Michigan State 23, Illinois 15 Postgame

#201      
Disappointing. What really makes me feel bad is that the team spent the entire season getting people hyped up about Illini Football again, and finally when we get a full house, they lay an egg.

This is still a special season. It's a setback. But this season still exceeds my expectations.
 
#202      
Disappointing. What really makes me feel bad is that the team spent the entire season getting people hyped up about Illini Football again, and finally when we get a full house, they lay an egg.

This is still a special season. It's a setback. But this season still exceeds my expectations.
Yeah, it's just really bad luck this was the first game after a bunch of new people jumped on the bandwagon.
 
#203      

the national

the Front Range
Rule change:

Player goes out with an injury once, leaves the field, can come back in after being cleared. That can stay the same.

Same player goes out again where play has to stop, he’s done for the game. The stoppage of play is to address possible serious injuries where a player can’t get off the field themselves. If it’s serious enough a player can’t get off the field TWICE they don’t need to be in the game anymore. (For their safety)

When it comes to severity of the injury, there has to be some sort of flop rule. While the player is down, look at one of the many cameras on the field. If the player was walking under his own power and then decided to get down on one knee “injured” call the flop. If the player falls down while not engaged with another player, call the flop.

It’s doable in basketball, it’s doable in soccer, it can be doable in football.

Have to nip that in the bud. It may not be why we lost, but it definitely took the air out of several of our drives and gave the D an advantage.
The penalty should really be a loss of a timeout. That’ll stop that tactic by Tuck. How/when it’s triggered is the debate. After the 5th injury would be an automatic TO? I do like your comment about this being a sort of ‘flop’.
 
#204      
The penalty should really be a loss of a timeout. That’ll stop that tactic by Tuck. How/when it’s triggered is the debate. After the 5th injury would be an automatic TO? I do like your comment about this being a sort of ‘flop’.

The penalty in terms of how long the player stays out of the game needs to be steeper. If a player knows that they will be held out for a full quarter if play is stopped then more players would probably hop off the field quicker if the injury is not as serious. Right now the penalty is acceptable for coaches.
 
#205      

JFGsCoffeeMug

BU:1 Trash cans:0
Chicago
The penalty in terms of how long the player stays out of the game needs to be steeper. If a player knows that they will be held out for a full quarter if play is stopped then more players would probably hop off the field quicker if the injury is not as serious. Right now the penalty is acceptable for coaches.
I agree that the penalty needs to be steeper, but I read that the rules committee is also worried about incentivizing injured players to continue playing while injured. That could lead to some pretty bad things. So there is a delicate balance that needs to be found here.
 
#206      
I agree that the penalty needs to be steeper, but I read that the rules committee is also worried about incentivizing injured players to continue playing while injured. That could lead to some pretty bad things. So there is a delicate balance that needs to be found here.

In practice I don't think that would happen. Players play hurt all the time.

If an injury is serious enough that the player cannot hobble off the field under their own power then its probably serious enough that they should be held out for full quarter.
 
#208      
Yeah, the “players will play injured more often” argument doesn’t make as much sense to me.

1. Like someone else said, players play through manageable injuries all the time. It may not be advisable, but they don’t want to go out or their coaches don’t want them to go out. Either way (good or bad), it happens.

2. We’re not talking about the injuries where a player still CAN play the next snap. The injury type that MSU took advantage of was the one where the player went down and “could not get up under their own power”. Normally this is due to such extreme pain or loss of mobilization that it warrants the training crew to come out to render aid.

If an injury is THAT severe, the player should stay out for that series, and if it happens again, the game.

A game stoppage injury where a player is down on the ground should be a serious issue, and the same safety precautions to make sure the player doesn’t return to action too soon can help mitigate taking advantage of that “safety-first” intent.

The one outlier here that I can think of is cramping. But I think the “hold out for a series” could still work. Just don’t cramp up again.
 
#209      
Opening play of second half. MSU kickoff. Peyton Vining calls a fair catch at the 7 yard line. Lets the ball land and takes it on first hop and just stands there. Play is called dead and Illlni begin offensive series at the 7. Had he caught the ball it would have come out to the 25. Since it landed it was a live ball and MSU could have pursued it had Vining not corralled it. Since he fielded it on one hop I guess he couldn't advance it? Do I have that right?
 
#210      
Opening play of second half. MSU kickoff. Peyton Vining calls a fair catch at the 7 yard line. Lets the ball land and takes it on first hop and just stands there. Play is called dead and Illlni begin offensive series at the 7. Had he caught the ball it would have come out to the 25. Since it landed it was a live ball and MSU could have pursued it had Vining not corralled it. Since he fielded it on one hop I guess he couldn't advance it? Do I have that right?
I actually have no idea what that rule was. That was confusing as hell. It sounded like he said "illegal fair catch signal" at the stadium, but it was windy as heck, and hard to understand the referee some times.
 
#211      
Opening play of second half. MSU kickoff. Peyton Vining calls a fair catch at the 7 yard line. Lets the ball land and takes it on first hop and just stands there. Play is called dead and Illlni begin offensive series at the 7. Had he caught the ball it would have come out to the 25. Since it landed it was a live ball and MSU could have pursued it had Vining not corralled it. Since he fielded it on one hop I guess he couldn't advance it? Do I have that right?
I believe the call was that he had signaled for a fair catch and let it bounce, therefore when he caught the bounce it was Illinois ball at the spot he caught it rather than the 25 where you'd get it fair catching the ball on the fly.

To be honest, I have no idea what the rule is there. Obviously a bouncing ball on a kickoff is live and thus very different than a punt and I'd never considered the way the new kickoff fair catch rule interacted with that. Maybe the rule is that the fair catch signal turns the live kickoff into a non-live punt-type ball. That would make the call make sense.

It was crystal clear we'd instructed our returners not to attempt to catch the ball out of the air unless they were 10,000% sure. Probably a wise instruction on punts, but on kickoffs that led to a number of plays near the sideline where guys were making decisions they weren't used to.
 
#212      
I and everyone around me were equally confused on the "fair catch" - don't know rule but it must be that the ball cannot be advanced if not caught or fumbled ... maybe the ref made the rule up. the kickoff that then went out of bounds (directly in front of where we were sitting), the closest ref actually marked it at the spot before other ref came over, conferred, and then announced it was penalty for kick out of bounds and at the 35.
 
#213      
I believe the call was that he had signaled for a fair catch and let it bounce, therefore when he caught the bounce it was Illinois ball at the spot he caught it rather than the 25 where you'd get it fair catching the ball on the fly.

To be honest, I have no idea what the rule is there. Obviously a bouncing ball on a kickoff is live and thus very different than a punt and I'd never considered the way the new kickoff fair catch rule interacted with that. Maybe the rule is that the fair catch signal turns the live kickoff into a non-live punt-type ball. That would make the call make sense.

It was crystal clear we'd instructed our returners not to attempt to catch the ball out of the air unless they were 10,000% sure. Probably a wise instruction on punts, but on kickoffs that led to a number of plays near the sideline where guys were making decisions they weren't used to.
There was a play last year where one of our guys called a fair catch but a different player actually caught it. Again, they spotted the ball at the point of reception rather than at the 25. I think our Special Team coach needs to bring our players up to date on the rule.
 
#214      
There was a play last year where one of our guys called a fair catch but a different player actually caught it. Again, they spotted the ball at the point of reception rather than at the 25. I think our Special Team coach needs to bring our players up to date on the rule.
It looks like any fair catch signal by the receiving team deprives them of the right to advance the ball. That includes if it hits the ground after the valid signal is made.


It sure seems like there were several errors on that play by the kick returner. First, it never seems wise to let a live kickoff hit the ground. Second, I think he made the signal after he knew it was going to hit the ground. That guaranteed that the ball would be spotted at that location deep in MSU territory. Third, I think the ball might have been headed out of bounce which would have put it at the 35. The coaches also had them lined up way too deep in the first place.

To give him the benefit of the doubt, it is possible that he was lined up so far away from where was the kick ended up that he knew he couldn't catch it. So, making the last minute fair catch symbol assured that possession would stay with Illinois even if the field position was very poor.
 
#215      

altgeld88

Arlington, Virginia
Hope you're not staying at the Hanoi Hilton.........................................................................
Lol. Nope. But there’s a concrete bunker shelter underneath my hotel built during the bombing of Hanoi.

I can’t think of a metaphor tying that to the MSU loss so I’ll concede we’ve strayed, shockingly, off-topic!
 
#217      
Yeah, it's just really bad luck this was the first game after a bunch of new people jumped on the bandwagon.
Very 2011 vs. OSU-esque. The difference this time, I think (and hope!), is that we will respond with maturity, toughness and grit. With so much still on the line (i.e., playing in Indy, an incredibly optimistic goal at the beginning of the season), I would be extremely disappointed if we looked flat vs. Purdue. I do not think we will.
 
#218      
Very 2011 vs. OSU-esque. The difference this time, I think (and hope!), is that we will respond with maturity, toughness and grit. With so much still on the line (i.e., playing in Indy, an incredibly optimistic goal at the beginning of the season), I would be extremely disappointed if we looked flat vs. Purdue. I do not think we will.
Agree, I'm not concerned about the team. Just hope the more casual fans recover as quickly as the team does!