The Roughing the Passer BS Call

grayhair81

HR Legend
Sep 3, 2006
11,233
13,675
113
No they didn't, and they shouldn't.

Again these rules are horribly written because in practice they lay all of the blame at the defenders feet and ask them to do completely unrealistic things in the name of "safety" (which targeting and roughing the passer rules have demonstrably done zilch to promote).

Your second point makes absolutely zero sense considering the coach's contract has absolutely nothing to do with rule changes and interpretation.

While I agree with you 100% about the stupidity of the rule, the bigger issue to me is that the $7 mil-a-year Moon Family HC again doesn't know the rules. Pretty inexcusable.
 

desihawk

HR Heisman
Oct 1, 2002
8,884
8,534
113
so was campbell’s tackle of clifford last year acceptable or not per this rule?
 

iahawks10

HR Legend
Nov 3, 2001
12,591
15,936
113
so was campbell’s tackle of clifford last year acceptable or not per this rule?

Per this rule, 100% legal.

6untln.jpg


6unu4q.jpg
 

BBHawk

HR Legend
Oct 31, 2001
30,329
24,370
113
Iowa City
I watched the B10 announcers talk about Rutger's needing better QB play. I'm sorry, but the dude was getting the crap beat out of him and if this was a prize fight he looks like Joe Frazier after the Thrilla in Manilla after that game. Simon kept standing in there and threw some great balls...the pick 6 wasn't a bad pass, we just have a freak in DeJean. The other Merrieweather pick was because he didn't think Merrieweather was going to be there. Kaevon saw his guy block down and so he went football hunting.

If I'm Schiano, I'm thinking the kid can play if we protect him.
The pick 6 was thrown into double coverage. So was the fumble return on the completed pass. Their receivers were getting killed until the 4th quarter when Iowa went to prevent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: F5n5

Frosty7130

HR All-American
Gold Member
Oct 11, 2012
4,276
8,925
113
South Dakota
While I agree with you 100% about the stupidity of the rule, the bigger issue to me is that the $7 mil-a-year Moon Family HC again doesn't know the rules. Pretty inexcusable.
Except it's not the rule, and it was assured by the NCAA when the rule (which was adjusted this past spring) that it wouldn't be enforced the way it was last night.


Same thing with the Texas defender that got ejected for "targeting" against UTSA last week on what was clearly incidental contact to the helmet, which was clearly NOT targeting by the letter of the law, but still upheld by the Big 12 conference.

At this point, not even the officials know what the rule is, because it's extremely poorly written and subject to wildly different interpretations.

Which makes it a horrible rule.
 

grayhair81

HR Legend
Sep 3, 2006
11,233
13,675
113
Except it's not the rule, and it was assured by the NCAA when the rule (which was adjusted this past spring) that it wouldn't be enforced the way it was last night.


Same thing with the Texas defender that got ejected for "targeting" against UTSA last week on what was clearly incidental contact to the helmet, which was clearly NOT targeting by the letter of the law, but still upheld by the Big 12 conference.

At this point, not even the officials know what the rule is, because it's extremely poorly written and subject to wildly different interpretations.

Which makes it a horrible rule.

See post #6. The rule was posted. Pretty clear, actually. Again, I don't like it anymore than I do targeting but it is the rule.
 

Frosty7130

HR All-American
Gold Member
Oct 11, 2012
4,276
8,925
113
South Dakota
See post #6. The rule was posted. Pretty clear, actually. Again, I don't like it anymore than I do targeting but it is the rule.
Except Logan did not forcibly drive him to the ground, nor did he actually land on him.

And yet again, the rules committee assured everyone that it would NOT be enforced like the NFL rule, but it has been.
 
May 27, 2010
15,541
19,549
113
I have to disagree with a few on here that the hits on the Rutgers QB by Logan and VanNess were deserving of penalties. Both appeared to me to be clean hits with no obvious intention of injuring or driving the body into the ground. Quite a stretch of the imagination to go that far in interpretation. Refs need to remember they’re officiating a football game, not a tennis match.
 

hoffmkr

HR MVP
Jan 2, 2003
1,771
442
83
Yet in first quarter, Rutgers DE takes 3 steps after Petras threw ball and pushed him to ground.
That should be called before 1/2 step hits.
 

AuroraHawk

HR Heisman
Dec 18, 2004
6,317
8,395
113
The call on Logan Lee was, IMO, a fair call. I recorded the game and re-watched the hit (it is at 2 hour, 33 minute of the broadcast). When Lee was approaching the QB, the QB was standing sideways. Lee's initial hit on him was off to the side (not a direct hit to the chest) but, instead of just taking him to the ground off to the side (which would not have been a penalty), Lee adjusts and appears to drive his shoulder and weight into the QB as they hit the ground. It looked like Lee wanted to give it "a little extra" at the end of the play. When you initiate the hit from the side and finish it directly on top of the QB, you are far more often than not going to get a flag thrown on you.

The no-call on the pick 6 was, IMO, the right call as well. In that case, Van Ness didn't alter direction at any point and, although it was a significant hit, there was nothing to suggest that Van Ness tried in any way to do anything other than finish the play.
 

Hendy hawk

HR All-American
Aug 21, 2002
4,481
2,941
113
On the postgame radio show Dolph asked KF about this call. KF said the refs told him that the Iowa defender's eyes were up and that he tackled the QB too hard. KF then said that the NFL rules must to be creeping into the college rules.

Talk about not only a BS call but a BS explanation.

How bout the refs just admit they blew the freakin call?
I thought it was a bad call also.
 

DodgerHawki

HR Legend
Nov 19, 2002
10,012
12,290
113
The call on Logan Lee was, IMO, a fair call. I recorded the game and re-watched the hit (it is at 2 hour, 33 minute of the broadcast). When Lee was approaching the QB, the QB was standing sideways. Lee's initial hit on him was off to the side (not a direct hit to the chest) but, instead of just taking him to the ground off to the side (which would not have been a penalty), Lee adjusts and appears to drive his shoulder and weight into the QB as they hit the ground. It looked like Lee wanted to give it "a little extra" at the end of the play. When you initiate the hit from the side and finish it directly on top of the QB, you are far more often than not going to get a flag thrown on you.

The no-call on the pick 6 was, IMO, the right call as well. In that case, Van Ness didn't alter direction at any point and, although it was a significant hit, there was nothing to suggest that Van Ness tried in any way to do anything other than finish the play.
I would agree with your assessment. Rushing the QB is very difficult. In order to rush effectively, the DL has to play full tilt. And then when they get there, they have to kind of tackle the guy off to the side. The rules just do not allow the defensive player to drive the QB down into the ground. Part of Iowa's secret sauce on defense is making the QB aware that he is going to get hit hard if he holds on to the ball and tries to make a play. It's a fine line, and my guess is KF and staff are willing to put up with a few roughing calls over the course of the season. Will need a big effort from the DL this week.
 

ShonnDeereGreene

All-Conference
Jun 8, 2022
485
1,223
93
I didn’t love the call, but the refs probably thought this poor kid has been getting absolutely drilled all night - he deserves one call.

In all seriousness, it was so huge they did not throw a flag on the Van Ness pick six play. It was 100% a clean play, but officials so often just throw a flag if it simply looks like a hard hit - clean or not. Would have been a huge momentum killer for us…and this board would have been in meltdown mode (rightfully so)!
 

HawkBall23

HR Legend
Gold Member
Oct 6, 2001
24,311
14,694
113
If going by the letter of the rule, it was maybe worth the flag, but comparing it to all the other hits that the RU QB and players took that night, Lee's RtP call was a freaking love tap compared to all the rest of the hits Iowa's defense was laying on Rutgers.

That was a sympathy flag by the lead official. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ShonnDeereGreene

JerseyCityHawki

HR All-American
Oct 28, 2019
3,670
4,020
113
50
Hackensack, New Jersey
On the postgame radio show Dolph asked KF about this call. KF said the refs told him that the Iowa defender's eyes were up and that he tackled the QB too hard. KF then said that the NFL rules must to be creeping into the college rules.

Talk about not only a BS call but a BS explanation.

How bout the refs just admit they blew the freakin call?
Hallelujah my brother Franny … that was a sick and stupid call- these f’ing refs need to go under advanced eye testing… and drug and alcohol checks plus a breathalyzer and urine check before (during quarters, Halftime, 3rd and 4th quarter) ok on a little bit ridiculous but some of these calls this season are ball scratching?