Wisconsin 25, Illinois 21 Postgame

#251      
I've been really pleased and encouraged by our progress these last two games. The light bulb has flickered on for some of our younger players, and for coaches reshuffling lineups to get the best players out there. Our O-line has started to gel and the DBs have improved, despite lapses.
Which makes the loss yesterday sting all that much more.
And then seeing the OSU-esque smirk on Fickell's face after they won, like they had it all along.
 
#252      
I’m really disappointed with the decision to defer to the second half, but not choose to go with the wind in the fourth quarter. Yes, I know you end up giving your opponent the ball at the beginning of both halves, but big picture, you’re setting yourself up for one of two lousy outcomes:

1. You’ve either got to come from behind late into the wind, affecting passing and kicking or…
2. You’ve got to try to nurse a lead in the fourth quarter, affecting passing and effectively making your offense one dimensional.

We succumbed to the latter today. Just as we did last year at Michigan against a stiff fourth quarter wind. In the fourth quarter last year against Michigan State we had to try to come from behind against a swirling fourth quarter wind.

How do these coaches not get that the wind to your back is imperative in these situations?
It seemed to me that the wind was basically out of the west (blowing across the field) for most of the game. Not sure that there was a real advantage by 'taking the wind'.
 
#253      
Using the officials as the reason you lost a game is the weakest excuse a sports fan can use. In that game yesterday, there were multiple moments before and after that that swung how that game went. Allowing Wisky to go 10-17 on 3rd down (and the general bad 3rd down conversion rate we have allowed this season) was going to do us no favors in winning this game.
Like I said, we made plenty of mistakes and agree we should have won the game regardless. Having said that, once Newton was out we had no pass rush and we couldn't stop Allen, after having more or less bottled him up all game. No question in my mind we win if Newton plays the full game
 
#254      
BB calling a timeout when Wisky had first and goal from inside the 5 was ridiculously bad- I know we were trying to get a guy off the field and the officials should have let us have time to sub and stop Wisky from snapping it- but you take the penalty and argue it then- don’t burn your last time out essentially ensuring you won’t have any time left when you get the ball back

It was close to just letting them score frankly- the chances of stopping them with no Newton or Randolph are slim- getting the ball back with 1:20 on the clock and a timeout at least gives LA a fighting chance who has been great in those situations so far. It just felt like completely boned headed clock management regardless of the officials mistake there
 
#256      
So confusing, I remember being absolutely at a loss to understand how that gets called the way it was
The original call was 2 penalties vs. the defense: holding and roughing the passer. Can a review result in a new penalty that wasn't called originally?
 
#257      

Illinir1

Camdenton, MO
At the game yesterday and from the stands I just absolutely couldn't understand, or agree with, our free safety starting 22 yards off of the line of scrimmage time after time after time. Invited many successful Wisc. runs of 11 players against 10. Ultimately it was our poor zone defense that did us in, allowing Bucky's 2nd string QB, in his first start, to throw for 240 yds (Altmeyer threw for 100 yds.). But the 22 yd. deep safety added and accomplished nothing (see Wisc. TD pass into double coverage to make it 21 - 16 + 2 pt conversion).

The Illini literally snatched defeat from the jaws of victory yesterday (ESPN in-game win probability)....
1698012287607.png
 
#259      
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.
 
#260      
I thought having Leohnard as our analyst would really help solidify our victory yesterday. Watching our defensive scheme though,particularly at the end of 1st half has me head scratching.
 
#261      
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.
illegal formations are hard to see on tv. It is the linesman job to verify the formation. But the refs got us for covering the center on a punt

The call I was most upset at them missing was them hitting Luke on a slide
 
#262      
illegal formations are hard to see on tv. It is the linesman job to verify the formation. But the refs got us for covering the center on a punt
Help me out? When it happened my wife asked me what that means. I typically try to sound knowledgeable when that happens but I couldn't even fake it. What is the rule and what purpose does it serve?
 
#263      
Help me out? When it happened my wife asked me what that means. I typically try to sound knowledgeable when that happens but I couldn't even fake it. What is the rule and what purpose does it serve?
I believe the rule is designed to protect a long snapper's head/neck by forcing the defense to not lineup directly in front of them. Since a long snapper has to be basically looking through their legs when snapping the ball, a defender (or more) could plow into the snapper (who is basically defenseless) and do some real damage.

So, the defense has to line up on the "outside"ish of the center. Sort of through the gaps, as opposed to head on. If that helps.
 
#264      

JSpence

Evansville, IN
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 don't think they are saying that it didn't change the outcome. I think they're saying that it shouldn't have. Like we're ****ing Alabama or something.

I don't get it. Yes, we screwed the pooch five different ways to lose that game. But this thing that was out of our control was a huge blow. A call this big shouldn't be blown. It's an open book test multiple angles of slow-motion and game speed instant replay plus phone-a-friend. Get it right and let us win or lose the game fairly on our own.
 
#265      
Like I said, we made plenty of mistakes and agree we should have won the game regardless. Having said that, once Newton was out we had no pass rush and we couldn't stop Allen, after having more or less bottled him up all game. No question in my mind we win if Newton plays the full game

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.
 
#267      
Pretty stunning how Illinois couldn’t even pass the ball with the wind while Wisconsin backup threw pretty effectively all game. Allen ran through Illinois the entire second half. Illini pass rush ineffective. And there are no ball hawks on D.
I was at the game. Our receivers struggle to get separation. I feel there is no depth on this team. These kids are giving it there all.
 
#269      
That's the still you send to the league offices
I won't pretend to know the rule or understand how inconsistently it is enforced, but that still is misleading. That's after the initial contact. The QB was still holding the ball upon impact
 
#271      
If the hit on Newton was called then the missed call on the hit of Like when he went down should have been called on Wisc.
 
#272      
BB calling a timeout when Wisky had first and goal from inside the 5 was ridiculously bad- I know we were trying to get a guy off the field and the officials should have let us have time to sub and stop Wisky from snapping it- but you take the penalty and argue it then- don’t burn your last time out essentially ensuring you won’t have any time left when you get the ball back

It was close to just letting them score frankly- the chances of stopping them with no Newton or Randolph are slim- getting the ball back with 1:20 on the clock and a timeout at least gives LA a fighting chance who has been great in those situations so far. It just felt like completely boned headed clock management regardless of the officials mistake there
Bingo. I can't say with certainty what the 2nd called timeout was for, but the first timeout was called because Bret was upset about Wisconsin clapping during the snap count and wanted more time to yell at the refs about it. The 3rd timeout was because he wanted to not get a 12 men on the field penalty and give Wisconsin a free play because the refs didn't allow Illinois to legally sub after Wisconsin subbed and also because he wanted more time to yell at them (I want to say the 2nd timeout was also for the same reason of not allowing Illinois to sub after Wisconsin subbed but I'm not 100% sure on that). Those burned timeouts cost us any real chance of coming back to win the game. We should have had just over a minute left and at least 1 timeout had we used our timeouts efficiently. Instead it was quite frankly the worst clock management blunder by an Illinois head coach since Zook, and hell, this probably eclipsed that. Burning 2 timeouts with under 2 minutes to go in the game when Wisconsin isn't running clock is outrageously poor coaching. And I know that you don't want to give up a free play to the opponent in a 1st and goal situation but you cannot call your last timeout there. Wisconsin was extremely likely to score either way, whether it be a FG or a TD. Time is the most valuable thing you have at that point, especially without your 2 best players on defense, and we squandered it. Just at a loss for words quite frankly.
 
#273      
I won't pretend to know the rule or understand how inconsistently it is enforced, but that still is misleading. That's after the initial contact. The QB was still holding the ball upon impact
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.
 
#275      
I believe the rule is designed to protect a long snapper's head/neck by forcing the defense to not lineup directly in front of them. Since a long snapper has to be basically looking through their legs when snapping the ball, a defender (or more) could plow into the snapper (who is basically defenseless) and do some real damage.

So, the defense has to line up on the "outside"ish of the center. Sort of through the gaps, as opposed to head on. If that helps.
Ah, thank you. Great explanation.