Comes from, imho: "We're gonna believe in each other, we're not gonna criticize each other, we're not gonna talk about each other, we're gonna encourage each other."
True, but how often would it be better for Donovan to be carrying the ball than Blake or Mullings? We're one game away from a natty. Every down will count.
I saw that game, but I also realize that it may be a tiny bit relevant that not a single coach or player from that Michigan team is on this Michigan team, and not a single player or coach from that Texas team will be on this Alabama team.
Winning isn't an "anecdote." It's the point of the game and, in this case, a complete rebuttal to the resentment your coaching staff seem intent on nursing. There are many reasons PSU lost to Michigan, but I wouldn't be surprised if one factor was the coaching staff's fixation on grievances, rather than focusing on its own team.
And saltiness can go both ways. You all lost at home, against a team without a head coach and with an injured quarterback. Oh, and I forgot: Michigan didn't have the all-important sign-stealer, while PSU most assuredly did have its sign-stealer. You're still going to chalk Michigan's win up to $55,000.00/year staffer who was no longer with the team? Man, I don't know what to say about that.
We don't really *know* none of the coaches said anything positive. We can be certain Feldman hasn't included the full text of his conversations. OTOH, we can't be certain at all Feldman didn't cherry-pick comments to fit a narrative. I don't doubt Michigan is unpopular among other Big Ten schools at present. I just don't think any Feldman article, especially one that relies entirely on anonymous sources, is any proof of that.
I see no reason to get so far out in front of the evidence.
I'm not at all sure the Michigan AD is such a "detail-oriented" "industrial machine" that it can be assumed to be unerringly competent and aware at all times of what its staffers are doing. In fact, were I to find fault with the AD, it would be precisely that its hiring and oversight practices are far too loose. See, e.g., Weiss, Schemy, Stalions, the sex offender guy, maybe Partridge, etc. At present, there is literally no evidence coaches knew about Stalions' amateurish shenanigans. If the evidence changes, we should adjust our opinions. In the meantime, the wild number of assumptions you make in just about every sentence (read it over and ask yourself, "Is there evidence, or is that just speculation?") is completely unjustified.
"OSU fan #1 thinks the entire situation is borderline hilarious. He thinks we were turned in by an insider and whole thing is much ado about nothing BUT he’s loving that we’re going through it."
Props to OSU fan #1. This is exactly how I expect and accept a rival fan to think and behave. I'll be honest, I thought Hitler going up on Sparty's scoreboard was hilarious. I wasn't at all offended because I knew there was a 100% chance it was an honest mistake, but I still enjoyed seeing MSU squirm a bit. That's a dirty secret of fandom. You just have to be ready for blowback when it's your program that's stepped in it. But the campaign to destroy the our program over what to all appearance is a minor kerfuffle is something different. That the Big Ten and much of the media have amplified it the way they have shows something else (probably hatred of Harbaugh and Michigan, in general) is afoot.
I think the issue (and I'm agreeing with you) is emotional. If you simply kick, you don't *know* you've lost the game on a missed two-point conversion until later, and events will probably play out so that you never know what would have happened with the conversion. So it may seem *emotionally* best to put off the potentially decisive play.
From a "blame" point of view, kicking is also the right call. The likelihood is that you will never be held accountable for it. There's a high probability you'll just not get in the position to score a td to test the theory, and even if you do score, and miss the 2 pt. conversion, that's just the same thing that happened anyway. By going for two and missing it, though, you've sealed the outcome of the game two minutes early, and everybody knows that was your decision.
This is a good point, imho. This is business court, I think? And in my experience in business court the judge leans on the parties even more than usual to settle the matter on their own.
Disagree. Michigan's position is that the Big Ten hasn't followed its process and is relying on rumor, innuendo and other "evidence" that would never be admissible. Michigan doesn't want to do the same, because *that's* what would weaken its argument. So, instead, Michigan accurately communicates the state of its information, pending investigation. Michigan's entire point is the truth can't be known absent due process as delineated by Big Ten rules and the background law that applies to the case.
Keep in mind this is in *response* to Pettiti's email to Michigan, and all we've been hearing is the *other side*. And that's exactly Michigan's point.
Those pleadings are already written and this letter tracks them. If Harbaugh is suspended, the lawsuit will be filed immediately. Just needs to be uploaded.
Before reacting this strongly, keep in mind the article largely relies on anonymous quotations, which were then selectively leaked to the press by "someone." There are likely to be major inaccuracies and omissions.
More than half of college football controversies are just like this. People, especially rival fan bases, pretend they're outraged (BurgerGate, Sign Larceny) when, in reality, they're up to their gills in schadenfreude. Smiling Scoreboard Hitler is the same. No sentient being believes there was malicious intent, just an obvious screw up.
But what a screw up it was! Hitler? Hitler?! Posing there like he's about to pick up his date for Prom? Terrible, but terribly hilarious. It's also laugh-out-loud funny that just as Spartans are enjoying their favorite thing in life -- something bad happening to Michigan -- they step on the story through sheer incompetence.
For the umpteenth time, the universe is trying to tell them something, but they just won't listen.
"[T]he undertone of MSU representing the more rural, more blue collar, more 'outside the ivory tower' part of the state while Michigan is the elitist, liberal 'ivory tower' school with far more students from the NE corridor etc."
Which is ironic, given the next most common attack is that Michigan fans are mostly "Walmart Wolverines."
There is, as you say, considerable doubt whether a lawsuit under Title IX would be successful because Tracy is an outside contractor. But you should be aware there are other claims, besides Title IX claims, that could be brought here. Potentially, Tracy could have claims for Intentional Interference with Contract, Intentional Interference with Business Relationships, maybe Defamation, Injurious Falsehood, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. There may be others. I doubt the lawyer you're referencing was asked about non-Title IX claims.
"The biggest argument for his dismissal is bringing public humiliation to the university, but the only reason it brought public humiliation was the leak."
This is incorrect. One of the causal reasons for MSU's public humiliation in this instance is the leak, and even that assumes this matter could have been kept confidential indefinitely.
The other reason is the alleged underlying conduct itself. If the allegations are believed, Tucker engaged in a potentially non-consensual sexual act with a vendor, whose services happened to be educating his players on sexual misconduct. Even if we completely credit Tucker's claim the matter was consensual, he still engaged in an emotional affair with a vendor, which blew up in his and the university's face. This is an easily foreseeable risk Tucker intentionally took, and it played out in the way Human Resources departments everywhere fear. For instance, Tucker claimed he cancelled or postponed Tracy's scheduled session with his players for legitimate reasons, but the fact that he had entered into (by his version of events) a romantic relationship with Tracy, which apparently then ended, automatically makes the matter fraught and exposes the university to embarrassment and possible legal liability.
Then there's Tucker's alleged behavior during the course of the investigation. If reports are to be believed, Tucker lied to investigators on at least two instances. First, he allegedly misrepresented where he was when the phone call took place in an apparent effort to distance the phone call from his official duties. Second, he (allegedly) told investigators ESPN was investigating Tracy's claims that she was gang raped. This turned out to be false, and it's retaliatory on its face.
I'm not privy to Michigan State's standard practices, or whether the university has ever faced a fact pattern like this. But an ordinary employer, even if the employer had signed a just-cause contract, would have a good case that there was good cause for discharge.
It's far too generous to Tucker to argue that the only reason for his predicament was the leak. For the most part, he brought this on himself.
Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet
"ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of their helmet. The crown of the helmet is the top segment of the helmet; namely, the circular area defined by a 6-inch radius from the apex (top) of the helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 9-6) (A.R. 9-1-3-I) T
Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player
ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)
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 their feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area. • A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground. • Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area. • Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet.
Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14). When in question, a player is defenseless. Examples of defenseless players include but are not limited to: • A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass. This includes an offensive player in a passing posture with focus downfield. • 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 themselves 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, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect themselves or has not clearly become a ball carrier. FR-94 RULE 9 / Conduct of Players and Others • 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 • A ball carrier who has obviously given themselves up and is sliding feetfirst."
Under Article 3, to me it looks like the defender makes forcible contact "a 6-inch radius from the apex (top) of the helmet." To my eyes, the defender also lowers his helmet just before contact.
But the more applicable language is in Article 4 because JJ, by definition, was a defenseless player. A "defenseless player" includes, "A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass." JJ had just thrown a pass, so he was defenseless under the wording of the rule. That means that any forcible contact with the"with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder" is consistent with targeting. Contact with the crown of the helmet is not required. Also note, there is no exception for initial contact by the helmet (which, to be frank, I don't see).
But there still must an indicator of targeting. Here I think you're off base. You posted a still of the defender with his feet on the ground, but review of the video shows he left his feet right after the moment depicted in the still. The defender leapt upwards and forward and made forcible contact to JJ's head and neck area with his helmet.
Finally, if there's doubt, the rule states: When in question, it is a foul.
Applying the facts to the law, as they say, this was correctly ruled targeting and the NCAA erred in reversing the call on the field.
A couple of things. You say, "Harbaugh deserves some sort of punishment, and . . . the Michigan players are just saying, 'Ahhh, let him off the hook! It's okay to cheat!'"
That's an obvious straw man argument. No one is saying that.
What the players and other Harbaugh defenders are saying you allude to later in your argument: it's a speeding violation. Yet the NCAA has chosen to selectively prosecute when -- to continue with your metaphor -- there are far more serious rules violations readily apparent to anyone paying attention. With the North Carolinas, Kansases, Tennessees, etc., etc. more or less getting away with far more fundamental violations, apparently because they can, it seems ludicrous to many to prosecute Michigan for relative trivialities. Worse, the aggressiveness of the prosecution does not appear to be motivated by the specific violations, but by Harbaugh's refusal to capitulate by admitting he lied when he doesn't think he did. In short, the NCAA appears to be acting out of spite.
I would add the NCAA's behavior in issuing an aggressive public statement on the matter when it knows Michigan can't respond is unprofessional. Arguably, the statement violated the NCAA's own rules, which raises the issue of hypocrisy, and further undermines any claim the NCAA is acting in good faith.
This is why the players, and frankly (to rebut the "read the room" comment) most of the Michigan community in this specific instance is supporting Harbaugh.
I don't know if you know this, but those clips are available online. ;) To test this proposition, I have attempted to access said video clips approximately 157 times, each time with success. I now consider it science.
What you're missing is the extreme difficulty of interstellar travel, given the limits of physics. So even if there are other forms of intelligent life out there, getting to Earth would be a huge challenge -- not physically impossible, but extremely difficult. Add to this that SETI and all other efforts to find intelligent life in the cosmos has come up empty. Under the circumstances, it's vanishingly unlikely that alien life forms are lurking in the shadows, occasionally getting caught by government officials, but never photographed.
But skepticism about the functioning of the government does not justify "therefore aliens." There's no reason to trade in one sort of gullibility for another.
My take is the show today missed Sam. Ira's not quite as experienced at being the MC, and so the guys are probably not as sure when and how much to chime in. From having been in similar (not identical) situations, you're actually trying to fill time, and the burden is to speak up and provide content.
While I'd love to get MSU off our schedule (there's nothing in it for us), there'd be a political firestorm in the state if the University of Michigan refused to play Michigan State. It's their biggest game, and almost their reason for being from a football point-of-view. Politicos in the state wouldn't allow UM to humiliate MSU like that. Imho opinion the university presidents should meet, then lead a serious and sustained effort to lower the temperature. It's beyond ridiculous right now.
True. OTOH, seven of their players now face criminal charges. That's a bad outcome, and should encourage some sobriety. This, perhaps, is where the Big Ten can do something positive. No, I'm not holding my breath; I'm merely hoping.
If, as seems likely, there is no reasonable doubt these men committed crimes, there is no rational reason they shouldn't be held responsible. Are you suggesting these seven men have the benefit of a separate set of rules from the rest of us? Are you also suggesting the Washtenaw County Prosecutor's office is somehow corrupt? Concerns about the criminal justice system are appropriate. Proposing as a solution that people get away with committing crimes is not. You know there are victims of crime, right?
The Prosecutor's Office brought 6 misdemeanor charges and one felony charge. It's quite likely the felony charge will be pleaded down to a misdemeanor. Depending upon the men's prior records, the sentencing will likely be modest. With any luck, the men and the people who are supposed to be leading them will learn from the experience. That's the way it's supposed to be.
Recent Comments
Twice as hard, I bet.
They shouldn't. The one-foot-in rule is more consistent with the rest of the rules for when a catch is or is not in-bounds.
Tom Brady. Most people are nearing the height of their careers at age 44, but this dude just quit.
Comes from, imho: "We're gonna believe in each other, we're not gonna criticize each other, we're not gonna talk about each other, we're gonna encourage each other."
True, but how often would it be better for Donovan to be carrying the ball than Blake or Mullings? We're one game away from a natty. Every down will count.
I saw that game, but I also realize that it may be a tiny bit relevant that not a single coach or player from that Michigan team is on this Michigan team, and not a single player or coach from that Texas team will be on this Alabama team.
Winning isn't an "anecdote." It's the point of the game and, in this case, a complete rebuttal to the resentment your coaching staff seem intent on nursing. There are many reasons PSU lost to Michigan, but I wouldn't be surprised if one factor was the coaching staff's fixation on grievances, rather than focusing on its own team.
And saltiness can go both ways. You all lost at home, against a team without a head coach and with an injured quarterback. Oh, and I forgot: Michigan didn't have the all-important sign-stealer, while PSU most assuredly did have its sign-stealer. You're still going to chalk Michigan's win up to $55,000.00/year staffer who was no longer with the team? Man, I don't know what to say about that.
We don't really *know* none of the coaches said anything positive. We can be certain Feldman hasn't included the full text of his conversations. OTOH, we can't be certain at all Feldman didn't cherry-pick comments to fit a narrative. I don't doubt Michigan is unpopular among other Big Ten schools at present. I just don't think any Feldman article, especially one that relies entirely on anonymous sources, is any proof of that.
Ohio State will be unable to field a team.
Honestly, an under-analyzed aspect of this whole thing is that if X knows Side Y knows X's signs, but Y doesn't know X knows: advantage X.
♫ Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest...
Lie-la-lie... ♫
I see no reason to get so far out in front of the evidence.
I'm not at all sure the Michigan AD is such a "detail-oriented" "industrial machine" that it can be assumed to be unerringly competent and aware at all times of what its staffers are doing. In fact, were I to find fault with the AD, it would be precisely that its hiring and oversight practices are far too loose. See, e.g., Weiss, Schemy, Stalions, the sex offender guy, maybe Partridge, etc. At present, there is literally no evidence coaches knew about Stalions' amateurish shenanigans. If the evidence changes, we should adjust our opinions. In the meantime, the wild number of assumptions you make in just about every sentence (read it over and ask yourself, "Is there evidence, or is that just speculation?") is completely unjustified.
Part of my job is investigation. And, no, more frequently than not, suspicions are *not* confirmed and there isn't necessarily more to the story.
"OSU fan #1 thinks the entire situation is borderline hilarious. He thinks we were turned in by an insider and whole thing is much ado about nothing BUT he’s loving that we’re going through it."
Props to OSU fan #1. This is exactly how I expect and accept a rival fan to think and behave. I'll be honest, I thought Hitler going up on Sparty's scoreboard was hilarious. I wasn't at all offended because I knew there was a 100% chance it was an honest mistake, but I still enjoyed seeing MSU squirm a bit. That's a dirty secret of fandom. You just have to be ready for blowback when it's your program that's stepped in it. But the campaign to destroy the our program over what to all appearance is a minor kerfuffle is something different. That the Big Ten and much of the media have amplified it the way they have shows something else (probably hatred of Harbaugh and Michigan, in general) is afoot.
Because they can't beat us on the field.
I think the issue (and I'm agreeing with you) is emotional. If you simply kick, you don't *know* you've lost the game on a missed two-point conversion until later, and events will probably play out so that you never know what would have happened with the conversion. So it may seem *emotionally* best to put off the potentially decisive play.
From a "blame" point of view, kicking is also the right call. The likelihood is that you will never be held accountable for it. There's a high probability you'll just not get in the position to score a td to test the theory, and even if you do score, and miss the 2 pt. conversion, that's just the same thing that happened anyway. By going for two and missing it, though, you've sealed the outcome of the game two minutes early, and everybody knows that was your decision.
"And yes, it can hurt the team; that's why it's being done."
*This* is the fundamental, the Occam's Razor answer. Everything that happened makes sense once this is postulated.
This is a good point, imho. This is business court, I think? And in my experience in business court the judge leans on the parties even more than usual to settle the matter on their own.
We'll see what happens.
Disagree. Michigan's position is that the Big Ten hasn't followed its process and is relying on rumor, innuendo and other "evidence" that would never be admissible. Michigan doesn't want to do the same, because *that's* what would weaken its argument. So, instead, Michigan accurately communicates the state of its information, pending investigation. Michigan's entire point is the truth can't be known absent due process as delineated by Big Ten rules and the background law that applies to the case.
Keep in mind this is in *response* to Pettiti's email to Michigan, and all we've been hearing is the *other side*. And that's exactly Michigan's point.
I just told my (adult) kids that I'm going to use the letter for AMSR.
Those pleadings are already written and this letter tracks them. If Harbaugh is suspended, the lawsuit will be filed immediately. Just needs to be uploaded.
And well worth it.
Hard to believe Michigan State wouldn't be part of it.
Before reacting this strongly, keep in mind the article largely relies on anonymous quotations, which were then selectively leaked to the press by "someone." There are likely to be major inaccuracies and omissions.
More than half of college football controversies are just like this. People, especially rival fan bases, pretend they're outraged (BurgerGate, Sign Larceny) when, in reality, they're up to their gills in schadenfreude. Smiling Scoreboard Hitler is the same. No sentient being believes there was malicious intent, just an obvious screw up.
But what a screw up it was! Hitler? Hitler?! Posing there like he's about to pick up his date for Prom? Terrible, but terribly hilarious. It's also laugh-out-loud funny that just as Spartans are enjoying their favorite thing in life -- something bad happening to Michigan -- they step on the story through sheer incompetence.
For the umpteenth time, the universe is trying to tell them something, but they just won't listen.
Right. Long ago when I attended, it was a good time to party with people you knew from MSU. Now it's a bit darker.
"[T]he undertone of MSU representing the more rural, more blue collar, more 'outside the ivory tower' part of the state while Michigan is the elitist, liberal 'ivory tower' school with far more students from the NE corridor etc."
Which is ironic, given the next most common attack is that Michigan fans are mostly "Walmart Wolverines."
Ahem. It's "bah, bah, bah."
There is, as you say, considerable doubt whether a lawsuit under Title IX would be successful because Tracy is an outside contractor. But you should be aware there are other claims, besides Title IX claims, that could be brought here. Potentially, Tracy could have claims for Intentional Interference with Contract, Intentional Interference with Business Relationships, maybe Defamation, Injurious Falsehood, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. There may be others. I doubt the lawyer you're referencing was asked about non-Title IX claims.
"The biggest argument for his dismissal is bringing public humiliation to the university, but the only reason it brought public humiliation was the leak."
This is incorrect. One of the causal reasons for MSU's public humiliation in this instance is the leak, and even that assumes this matter could have been kept confidential indefinitely.
The other reason is the alleged underlying conduct itself. If the allegations are believed, Tucker engaged in a potentially non-consensual sexual act with a vendor, whose services happened to be educating his players on sexual misconduct. Even if we completely credit Tucker's claim the matter was consensual, he still engaged in an emotional affair with a vendor, which blew up in his and the university's face. This is an easily foreseeable risk Tucker intentionally took, and it played out in the way Human Resources departments everywhere fear. For instance, Tucker claimed he cancelled or postponed Tracy's scheduled session with his players for legitimate reasons, but the fact that he had entered into (by his version of events) a romantic relationship with Tracy, which apparently then ended, automatically makes the matter fraught and exposes the university to embarrassment and possible legal liability.
Then there's Tucker's alleged behavior during the course of the investigation. If reports are to be believed, Tucker lied to investigators on at least two instances. First, he allegedly misrepresented where he was when the phone call took place in an apparent effort to distance the phone call from his official duties. Second, he (allegedly) told investigators ESPN was investigating Tracy's claims that she was gang raped. This turned out to be false, and it's retaliatory on its face.
I'm not privy to Michigan State's standard practices, or whether the university has ever faced a fact pattern like this. But an ordinary employer, even if the employer had signed a just-cause contract, would have a good case that there was good cause for discharge.
It's far too generous to Tucker to argue that the only reason for his predicament was the leak. For the most part, he brought this on himself.
I disagree. Here's the replay:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gXTqVCe2V4&t=815s
Here's the rule:
Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet
"ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of their helmet. The crown of the helmet is the top segment of the helmet; namely, the circular area defined by a 6-inch radius from the apex (top) of the helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 9-6) (A.R. 9-1-3-I) T
Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player
ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)
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 their feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area. • A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground. • Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area. • Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet.
Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14). When in question, a player is defenseless. Examples of defenseless players include but are not limited to: • A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass. This includes an offensive player in a passing posture with focus downfield. • 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 themselves 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, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect themselves or has not clearly become a ball carrier. FR-94 RULE 9 / Conduct of Players and Others • 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 • A ball carrier who has obviously given themselves up and is sliding feetfirst."
Under Article 3, to me it looks like the defender makes forcible contact "a 6-inch radius from the apex (top) of the helmet." To my eyes, the defender also lowers his helmet just before contact.
But the more applicable language is in Article 4 because JJ, by definition, was a defenseless player. A "defenseless player" includes, "A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass." JJ had just thrown a pass, so he was defenseless under the wording of the rule. That means that any forcible contact with the "with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder" is consistent with targeting. Contact with the crown of the helmet is not required. Also note, there is no exception for initial contact by the helmet (which, to be frank, I don't see).
But there still must an indicator of targeting. Here I think you're off base. You posted a still of the defender with his feet on the ground, but review of the video shows he left his feet right after the moment depicted in the still. The defender leapt upwards and forward and made forcible contact to JJ's head and neck area with his helmet.
Finally, if there's doubt, the rule states: When in question, it is a foul.
Applying the facts to the law, as they say, this was correctly ruled targeting and the NCAA erred in reversing the call on the field.
A couple of things. You say, "Harbaugh deserves some sort of punishment, and . . . the Michigan players are just saying, 'Ahhh, let him off the hook! It's okay to cheat!'"
That's an obvious straw man argument. No one is saying that.
What the players and other Harbaugh defenders are saying you allude to later in your argument: it's a speeding violation. Yet the NCAA has chosen to selectively prosecute when -- to continue with your metaphor -- there are far more serious rules violations readily apparent to anyone paying attention. With the North Carolinas, Kansases, Tennessees, etc., etc. more or less getting away with far more fundamental violations, apparently because they can, it seems ludicrous to many to prosecute Michigan for relative trivialities. Worse, the aggressiveness of the prosecution does not appear to be motivated by the specific violations, but by Harbaugh's refusal to capitulate by admitting he lied when he doesn't think he did. In short, the NCAA appears to be acting out of spite.
I would add the NCAA's behavior in issuing an aggressive public statement on the matter when it knows Michigan can't respond is unprofessional. Arguably, the statement violated the NCAA's own rules, which raises the issue of hypocrisy, and further undermines any claim the NCAA is acting in good faith.
This is why the players, and frankly (to rebut the "read the room" comment) most of the Michigan community in this specific instance is supporting Harbaugh.
I don't know if you know this, but those clips are available online. ;) To test this proposition, I have attempted to access said video clips approximately 157 times, each time with success. I now consider it science.
Best of wishes to your son, and your whole family Seth.
If I were a betting man, I'd have my eyes on your wallet...
What you're missing is the extreme difficulty of interstellar travel, given the limits of physics. So even if there are other forms of intelligent life out there, getting to Earth would be a huge challenge -- not physically impossible, but extremely difficult. Add to this that SETI and all other efforts to find intelligent life in the cosmos has come up empty. Under the circumstances, it's vanishingly unlikely that alien life forms are lurking in the shadows, occasionally getting caught by government officials, but never photographed.
Infantile? I don't think so.
But skepticism about the functioning of the government does not justify "therefore aliens." There's no reason to trade in one sort of gullibility for another.
Mine have probably already been mentioned, but I'd tip my cap to Antoine Winfield. Loved his game.
A freak in the (spread) sheets...
https:…
Did I hear a request? -- Led Zeppelin
Well, not All the tight ends.
My take is the show today missed Sam. Ira's not quite as experienced at being the MC, and so the guys are probably not as sure when and how much to chime in. From having been in similar (not identical) situations, you're actually trying to fill time, and the burden is to speak up and provide content.
While I'd love to get MSU off our schedule (there's nothing in it for us), there'd be a political firestorm in the state if the University of Michigan refused to play Michigan State. It's their biggest game, and almost their reason for being from a football point-of-view. Politicos in the state wouldn't allow UM to humiliate MSU like that. Imho opinion the university presidents should meet, then lead a serious and sustained effort to lower the temperature. It's beyond ridiculous right now.
I agree this is the most likely outcome.
I'm willing to say the atmosphere around the program helped produce the player's conduct. I'm not ready to condemn them all permanently.
True. OTOH, seven of their players now face criminal charges. That's a bad outcome, and should encourage some sobriety. This, perhaps, is where the Big Ten can do something positive. No, I'm not holding my breath; I'm merely hoping.
If, as seems likely, there is no reasonable doubt these men committed crimes, there is no rational reason they shouldn't be held responsible. Are you suggesting these seven men have the benefit of a separate set of rules from the rest of us? Are you also suggesting the Washtenaw County Prosecutor's office is somehow corrupt? Concerns about the criminal justice system are appropriate. Proposing as a solution that people get away with committing crimes is not. You know there are victims of crime, right?
The Prosecutor's Office brought 6 misdemeanor charges and one felony charge. It's quite likely the felony charge will be pleaded down to a misdemeanor. Depending upon the men's prior records, the sentencing will likely be modest. With any luck, the men and the people who are supposed to be leading them will learn from the experience. That's the way it's supposed to be.
Your denials, scUM, are palpitating!