Wisconsin 25, Illinois 21 Postgame

#276      

cubsanddonuts

Louisville, KY
Would be interesting to see what Wisky's 3rd down conversion rate was pre- and post-ejection. I doubt his ejection would have made that much of a difference.
Just looked this up. They were 5-12 on 3rd down before the ejection and 5-5 after. Can’t do better than 5-5, so I’d say it might have made a difference.
 
#277      

Illinivek23

Gurnee
for all the people thinking losing the best player on the field didn't change the game outcome

Top Illini Week 8 PFF Grades vs. Wisconsin (min. 10 snaps)
95.1 – DT Johnny Newton
81.4 – OLB Gabe Jacas
I like that move this week of sliding Gabe to DE. When Keith comes back, will we rotate those guys and keep em fresh or does Jacas go back to OLB. Seemed Alce Bryant also played well
 
#279      
Looked to me like the vast majority of the impact was by his hands, then his torso. OTOH Targeting means “targeting a helmet hit”, not just an incidental bump amid far bigger body blows. It looked to me like his goal was to flatten the QB with his torso and hands, center mass to center mass, rather than helmet to helmet. The overall blow would have been just as violent if Newton had been wearing a leather helmet.
I don't necessarily disagree. Really, I was just highlighting the fact the "still image" posted earlier is a misleading view and isn't the initial impact. It's the aftermath.
 
#280      
FYT, Pat Bryant oof. He has got to catch the balls that hit him in the numbers. I may have been wrong about him having next level potential.
 
#281      
That's the still you send to the league offices
The picture your referencing is pretty late in the play. To me this was an easy targeting call, he got him right on the chin with his helmet pointing down. Still was an amazing game by Newton.

On the announcing(not directed at you kat): I wish we didn't blow this game, but in the first half when we were moving the ball they were gushing about Luke. If you let up 18 points in the 4th and don't score a point, what are they suppose to talk about? I didn't like the winning time comments but I didn't think the announcing was aggregious. At the end we just didn't make the plays when it counted and we lost a heartbreaker. On to next week, let's finish strong!
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20231022-232722.png
    Screenshot_20231022-232722.png
    1,005.4 KB · Views: 106
  • Screenshot_20231022-232750.png
    Screenshot_20231022-232750.png
    1 MB · Views: 117
#285      
Wading into the officials and calls debate. I saw on social media someone noting their last touchdown came out of an illegal formation since both the lineman receiving the pass and a wide receiver on that same side were both lined up on the 10 yard line; thus, the receiver had the lineman "covered up" making the lineman ineligible. To be honest, I do not know the precise details of the rule but I believe this is true regarding how formations must be lined up. I understand mistakes are made, and our team did not get the job done in the 4th qtr although they had several opportunities. But teams like IL do not have enough to overcome multiple officiating mistakes game after game. The thing that really irks me is BB and coaches have to answer for their mistakes, as they should. But the officials and the league that hires them answer to no one, and a program like IL has no recourse at all. It happens game after game, week after week, year after year and it's basically, "oh well, that's the way it is, you have to play well enough to overcome officiating mistakes." I've very rarely heard of officials or crews disciplined or, forbid, fired over these continual errors. Makes it very frustrating not only constantly being outmanned talent wise, but to have to overcome blatant mistakes in on-the-field/court game management. It also makes it very difficult to not lump college sports into the same category as professional wrestling. Why even watch the games when the outcome is not determined solely by the players? Anyway, I think it is worth considering instead of simply complaining about those upset with the calls.

P.S. Sorry if this was covered by a post I may have missed. I have not had the opportunity to read through the entire thread today, and did not see anyone addressing that particular play in a quick scan of posts.
I’m wholly not the expert, but holding seems the greatest missed or phantom calls. There’s a lot going on down on the field for what’s really too few eyes to see it all, particularly down on the field.

The video review is supposed to help that, but dang, my folks’ 10-inch 1950 Admiral was bigger than what they use for the review. I hope the quality is better but from the results one might wonder. Why not have an additional referee, one in a remote location, with a really big screen, review the call. He wouldn’t follow the game, only get to see the play he/she is called to review, to help isolate the review to just that one play. Obviously the review of, say, the scoop and score in the Penn State-the Ohio State game is going to be really important, although if Ohio State were already blowing out PSU, it may have been moot. Consider to that as it is now, the reviewing ref has to basically look his colleague in the eye and say, you flubbed that. A remote review would reduce that.

I’m sure there are reasons not to do a remote review but I don’t see it. A video review is a video review, regardless who does it or where.
 
#286      
While I agree that they absolutely should have still found a way to win, losing your best defensive player is a significant blow. And we can all debate it forever, but that was as weak a targeting call as you will ever see. And I use the word "weak" on purpose. Because, yes, his helmet touched the QB's helmet. But that is targeting by the letter-of-the-law only.
While I agree that losing your best defensive player hurts. This was a team losing effort all the way to the coaching staff.
 
#287      
Compare stats before and after Newton’s ejection.
For those fussing about Newton's hit on their QB, the video clip you posted clearly shows that he dipped his helmet just before contact and made helmet to helmet contact at the point of attack. If he had kept his head up and contacted with the face mask I think it might not have been called, even though I think it was a great play by a great player . . . .
 
#289      
The game took a disappointing turn, but the crowd, atmosphere, weather, and overall experience were superb, with over 54,000 in attendance. We were in the game to the end and most fans hung in there too. After returning home from a wonderful day, I started reading here, not always enhancing or encouraging. :confused: Zoom in closely enough and we'll find problems, but the program’s long-term trend is still positive. I intend to enjoy my game days knowing everybody is giving their best.

IMG_7375.jpeg

IMG_7376.jpeg
 
#290      
For those fussing about Newton's hit on their QB, the video clip you posted clearly shows that he dipped his helmet just before contact and made helmet to helmet contact at the point of attack. If he had kept his head up and contacted with the face mask I think it might not have been called, even though I think it was a great play by a great player . . . .
Yeh, I saw that too. IMO targeting calls should reflect both intent and how much energy is imparted. Note that it was so subtle nobody even threw a flag for targeting. They called him for roughing the passer. When the review showed the roughing call was invalid (ball still in QB’s possession), they said “hey, look, the helmets bumped”. Otherwise it would have been a sack and fumble. The game hinged substantially on ejecting a player for an incidental helmet bump so slight no official on the field even detected it live. If none of them saw it, was it really “targeting”.

My interpretation is he wasn’t trying to lead with his helmet at all, but his head followed his focus on the ball (which was high too), with > 90% of the energy transmitted via hands and torso. Maybe the NCAA should clarify their definition. Or maybe it should be renamed “helmet contact” and called for every bump.
 
#291      
Generally speaking, I hate roughing the passer calls.

Pansy football.

What's a guy supposed to immediately after fighting through someone trying to stop them. It's sort of a time sensitive deal after all. It's part of the reason football is a lesser sport, in my view.
The NCAA's targeting rule prohibits players from initiating forcible contact against an opponent that “goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball,” according to the rulebook. That could mean leading with the crown of the helmet while making forcible contact.

This was not targeting. Newton's facemask hit the QB when he sacked him and caused a fumble...which we recovered.

He did not lead with the crown of his helmet. He lead with his hands and arms.

This call was BS.
 
#293      

Retro62

North Bethesda, Maryland
I wonder if Jim Leonhard actually has any influence whatsoever in what happens during the game? Does anyone on here know what he contributes? I'm not suggesting he doesn't, I just don't know what he does. Does he help with the overall defensive strategy, or with providing options for in-game situations, or with player development?

If he is what he is purported to be, is he a possibility to take over the DC job next season, or has Henry earned another season at the very least?

As for Lunney, I can't see keeping him at all.
 
#294      
Yeh, I saw that too. IMO targeting calls should reflect both intent and how much energy is imparted. Note that it was so subtle nobody even threw a flag for targeting. They called him for roughing the passer. When the review showed the roughing call was invalid (ball still in QB’s possession), they said “hey, look, the helmets bumped”. Otherwise it would have been a sack and fumble. The game hinged substantially on ejecting a player for an incidental helmet bump so slight no official on the field even detected it live. If none of them saw it, was it really “targeting”.

My interpretation is he wasn’t trying to lead with his helmet at all, but his head followed his focus on the ball (which was high too), with > 90% of the energy transmitted via hands and torso. Maybe the NCAA should clarify their definition. Or maybe it should be renamed “helmet contact” and called for every bump.
Spot on. And this is EXACTLY the reason there should be varying degrees of the penalty. Again, NO WAY Johnny deserves to miss half a game - or for that matter, the remainder of the Wisconsin game. No intent to injure whatsoever on that hit, and anyone can clearly see that. On top of that, the QB stayed in the game and had no perceived ill effects from the hit, so how bad could it have been?
 
Last edited:
#295      
Looked to me like the vast majority of the impact was by his hands, then his torso. OTOH Targeting means “targeting a helmet hit”, not just an incidental bump amid far bigger body blows. It looked to me like his goal was to flatten the QB with his torso and hands, center mass to center mass, rather than helmet to helmet. The overall blow would have been just as violent if Newton had been wearing a leather helmet.
Agree. He brought his head down just before the hit (which I am sure was the reason for the targeting call), but that was in order to transfer the force to his upper body for his push with his arms. When he hit him he was actually reducing to force applied with his head/helmet. If you are going to push someone the first thing you do to get ready for the push is pull your elbows back and put your head down.
 
#296      
"Egregiously bad?" I guarantee you that if the jerseys were switched 95% of Illini fans would be screaming if the targeting was not called. Yeah, I think the call could have gone either way, but let's be honest...if a Wisconsin player hit Luke exactly like that, you know most would want targeting called. To say otherwise is just laughable. So, no, the call was not egregiously bad.

Not intercepting the TD in the end zone was a bigger factor IMO. Being up 21-7 with 14 minutes left in the game and still losing is the worst part for me. That should not happen.
Yeah is was egregiously bad. Newton's facemask is in Locke's chest. No hit to the head. No use of the crown of the helmet. Not targeting.
 
#297      

JFGsCoffeeMug

BU:1 Trash cans:0
Chicago
Someone show me a screenshot of the QB's head snapping back or to the side during the hit. Because that's what I would expect if there was forcible contact to the head and Johnny led with the helmet.

All I've seen so far is the head moving in line with the body, which is consistent with force applied to the shoulders.
 
#298      
Someone show me a screenshot of the QB's head snapping back or to the side during the hit. Because that's what I would expect if there was forcible contact to the head and Johnny led with the helmet.

All I've seen so far is the head moving in line with the body, which is consistent with force applied to the shoulders.
After watching the video multiple times, it was more of a hard push than an actual tackle. Terrible call and should be appealed.
 
#299      

IlliniKat91

Chicago, IL
Werner made a good point on the post game pod: make targeting a 20 yard penalty and call it a day. None of the miss the next half of a game or ejection nonsense. Or hell, go with a Targeting 1 (lowered the crown but a football play, 20 yard penalty to encourage players to protect their heads/necks) and Targeting 2 (ejection for a particularly vicious hit where no football play was being made, plus the 20 yards.)
 
#300      
Indiana and Northwestern are very beatable and if we are healthy and play a decent game without turning the ball over, we have a decent chance to win. Minnesota and Iowa are different. We are going to have to beat one of them on the road. Highly unlikely but then again, Maryland was not expected. I am still hoping for a bowl.