Pregame: Illinois vs Northwestern, Saturday, November 30th, 11:00am CT, FS1

Status
Not open for further replies.
#30
I just read on 24/7 Dre Brown might come back next year, which is interesting, I wonder how it will impact our open scholarships.

https://247sports.com/Article/Illinois-football-Illini-RB-Dre-Brown-considering-sixth-season-senior-spotlight-139214743/
Really? I'd love to see Dre return. But the old man is married; that's a major consideration.

How great for the Illini staff to discuss the possibility with him. Yes, Dre, you're a major part of this Illini team.

Man, he sure qualifies for a sixth season, losing all that action because of the injuries. I'll see what his DeKalb H.S. coach thinks when I sub in P.E. tomorrow.

Dre: enjoy senior day! You and team: annihilate NW.
 
#33
Plainfield
What’s their run defense like? Can we get things going like we did at Iowa?
 
#34
How is Peters?
Lovie's not saying, as Lovie never does. I think I'm angrier about what Geno Stone did...and did so with impunity, pride even...than losing the game. It's tough for Peters to have had two concussions in one season. Not only does it affect his playing, he's also a student and there's that whole studying thing.

I think that Robinson will be ready to go. I really want to pound the Mildcats. Their fanbase deserves it.
 
#36
Lovie's not saying, as Lovie never does. I think I'm angrier about what Geno Stone did...and did so with impunity, pride even...than losing the game. It's tough for Peters to have had two concussions in one season. Not only does it affect his playing, he's also a student and there's that whole studying thing.

I think that Robinson will be ready to go. I really want to pound the Mildcats. Their fanbase deserves it.
I cannot believe this wasn't called ANYTHING! Not even late hit or personal foul, then you add in the obvious head to head...damn.
 
Likes: sinmyp
#37
Plainfield
Is there a video of the hit for those who couldn’t watch the game?
 
#39
Plainfield
Thanks Dan. One could argue the helmet contact was more of a glancing hit rather than straight on BUT we need to err on the side of protecting the QB. Had to be a penalty of some sort. As a no call you’re encouraging it.
 
Likes: RoundBalcs
#42
If you are so insistent upon that then, also find a way to get 40 passes. We often run more than WI. We were not successful with our offense until we started throwing the ball downfield.
Weird, seemed like I was one of a small minority of people who actually watched the game(s) and understood how this executed. Glad to know the group is larger by one.

I wouldn't say 40 attempts by any means but the point remains, if you're not a threat to throw the football you're gonna have a very difficult time running the football outside of a full-on or variation of the triple option (Which is a can of worms in and of itself). If your idea of effective offensive play doesn't move past "Give it to Reggie", you're not going anywhere. Definitely won't go anywhere in this conference.
 
Likes: KevinC
#43
Cincinnati, OH
Let's just say I have a reduced confidence in Matt Robinson throwing the ball.
 
Likes: TooHot4Tots
#44
Let's just say I have a reduced confidence in Matt Robinson throwing the ball.
Fair in theory but aside from his ability to push the ball vertically, he doesn't profile any differently than Brandon does. You might take a gander at Brandon's efficiency numbers in Big Ten games. It's ugly.
 
#46
Tyngsborough, MA
None of the announcers or the officials themselves could offer a rationale for why the hit was not a penalty. Rather odd.
Borrowing from another thread, perhaps the band should have played "Three Blind Mice?"

(Of course, the number of officials is different, but...)
 
Last edited:
#47
Morris, IL
Thanks Dan. One could argue the helmet contact was more of a glancing hit rather than straight on BUT we need to err on the side of protecting the QB. Had to be a penalty of some sort. As a no call you’re encouraging it.
NCAA rules on targeting, especially in this case, would seem to create a conflict. But absolutely agree if it wasn't targeting it was unnecessary roughness, roughing the passer, or unsportsmanlike conduct. With regards to targeting and the NCAA rule (relevant sections pasted below), on one hand you could argue that while the Iowa player did not deliberately "take aim at" Peter's helmet, he definitely made "forcible contact that went beyond legally playing the ball". Peters was clearly a defenseless player per the definition. "When in question it is a foul." "the NCAA errs on the side of safety".

"Targeting does not solely occur when players initiate helmet-to-helmet contact. It's defined as occurring when a player "takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball."

"Defenseless players can be defined as any of the following, but not limited to:

  • a player in the act of or just after throwing a pass."

"Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player (Rule 9-1-4)

  • No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting. When in question, it is a foul.
It is worth noting that the reason both rules are enacted when a play is in question because the NCAA errs on the side of safety."
 
Likes: BZuppke
#48
Thanks Dan. One could argue the helmet contact was more of a glancing hit rather than straight on BUT we need to err on the side of protecting the QB. Had to be a penalty of some sort. As a no call you’re encouraging it.
NCAA rules on targeting, especially in this case, would seem to create a conflict. But absolutely agree if it wasn't targeting it was unnecessary roughness, roughing the passer, or unsportsmanlike conduct. With regards to targeting and the NCAA rule (relevant sections pasted below), on one hand you could argue that while the Iowa player did not deliberately "take aim at" Peter's helmet, he definitely made "forcible contact that went beyond legally playing the ball". Peters was clearly a defenseless player per the definition. "When in question it is a foul." "the NCAA errs on the side of safety".

"Targeting does not solely occur when players initiate helmet-to-helmet contact. It's defined as occurring when a player "takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball."

"Defenseless players can be defined as any of the following, but not limited to:

  • a player in the act of or just after throwing a pass."

"Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player (Rule 9-1-4)

  • No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting. When in question, it is a foul.
It is worth noting that the reason both rules are enacted when a play is in question because the NCAA errs on the side of safety."
Right - most certainly not a clean play. Hope Brandon is ok!
 
#49
Little Rock, Arkansas
NCAA rules on targeting, especially in this case, would seem to create a conflict. But absolutely agree if it wasn't targeting it was unnecessary roughness, roughing the passer, or unsportsmanlike conduct. With regards to targeting and the NCAA rule (relevant sections pasted below), on one hand you could argue that while the Iowa player did not deliberately "take aim at" Peter's helmet, he definitely made "forcible contact that went beyond legally playing the ball". Peters was clearly a defenseless player per the definition. "When in question it is a foul." "the NCAA errs on the side of safety".

"Targeting does not solely occur when players initiate helmet-to-helmet contact. It's defined as occurring when a player "takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball."

"Defenseless players can be defined as any of the following, but not limited to:

  • a player in the act of or just after throwing a pass."

"Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player (Rule 9-1-4)

  • No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting. When in question, it is a foul.
It is worth noting that the reason both rules are enacted when a play is in question because the NCAA errs on the side of safety."
Regarding the first bolded/underlined part: This means the refs not only thought this wasn’t a penalty, but that hitting a defenseless player with your helmet and causing them to spin to the ground nearly unconscious is a safe and legal tackle. If that sort of hit was legal, we’d have no skill position players left as they’d all be dead.

Regarding the second bolded/underlined:
Maybe, but apparently the B1G doesn’t.
 
Likes: Illinir1
#50
Plainfield
Well for what its worth I hope we questioned it and at least the conference can admit publicly that the officials blew it. Lovie was pretty blunt about it in his presser.
 
Likes: KevinC
Status
Not open for further replies.