It was a great play defensively. The USC defender punched the ball hard. A direct hit
Illinois 34, USC 32 Postgame
- Status
BillyBob1
- Champaign
The worst no call of targeting has to be at Iowa.
skyIdub
"I can't tell you. Secret."
I’ve said it a couple times, for a 240# rb he goes down too easy at the end of a lot of his runs.
If he would simply high knee instead of lowering his shoulders at the end, some of those turn into breakaway runs for long yardage or TDs.
When lbs and dbs try to leg tackle someone like Feagin, the only way it works is if he’s stops his legs to lower a hit on them.
Stop trying to run through and run over.
An upright, legs churning Feagin is an absolute nightmare for a lb or db to tackle.
What a response by the OL and D!. Can clearly see we are missing X, but having Clarke back helps. Hopefully Bailey is OK.
BB is awesome
BB is awesome
skyIdub
"I can't tell you. Secret."
And far be it for me to defend these officials, but they caught this “minor” penalty and it literally changed the game.
Same could be said for the tip toe sideline Feagin run, and the toe in catch on the sideline.
HUGE plays that they got right (as they should) and were absolutely necessary for this W.
Chuck Nuggets
Dip your nuggets in my staff source sauce.
His hip and/or shoulder seem to be clearly down (touching earth) before the ball ever pops out. When the ball actually starts slipping from his grasp is harder to determine. Also, it's hard for me to tell for sure because it's so dark in there where Feagin is clutching the ball, but it appears as if the ground is what made the ball pop out. But, again, if the ball is already loose, it may not matter.
I think people agree that we need to have indisputable video evidence in order to overturn a call on the field. Whatever was called needs to have great advantage. But this makes me wonder if we need to rethink that when it comes to turnovers. Maybe there needs to be indisputable evidence that a turnover did indeed occur. Naturally, the bias in me makes this seem like a better idea today than it would if the roles were reversed. But that doesn't make the idea less valid, in my eyes. I'm trying to take the Illinois out of this analysis and just think about football in general. Turnovers are enormous. We should be certain they occur and not hinge so much on the sometimes unreliable eyes of a referee, or, perhaps in this case, pure chance. I'm not sure a ref actually saw what happened.
I went back and watched it again just now before posting this. No way it was a fumble. Impossible.
I kind of agree with this, IF (and a big “if”) it was just about this win over USC. I think it goes much deeper. I think, and as many on here have already mentioned, in the past, Illinois would have lost this game, given up, mentally packed their bags. As DeeAndDWill posted, "Still going to take time for me to fully exorcise 'Illini gonna Illini". Illinois never wins that game, kudos to the offense and Olano.” But they didn’t lose. The ending of this game was like a frustration release, or catharsis, finally getting the monkey off their backs. Illinois is here, proud, and has a we can win mentality for every game. I don’t know how many of the fans who rushed the field consciously had this idea in their head, but I am sure many did.
MustangWally
- Mayfield
This was my point earlier in the thread, refs have gone to the stance of not blowing the whistle and letting everything play out because if they do blow it dead and it is a fumble then you don’t give the defense a clear chance at recovery.
I think the goal line is a different circumstance given you rarely get a clear replay of it- plus it’s such a huge play to fumble on the goal line- it really should be a clear fumble. I’d rather see them blow it dead when they lose sight of the ball. It might cost some turnovers that were legit but the error of letting a turnover happen with no video evidence is far worse in my mind. The refs didn’t see a fumble, the video didn’t confirm a fumble but somehow you give the ball to the other team simply because nobody saw it- that is the worst outcome for the integrity of the game in my mind
As someone else said, they really need to fix the rule. If there's doubt, let the play go on. That makes sense. But to then say that letting the play go on means that the ruling on the field is "fumble", and that that ruling needs to be given deference, is stupid. It's essentially saying, everything is a fumble unless proven otherwise. How about saying that letting the play go on DOESN'T automatically mean that the ruling on the field was "fumble?".
Maybe that's what the rule is (i.e., the refs can let the play go on even if they think the runner was down), but my impression is that it's not.
MustangWally
- Mayfield
Looking back on the week and what we did against Indiana, this was much a key game to win. Frankly, on offense, we dominated them.
The defense gave up a ton, but there few blown plays in the secondary, many of their big gains were just crazy good throws into the zone. And Heckel, was in great position on the tds, he just couldn’t make the stops.
Great game, amazing homecoming crowd, in front of a national audience, Game Day, Barstool, and recruits. What a bounce back and step forward for the program.
The defense gave up a ton, but there few blown plays in the secondary, many of their big gains were just crazy good throws into the zone. And Heckel, was in great position on the tds, he just couldn’t make the stops.
Great game, amazing homecoming crowd, in front of a national audience, Game Day, Barstool, and recruits. What a bounce back and step forward for the program.
Genuine Question: when we get down to those 2 minute situations, opponent needs a TD, we need a FG after their TD... why don't we just let them score? Your obviously not going to stop them - your just not - and with a quarterback like that in a 2 minute drill, it's almost a certainty he'll get you 3 points.
altgeld88
- Arlington, Virginia
Luke had a running, passing and receiving TD yesterday. How often has that happened in D-1?
[EDIT: Never mind.... catching up on thread when I wrote this; Dan answered it (from an Illini POV.)]
Last edited:
RabidDawgClassic
- Los Angeles, CA
Targeting is the opposite of porn: I CAN define it but I DON’T know what it is when I see it.
altgeld88
- Arlington, Virginia
+ (unfortunately not game-winning) Jon Gockman's 48-yarder as time expired to put the game into OT at home against OSU in 2002. I was on my knees on the living room floor praying for that one.
Chris White nailed a 40-ish yarder to beat OSU in 1985 at home 31-28. I thought that one was a walk-off, too, but perhaps a few ticks remained on the clock.
Talk the whole segment about their TD penalty but zero mention of our fumble.
What's overlooked is how terrible that spot was on the GWFG. They literally moved it back (when it was clearly a 1st down) AND to the hash.
Its called traditionality. Just because something is traditionally done or not done doesn't mean it gives you the best chance to win.
Last edited:
but my question is players who have had in a single season TDs by reception, run, return, and pass. That's Beatty, right?
It is worth noting that in all of our one poss. games - win or lose - Luke has always been given an opportunity with enough time to lead a drive (other than maybe 2023 Wisconsin?). That alone INSTANTELY wins you more games than you'll lose. Whether its lick, coaching, etc.. you always want to give your guy a fighter's chance.
Last edited:
- Status