Game defining play

[missingnumber7]

I didn't get to watch the game because I was reffing, but every FCS victory has a defining moment as to why we won the game.

Long arse drive last year against KState
Goal line stand against CSU
MWills TD vs Goofers
Blocked kick in Kansas or just the Defense as a whole in that game.

Whats that for this game?

I only got to see the part of the first quarter so I would say the game on the radio took a definite change in tone after the Targeting penalty early in the game. But Dudzik's INT? Again I haven't seen the game

[CivilBison96]

Crockett for 80 yards on our 1st score.

[NDSUBowler]

Crockett for 80 yards on our 1st score.
It's this and I don't think it's really debatable.

NDSU had NOTHING to cheer for until that play and we were just deflated. One play and the momentum swung 100% our way.

[Hammersmith]

Yep.

10char

[No_Skill]

The energy in the stadium completely changed after that play.

[SamsRams]

It's this and I don't think it's really debatable.

NDSU had NOTHING to cheer for until that play and we were just deflated. One play and the momentum swung 100% our way.

Not trying to debate Corckett, but if ISU comes back and scores on next possession it would have been bad news.
They throw a swing pass on first down and their guy has nothing but daylight. It was an easy first down and then Dudzik comes in like a scud missle and sending him spiraling out of bounds just short of the first. NDSU holds the next two plays including a line on line QB sneak where they just dominated their line. That 3 and out was very needed and turned he game from a chance to win, to NDSU's game to lose

[HerdBot]

#1 Crockett 80 yards
#2 next drive Dudzik came out of nowhere and made an amazing tackle that made it 3rd and 1 which lead to a 3 and out as they were stuffed on the next play. From there on I knew the game was ours as you could feel momentum change.
#3 Wentz to Vraa long bomb. Game tied. Game over

[MontBison]

3 passes from the 5 yd line and then getting that fg. HUGE points!!

[HerdBoy]

Yeah Crockett and the 80 yard run for a TD.

[Loud and Proud Bison fan]

I agree with the Crockett run.. Please dont call me an ISU fan.. but once their starting center got injured. To me the injury was the biggest factor, even though they supposed got more depth. Once he was injured, ISU could not run anymore and that is when interceptions started happening.

[El_Chapo]

The ndsu interception where the ISU wr tried to 1 hand it and fell into our arms. It was 20-14 ndsu then.

That was the game defining play because crock scored there to make it 27-14 and it was OVER

[56BISON73]

I agree with the Crockett run.. Please dont call me an ISU fan.. but once their starting center got injured. To me the injury was the biggest factor, even though they supposed got more depth. Once he was injured, ISU could not run anymore and that is when interceptions started happening.

I dont know if losing him had that great of an impact or the fact that we were making adjustments?

[Hammerhead]

I'll go with Crockett's 1st touchdown. I was expecting him to get caught from behind with all of that FBS speed on the other side, but they couldn't do it. I'm going to start calling him Johnny Rocket. :)

http://www.onecleanplate.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/JohnnyRockets-Logo.jpg

[SamsRams]

He's been Johnny Rocket for 2 years. Why you starting now?

[Scooter1]

I'll go with Brian Schaetz "King Kong Bundy bodyslam from the top ropes" which happened right after Crockett's 80 yard run. The Iowa St offense had nothing after that play.

[BisoninNWMN]

I'll go with Brian Schaetz "King Kong Bundy bodyslam from the top ropes" which happened right after Crockett's 80 yard run. The Iowa St offense had nothing after that play.


Crockett run but this is a very close second.

[Tatanka]

Crockett for 80 yards on our 1st score.


This.

And totally agree the energy in the stadium changed on that play. Could hear 50000 butts pucker all at once as they realized their defense was, well, still less than good.

[jimmyptubas]

I don't have much to add to what's been said but I can tell you section h really turned it on after Crockett run. Not much sitting the whole game.

[A1pigskin]

The Crockett run woke everyone up except ISU. The team started to gel after this.

[sbark]

I don't know, seemed like as in years past, it was a process of our OLine wearing out the defense and then imposing their will in the late 2nd half.........even with Crockets run, it was the play in the pit that sprung him.

[56BISON73]

Crocketts run. It turned the tide and put us back in the game. Huge momentum swing.

[A1pigskin]

I'll go with Crockett's 1st touchdown. I was expecting him to get caught from behind with all of that FBS speed on the other side, but they couldn't do it. I'm going to start calling him Johnny Rocket. :)

http://www.onecleanplate.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/JohnnyRockets-Logo.jpg

Yep and JC was slowly pulling away.

[Bison bison]

Well, if the game was a function of Rhoads keeping his dignity it was the Cotton-Moya ejection.

[BisonFan02]

I'll go with Brian Schaetz "King Kong Bundy bodyslam from the top ropes" which happened right after Crockett's 80 yard run. The Iowa St offense had nothing after that play.

This....stamped the D beat down.

[VirginiaBison]

I belive there were 2 defining moments - Crockett's run being the first and most important.

The second defining moment was when ISU, with 2 inches to go for a first down, elected to punt.

[bigdaddykane]

Crockett's run and iowa state punting on 4& inches
and cotton-moya targeting call

[daddy daycare]

The Schaetz hit is when I knew the sh*t was about to get real.

[SamsRams]

I belive there were 2 defining moments - Crockett's run being the first and most important.

The second defining moment was when ISU, with 2 inches to go for a first down, elected to punt.

They arent 2 inches short if Dudzik doesnt make an amazing tackle the play before

[stevdock]

Crockett's run and iowa state punting on 4& inches
and cotton-moya targeting call

How much of a difference did losing the safety mean to their defense?? Also I thought that targeting penalty was awful. I didn't think it should have been a penalty and I definitely thought he shouldn't have been ejected.

[56BISON73]

I am going to change my mind. The Crocket run was great. It helped turn the tide. But what really busted it open? The long pass from Wentz to Vraa. At that point my thought was---well here we go!!!!

[missingnumber7]

How much of a difference did losing the safety mean to their defense?? Also I thought that targeting penalty was awful. I didn't think it should have been a penalty and I definitely thought he shouldn't have been ejected.

The new rule makes it really easy. Crown of the helmet anywhere on anyone is an automatic. Anything above the shoulders to a defenseless player with any part of the body with forcible contact. This actually met both definitions as his head was down when contact was made with the side of the helmet. The rule is there for player safety and is easy as an official to enforce it.

[56BISON73]

How much of a difference did losing the safety mean to their defense?? Also I thought that targeting penalty was awful. I didn't think it should have been a penalty and I definitely thought he shouldn't have been ejected.

I argee. You could see the DB pulling up. If he was going to target he would have extended through the receiver instead of buckling both of his knees to come under control and reduce impact.

[99Bison]

The new rule makes it really easy. Crown of the helmet anywhere on anyone is an automatic. Anything above the shoulders to a defenseless player with any part of the body with forcible contact. This actually met both definitions as his head was down when contact was made with the side of the helmet. The rule is there for player safety and is easy as an official to enforce it.

IMO, definitely a penalty, don't know how that would even be debatable. Don't know what rule on ejection is, but if it's clear as the penalty, then guess so.

[99Bison]

The new rule makes it really easy. Crown of the helmet anywhere on anyone is an automatic. Anything above the shoulders to a defenseless player with any part of the body with forcible contact. This actually met both definitions as his head was down when contact was made with the side of the helmet. The rule is there for player safety and is easy as an official to enforce it.

IMO, definitely a penalty, don't know how that would even be debatable. Don't know what rule on ejection is, but if it's clear as the penalty, then guess so.

[missingnumber7]

IMO, definitely a penalty, don't know how that would even be debatable. Don't know what rule on ejection is, but if it's clear as the penalty, then guess so.

If it is targeting, it is an ejection. The penalty is 15yards and disqualification. They have changed this year so that you can have roughing and targeting, removing the targeting and still get 15 yards. Or any other penalty paired with targeting. And as far as pulling up...after watching the clip about 10 times...he extends his legs to contact would as an official I would deem making forcible contact.

Anyone who was listening on the radio heard Phil make an absolute ass of him self complaining about the rule for a good 30 to 45 seconds and then saw the replay and said oh yea that's targeting.

[56BISON73]

IMO, definitely a penalty, don't know how that would even be debatable. Don't know what rule on ejection is, but if it's clear as the penalty, then guess so.

Not saying it wasnt a penalty. I just thought the ejection was unnecessary.

[missingnumber7]

Not saying it wasnt a penalty. I just thought the ejection was unnecessary.

Cant have one without the other.

[56BISON73]

Cant have one without the other.

But dont they review it to see if it was ejection worthy? Its still going to be a penalty. They review it for the ejection part of the ruling I thought.

[Bisonguy]

But dont they review it to see if it was ejection worthy? Its still going to be a penalty. They review it for the ejection part of the ruling I thought.


They did review it and the ruling on the field was upheld.

[missingnumber7]

But dont they review it to see if it was ejection worthy? Its still going to be a penalty. They review it for the ejection part of the ruling I thought.

If they review it and it wasn't targeting then there isn't a penalty either. The only way there would be a penalty is if it was paired with something else. Say Targeting was on a QB. The White hat would announce that there is roughing the passer and targeting, # so and so has been disqualified. If the play wasn't targeting they would still have the roughing penalty as that is not reviewable.

[EC8CH]

I didn't think it looked bad either, but rules are rules. Was more bad technique by their safety than anything.

[missingnumber7]

ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or
neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow
or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-
4-I-VI)
PENALTY [ARTICLE 3 and ARTICLE 4]—15 yards. For dead-ball
fouls, 15 yards from the succeeding spot. Automatic first down for fouls
by Team B if not in conflict with other rules. For fouls in the first half:
Disqualification for the remainder of the game. (Rule 2-27-12) For fouls in
the second half: Disqualification for the remainder of the game and the first
half of the next game. If the foul occurs in the second half of the last game
of the season, players with remaining eligibility shall serve the suspension
during the first game of the following season. The disqualification is
subject to review by Instant Replay (Rule 12-3-5-f). [S38, S24 and S47]
When the Instant Replay Official reverses the disqualification:
If the targeting foul is not in conjunction with another personal foul by the
same player, the 15-yard penalty for targeting is not enforced. If the player
commits another personal foul in conjunction with the targeting foul, the
15-yard penalty for that personal foul is enforced according to rule. (A. R.
9-1-4-VII-VIII)
For games in which Instant Replay is not used:
If a player is disqualified in the first half, at the option of the conference
or by pre-game mutual agreement of the teams in inter-conference games,
during the intermission between halves the Referee will be provided a video
of the play in question for his review in the officials’ private secure location.
The Referee will review the video to determine whether the disqualification
is reversed. The decision of the Referee is final. (A. R. 9-1-4-IX)
Note: The video source and the location of the review will be determined
prior to the game through mutual agreement of the teams and the Referee.
If a player is disqualified in the second half, the conference has the option
to consult the national coordinator of football officials who would then
facilitate a video review. Based on the review, if the national coordinator
concludes that the player should not have been disqualified, the conference
may vacate the suspension. If the national coordinator supports the
disqualification, the suspension for the next game will remain.

Note 1: “Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes
of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a
legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are
not limited to:
• Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward
and forward thrust of the body to make contact in the head or neck area
• A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with
contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the
ground
• Leading with helmet, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with
contact at the head or neck area
• Lowering the head before attacking by initiating contact with the
crown of the helmet
Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14):
• A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
• A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to
receive a backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not
had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
• A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick
or the return.
• A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick.
• A player on the ground.
• A player obviously out of the play.
• A player who receives a blind-side block.
• A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward
progress has been stopped.
• A quarterback any time after a change of possession.

[bisonpride4ever]

I recall the announcers saying to start the 2nd half that they talked to the former head officials about the ejection and he told them that if they hadn't called it targeting to begin with and then reviewed it that it wouldn't have been called but since they called it targeting to begin with, it was going to hard to reverse it.


Sent using both a Speak-n-Spell and an Etch-a-Sketch

[BlueBisonRock]

I recall the announcers saying to start the 2nd half that they talked to the former head officials about the ejection and he told them that if they hadn't called it targeting to begin with and then reviewed it that it wouldn't have been called but since they called it targeting to begin with, it was going to hard to reverse it.


Sent using both a Speak-n-Spell and an Etch-a-Sketch

On the positive side (for the clones), it gave them another excuse as to why they had their @$$ handed to them.

[missingnumber7]

I recall the announcers saying to start the 2nd half that they talked to the former head officials about the ejection and he told them that if they hadn't called it targeting to begin with and then reviewed it that it wouldn't have been called but since they called it targeting to begin with, it was going to hard to reverse it.


Sent using both a Speak-n-Spell and an Etch-a-Sketch

They wouldn't review a hit if it wasn't called Targeting anyway.

[SamsRams]

Keep your eyes on the target, you cant lower your head and lead with the crown. Not that hard to understand the rule, hard to not tackle that way for some people. Watch how Emannuel tackled Richardson a few yards downfield, he kept his eyes up.

No debate to me, it was targeting and deserved and ejection

[unbison]

On the positive side (for the clones), it gave them another excuse as to why they had their @$$ handed to them.

To be quite honest I did not hear much for excuses... and I listened to their post game radio show

[marenlee]

Keep your eyes on the target, you cant lower your head and lead with the crown. Not that hard to understand the rule, hard to not tackle that way for some people. Watch how Emannuel tackled Richardson a few yards downfield, he kept his eyes up.

No debate to me, it was targeting and deserved and ejection

At first I didn't believe it was targeting. But the defender still put his head down and launched without looking and nailed him in the head.

[bigdaddykane]

To be quite honest I did not hear much for excuses... and I listened to their post game radio show
I think if Tom Farniok and Bundrage didnt get hurt it would have been a closer game

[unbison]

I think if Tom Farniok and Bundrage didnt get hurt it would have been a closer game
Yeah you guys may have got a field goal. 34-17

[bisonpride4ever]

They wouldn't review a hit if it wasn't called Targeting anyway.

I'm just saying if they wouldn't have called it initially but Coach K wanted them to look at it again nothing would've happened


Sent using both a Speak-n-Spell and an Etch-a-Sketch

[bigdaddykane]

you guys shut Ej bibbs down 1 rec for 8 yards

[missingnumber7]

I'm just saying if they wouldn't have called it initially but Coach K wanted them to look at it again nothing would've happened


Sent using both a Speak-n-Spell and an Etch-a-Sketch

If they didn't call it, it can't be reviewed and then penalized. It is not something Coach K could've challenged as it is not challengeable.

[DjKyRo]

A thought back on the Kansas game - I always tabbed the "defining play" of that one as the Daniel Eaves hit that jarred the fumble loose late in the game. Second would've been the Matt Anderson interception in the endzone. Man, that game was a grind.

[NorthernBison]

Keep your eyes on the target, you cant lower your head and lead with the crown. Not that hard to understand the rule, hard to not tackle that way for some people. Watch how Emannuel tackled Richardson a few yards downfield, he kept his eyes up.

No debate to me, it was targeting and deserved and ejection

I agree. There is absolutely no question he intended to blow the receiver up and he had his head DOWN. Most of the contact was made with the shoulder but the first contact actually was with the helmet AND all of the contact was to the head and neck area. Textbook targeting.

People need to get used to the fact this is how they are calling this. Whether we like it or not, the game has changed and it's not very likely to get relaxed. Defenders need to adjust.