initial contact was below the waist and beyond the neutral zone, Team B also has fouled and the live-ball fouls offset.​

 

[KCLion]

This excerpted directly from the NCAA Rulebook - Rule 7-3-8-b - Offensive Pass Interference:

b. Offensive pass interference is contact by a Team A player beyond the neutral zone that interferes with a Team B player during a legal forward pass play in which the forward pass crosses the neutral zone. It is the responsibility of the offensive player to avoid the opponents.​

​

Bolding of last sentence added by me. Complete nonsense that the scUM receiver is remotely permitted to do what he did as confirmed by 100% of the "A.R."s (Approved Rulings in the Rulebook associated with Rule 7-3-8-b - Offensive Pass Interference. A.R. 7-3-8 IV -VI):

IV. At the snap, A88 is on the end of the line of scrimmage 10 yards from the tackle position and A44 is in the backfield, four yards to his inside. Just before the Team A passer releases the ball, A88 contacts B1 five yards beyond the neutral zone. The pass is thrown to A44, who has moved in front and to the outside of the spot where A88 had contacted B1. RULING: Team A foul, offensive pass interference. Penalty—15 yards from the previous spot. V. Before the ball is thrown, wide receiver A88 moves four yards downfield directly toward and in front of the defender, B1. At this spot, B1 pushes A88, who then uses his hands to contact B1. RULING: Team A foul, offensive pass interference, if the legal forward pass is beyond the neutral zone. Penalty—15 yards from the previous spot. VI. Before the ball is thrown, wide receiver A88 slants to the inside where linebacker B1 attempts to block him. A88 uses his hands to shove B1 away. RULING: Team A foul, offensive pass interference, if the legal forward pass crosses the neutral zone. If B1’s initial contact was below the waist and beyond the neutral zone, Team B also has fouled and the live-ball fouls offset.​

You forgot to include the Big10 rule book Exception and Ruling:

Exception: if OSU and Michigan are involved

Ruling: you must always rule in their favor to protect “the game”

😂😂😂😂😂😂😀

 

[4IUSox2]

This above post Very Sad, but very accurate.

 

[ivan brunetti]

You forgot to include the Big10 rule book Exception and Ruling:

Exception: if OSU and Michigan are involved

Ruling: you must always rule in their favor to protect “the game”

😂😂😂😂😂😂😀

There are bad/missed calls that benefit every team every week.

If you are obsessed with only looking for those calls that benefit certain teams, you will soon be wearing a tin foil hat.

 

[CbusLion10]

But the argument being made is he wasn't blocking. He was fighting through contact within a yard, disengaged and demonstrated a route. We all know he was blocking but his actions make the play legal.

The biggest mistake Illinois made was lining up in bump coverage. If the defender is 2-3 yards off their you see a flag.

Haha come on, you don't fight through contact by grabbing the defenders shoulder pads, but that IS how you block them. And it wasn't close to within a yard and that shouldn't even be part of the argument. If that's your contention I don't know what to tell you, but claiming that anyone who thinks it was a penalty only due to bias or hatred of Michigan is ridiculous and flat out wrong.

 

[CbusLion10]

There are bad/missed calls that benefit every team every week.

If you are obsessed with only looking for those calls that benefit certain teams, you will soon be wearing a tin foil hat.

You're not wrong but egregious calls should always be brought up and discussed and analyzed as much as any college football fans want. Whatever the reason for the bad call/non-call, games should not be decided by them.

 

[The Spin Meister]

Haha come on, you don't fight through contact by grabbing the defenders shoulder pads, but that IS how you block them. And it wasn't close to within a yard and that shouldn't even be part of the argument. If that's your contention I don't know what to tell you, but claiming that anyone who thinks it was a penalty only due to bias or hatred of Michigan is ridiculous and flat out wrong.

Also, the defender never took a step forward. Contact was initiated by the offensive player.

 

[ivan brunetti]

Also, the defender never took a step forward. Contact was initiated by the offensive player.

Defender took a side step toward the sideline directly into the path of the receiver.

 

[AvgUser]

Where on earth does anyone see the blocker (#18) peel off and make believe he is running a route? He stays engaged with the DB until after the pass is caught?

 

[KCLion]

There are bad/missed calls that benefit every team every week.

If you are obsessed with only looking for those calls that benefit certain teams, you will soon be wearing a tin foil hat.

And you must be wearing a blindfold.

 

[LandoComando]

Haha come on, you don't fight through contact by grabbing the defenders shoulder pads, but that IS how you block them. And it wasn't close to within a yard and that shouldn't even be part of the argument. If that's your contention I don't know what to tell you, but claiming that anyone who thinks it was a penalty only due to bias or hatred of Michigan is ridiculous and flat out wrong.

Contact occurred within a yard and he drove him back
Saying the refs cheated for Michigan is due to bias. The call was right based on every explanation provided.

 

[LandoComando]

Where on earth does anyone see the blocker (#18) peel off and make believe he is running a route? He stays engaged with the DB until after the pass is caught?

Does he disengage when the defender gets to his left and "pretend" to run a route?
This isn't anyone believing he was running a route. This is about how to coach a player to get away with it.
Illinois was poorly coached in that situation. The DB can't be within a yard of the LOS.

 

[AvgUser]

Does he disengage when the defender gets to his left and "pretend" to run a route?
This isn't anyone believing he was running a route. This is about how to coach a player to get away with it.
Illinois was poorly coached in that situation. The DB can't be within a yard of the LOS.

You just said he committed a penalty, but he got away with it.

 

[LandoComando]

You just said he committed a penalty, but he got away with it.

You're not reading if you think that's what was said

 

[The Spin Meister]

Defender took a side step toward the sideline directly into the path of the receiver.

Which is what he should do. And it doesn’t give the receiver permission to drive him 4-5 yards downfield. OPI.

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

Contact occurred within a yard and he drove him back
Saying the refs cheated for Michigan is due to bias. The call was right based on every explanation provided.

Only INELIGIBLE offensive players are permitted to make contact within a yard of the LOS - ELIGIBLE offensive players are restricted from initiating contact (not only that, it is the responsibility of the eligible offensive player to avoid contact!) you insufferable Always-Wrong scUM jackass.

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

Does he disengage when the defender gets to his left and "pretend" to run a route?
This isn't anyone believing he was running a route. This is about how to coach a player to get away with it.
Illinois was poorly coached in that situation. The DB can't be within a yard of the LOS.

You have severe reading comprehension problems Always-Wrong... Eligible players are restricted from initiating contact and it is the offensive players responsibility to avoid contact - the offensive player initiating contact is Offensive Pass Interference and there is no subjectivity to the rule:

b. Offensive pass interference is contact by a Team A player beyond the neutral zone that interferes with a Team B player during a legal forward pass play in which the forward pass crosses the neutral zone. It is the responsibility of the offensive player to avoid the opponents.​

You are very clearly spectacularly wrong yet again. The only offensive players allowed to make contact within a yard of the LOS are INELIGIBLE offensive players (i.e., the 5 interior Lineman).

 

[LandoComando]

Which is what he should do. And it doesn’t give the receiver permission to drive him 4-5 yards downfield. OPI.

If the defender makes contact yes they can battle for time while engaged. I don't know what people think the receiver is supposed to do. Just sit down and stop playing?

 

[LandoComando]

Only INELIGIBLE offensive players are permitted to make contact within a yard of the LOS - ELIGIBLE offensive players are restricted from initiating contact (not only that, it is the responsibility of the eligible offensive player to avoid contact!) you insufferable Always-Wrong scUM jackass.

So, the defender is lined up directly across from the receiver within a yard he's supposed to do what. Not play? It is not their responsibility as we see pick plays every single week including by Penn State
Now I'm a Michigan fan
Okay Liar

 

[LandoComando]

You have severe reading comprehension problems Always-Wrong... Eligible players are restricted from initiating contact and it is the offensive players responsibility to avoid contact - the offensive player initiating contact is Offensive Pass Interference and there is no subjectivity to the rule:

b. Offensive pass interference is contact by a Team A player beyond the neutral zone that interferes with a Team B player during a legal forward pass play in which the forward pass crosses the neutral zone. It is the responsibility of the offensive player to avoid the opponents.​

You are very clearly spectacularly wrong yet again. The only offensive players allowed to make contact within a yard of the LOS are INELIGIBLE offensive players (i.e., the 5 interior Lineman).

You keep posting that as though it means what you think it does. The contact occurred in the neutral zone.

 

[Lattner]

I don't want Ohio State and Michigan to be bad. I just want to win a few games against them decided by terrible calls. Then I want to hear their fan base say "come on, man. The calls all even out!" Or maybe hear them whine "The big 10 refs make sure that Penn State wins every game!"

You do realize this a-hole argued for several days that this was a good non-call by the Officials because it was perfectly legal???

Now, when proven wrong and that it was a horrendous non-call on BEYOND BLATANT and OBVIOUS Offensive Pass Interference, it's "they just missed it" - LMAO, how precisely could they have "just missed it" and "not seen it" when the completed pass was made to the exact area where the BLATANT and OBVIOUS Offensive Pass Interference occurred allowing the completion????

After the b1g cheaters completely robbed PSU in 2005 - you had douchebag scUM and b1g-homers arguing ad infinitum that the call involving Avante was a good call when there is video showing half of his f'ing landing foot Out-of-Bounds!!! Some things never change in this bushleague, parochial, POS conference including their putz, a-hole, douche fans making ridiculous bullshit arguments in defense of this classless POS conference and their cheating Officials such as claiming clear violations of the rules actually aren't violations..... blah, blah, blah........

Explained.

 

[LandoComando]

You do realize this a-hole argued for several days that this was a good non-call by the Officials because it was perfectly legal???

Now, when proven wrong and that it was a horrendous non-call on BEYOND BLATANT and OBVIOUS Offensive Pass Interference, it's "they just missed it" - LMAO, how precisely could they have "just missed it" and "not seen it" when the completed pass was made to the exact area where the BLATANT and OBVIOUS Offensive Pass Interference occurred allowing the completion????

After the b1g cheaters completely robbed PSU in 2005 - you had douchebag scUM and b1g-homers arguing ad infinitum that the call involving Avante was a good call when there is video showing half of his f'ing landing foot Out-of-Bounds!!! Some things never change in this bushleague, parochial, POS conference including their putz, a-hole, douche fans making ridiculous bullshit arguments in defense of this classless POS conference and their cheating Officials such as claiming clear violations of the rules actually aren't violations..... blah, blah, blah........

Explained.

Not once did I say they "just missed it". It wasn't OPI--it was well designed and executed perfectly. The refs called it correctly. As your last paragraph shows you're biased and unable to see things clearly because you hate the Big Ten. 2005 has nothing to do with a 2022 game between Michigan-Illinois.

 

[AvgUser]

Not once did I say they "just missed it". It wasn't OPI--it was well designed and executed perfectly. The refs called it correctly. As your last paragraph shows you're biased and unable to see things clearly because you hate the Big Ten. 2005 has nothing to do with a 2022 game between Michigan-Illinois.

You said “ he got away with it”.
Exactly what did he “get away with”. Your words. Not mine.

Additionally, the blocker stayed engaged until after the catch was made. The blocker was engaged do 5 yards.

 

[LandoComando]

You said “ he got away with it”.
Exactly what did he “get away with”. Your words. Not mine.

Additionally, the blocker stayed engaged until after the catch was made. The blocker was engaged do 5 yards.

He got away with it because of the design
You keep calling him a blocker which is wrong--he was a receiver that the refs deemed initiated contact within the neutral zone (there's no debate on that) then because he was smart enough to disengage to fake a route it wasn't called
Again, you realize plays similar to that happen all the time and aren't called, right? People are mad because of the situation and that it was Michigan that got the call
At least nonsense about the DPI, the hold and the catch have stopped because even someone that's never seen football should know those calls were right but we still had people arguing them
Again, it wasn't OPI--just like the call against us in 2019 wasn't OPI

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

You keep posting that as though it means what you think it does. The contact occurred in the neutral zone.

Dude, you're completely full of shit - ELIGIBLE Offensive players are not permitted to contact defenders on a Forward Pass Play. The applicable Rule (Rule 7-3-8-b) says nothing about a "neutral zone", so stop making shit up scUM-boy - you're so full of shit and haven't a clue what you're talking about as per usual. What the Rule actually says is that NON-ELIGIBLE Offensive players (i.e., the 5 OL) are permitted to initiate contact as long as the contact occurs within 1 yard of the LOS (If more than 1 yard down field it is an Illegal Man Downfield as described in the A.R. Rulings). There is not a single word in the applicable Rule that says a word about a "neutral zone" exception for early contact by an eligible offensive player on a forward pass - not one word Clown-boy.

 

[Westcoast24]

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

You said “ he got away with it”.
Exactly what did he “get away with”. Your words. Not mine.

Additionally, the blocker stayed engaged until after the catch was made. The blocker was engaged do 5 yards.

Clown-boy keeps claiming the receiver was trying to run a sideline fly pattern to the defender's left and the defender moved into him trying to "jam" him and trap him to sideline..... But the video clearly demonstrates what horseshit that is as the scUM receiver initiates contact directly into the defender's chest and drives him toward the inside of the field (i.e., the scUM receiver's right), the scUM receiver circles into the vacated space and IN FACT catches the ball well left of the blocking scUM receiver AND FINALLY, when the defender and scum blocker separate, the scUM blocker exits to the defender's left-side (inside - not sideline side of defender) and the defender is desperately attempting to get off of the block so he can move to the scUM blocker's LEFT (i.e., the side-line side) so he can pursue and defend the sCUM ball-carrier at this point!!! How is that not clear blocking, but rather a scUM receiver attempting to just run a nonexistant sideline fly pattern???????????????????

 

[AvgUser]

He got away with it because of the design
You keep calling him a blocker which is wrong--he was a receiver that the refs deemed initiated contact within the neutral zone (there's no debate on that) then because he was smart enough to disengage to fake a route it wasn't called
Again, you realize plays similar to that happen all the time and aren't called, right? People are mad because of the situation and that it was Michigan that got the call
At least nonsense about the DPI, the hold and the catch have stopped because even someone that's never seen football should know those calls were right but we still had people arguing them
Again, it wasn't OPI--just like the call against us in 2019 wasn't OPI

I'm calling him "the blocker" to distinguish from the receiver.

Go look at the video from Post#121. At which point did #18 (aka the blocker") peel off to run a route? It's a six-second clip. Let me know what moment in that six-second clip #18 initiated his pass-catching route?

Also, you never answered what #18 'got away with'. You've stated it several times that "he got away with" something. What was the something that he got away with? It's not a trick question. I will add that if he "got away with" something, then that something must have been illegal within the rules of the game.

 

[LandoComando]

I'm calling him "the blocker" to distinguish from the receiver.

Go look at the video from Post#121. At which point did #18 (aka the blocker") peel off to run a route? It's a six-second clip. Let me know what moment in that six-second clip #18 initiated his pass-catching route?

Also, you never answered what #18 'got away with'. You've stated it several times that "he got away with" something. What was the something that he got away with? It's not a trick question. I will add that if he "got away with" something, then that something must have been illegal within the rules of the game.

He's not a "blocker" that's what you're saying because you want to be undisputed that he was blocking
I watched that clip multiple times...at the very end 5/6 seconds. If the receiver disengages and continues down field, which he did, it's a route. He is not required to look for the way
Not 18--Michigan "got away" with the play call because Illinois defended it poorly. If Illinois isn't on the LOS it wouldn't have worked.
Pick plays are normal in college football--they literally happen all the time including by design in our offense. Michigan runs countless every game usually trying to get a back or TE open underneath and it's never called.

 

[AvgUser]

He's not a "blocker" that's what you're saying because you want to be undisputed that he was blocking
I watched that clip multiple times...at the very end 5/6 seconds. If the receiver disengages and continues down field, which he did, it's a route. He is not required to look for the way
Not 18--Michigan "got away" with the play call because Illinois defended it poorly. If Illinois isn't on the LOS it wouldn't have worked.
Pick plays are normal in college football--they literally happen all the time including by design in our offense. Michigan runs countless every game usually trying to get a back or TE open underneath and it's never called.

Pick plays are illegal. That’s a fact.

 

[LandoComando]

Pick plays are illegal. That’s a fact.

You might want to tell every OC because every single one of them creates offense by running pick plays. Including our scheme

 

[AvgUser]

You might want to tell every OC because every single one of them creates offense by running pick plays. Including our scheme

It was a pick play. It’s illegal. It was a horrendous missed call. Whether every team in America runs it or not makes no difference. All your other blathering and attempted defense of the blocker is clearly you grasping at straws.

 

[LandoComando]

It was a pick play. It’s illegal. It was a horrendous missed call. Whether every team in America runs it or not makes no difference. All your other blathering and attempted defense of the blocker is clearly you grasping at straws.

It's not at all. You're the one that's being emotional about this
That play literally happens all the time. There's no conspiracy. There's not cheating. There's nothing here at all. Just people unable to accept that Michigan unfortunately is currently better than us. 2005 has nothing to do with Penn State--Illinois. The Illinois defender lined up within a yard of the LOS. Contact was initiated there. The Michigan blocked disengaged and continued downfield. No sane individual that's unbiased would be crying about this 6 days later.

 

[ivan brunetti]

Which is what he should do. And it doesn’t give the receiver permission to drive him 4-5 yards downfield. OPI.

The receiver has the right to attempt to run his route. Which is what the refs felt happened.

 

[LandoComando]

The receiver has the right to attempt to run his route. Which is what the refs felt happened.

They truly believe if a DB is lined up directly across from the WR at the LOS that the WR can't run a route--it's something.

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

The receiver has the right to attempt to run his route. Which is what the refs felt happened.

What laughable bullshit - the scUM eligible receiver wasn't running a "pattern", they were very clearly drive blocking a defender for 5 yards down the field the entire time the ball was in the air not breaking off their engagement with the Illini defender until the catch was made. You are utterly incorrect that an eligible offensive player is permitted to do this under the ACTUAL NCAA Rule (not the b1g Referine cheating rules). The offensive player, BY RULE, has the responsibility to attempt to avoid contact! They are not permitted to initiate the contact by running into the chest of the defender, let alone drive blocking the defender 5 yards down the field the entire time the ball is in the air and being thrown into the area they are clearing out directly behind them. That is not running a "pass pattern" dipshit and it absolutely is not legal under the ACTUAL NCAA Rule - it is patently OBVIOUS and BLATANT Offensive Pass Interference.

Your claim that it's legal is as pathetic as your continued insistence that Avante's catch in 2005 - with half his landing foot straddling the OB Stripe - was a legal catch and a good call. You scUM morons are really annoying douches with your bullshit.

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

They truly believe if a DB is lined up directly across from the WR at the LOS that the WR can't run a route--it's something.

No a$$hole, what we believe is that the receiver has to run to one side, or the other, of the defensive back AND attempt to avoid contact- NOT INITIATE IT DIRECTLY INTO THE DEFENDER's CHEST! And this isn't just what we believe, it's what the ACTUAL NCAA Rule SPECIFICALLY STATES you moronic f'ing scUM douche!

 

[ivan brunetti]

Refs just missed a facemask penalty on FSU on Florida's final 4th down.

CONSPIRACY!!!!!

 

[ivan brunetti]

What laughable bullshit - the scUM eligible receiver wasn't running a "pattern", they were very clearly drive blocking a defender for 5 yards down the field the entire time the ball was in the air not breaking off their engagement with the Illini defender until the catch was made. You are utterly incorrect that an eligible offensive player is permitted to do this under the ACTUAL NCAA Rule (not the b1g Referine cheating rules). The offensive player, BY RULE, has the responsibility to attempt to avoid contact! They are not permitted to initiate the contact by running into the chest of the defender, let alone drive blocking the defender 5 yards down the field the entire time the ball is in the air and being thrown into the area they are clearing out directly behind them. That is not running a "pass pattern" dipshit and it absolutely is not legal under the ACTUAL NCAA Rule - it is patently OBVIOUS and BLATANT Offensive Pass Interference.

Your claim that it's legal is as pathetic as your continued insistence that Avante's catch in 2005 - with half his landing foot straddling the OB Stripe - was a legal catch and a good call. You scUM morons are really annoying douches with your bullshit.

You are a mental case. I feel sorry for your family that has to put up with you.

 

[LandoComando]

You are a mental case. I feel sorry for your family that has to put up with you.

I'm sure they left him a long time ago