Game Thread: Purdue @ Michigan State

[BoilerBulldog]

Yeah that replay is clear. That was targeting

I don’t necessarily agree. It looked like he hit him square in the chest. I do agree it was a fumble and not an interception.

 

[tenwest]

Go for it on 4th! Gotta know our kicker is a choke artist.

 

[JohnnyDoeBoiler]

Every aspect of this team ****ed up so hard today. Unbelievable.

Defense really only gave up 7 points in the second half. I don’t place much blame on a single player ever, especially in football, but this is arguably one of Blough’s worst performances as a Boiler.

 

[JohnnyDoeBoiler]

I don’t necessarily agree. It looked like he hit him square in the chest. I do agree it was a fumble and not an interception.

Doesn’t matter...if you lead with the crown of the helmet, it is targeting

 

[KentuckyBoiler]

Whenever you hear injuries and rookie QB, NEVER let your guard down!

I wish we would have used a rookie QB today after that performance.

 

[purduepat1969]

Give a Purdue team momentum and a big opportunity, and they'll find a way to blow it. They were just out-physicalled today. And the secondary just simply sucked. Holt needs to start reviewing who's playing in the secondary and make some changes.

 

[PaBoiler78]

Well this just proves nothing makes any sense

nah, their QB played better than ours

 

[IndySouthsider]

I don’t necessarily agree. It looked like he hit him square in the chest. I do agree it was a fumble and not an interception.

Crown of the helmet hit the face mask.

 

[FirstDownB]

nah, their QB played better than ours

Which makes zero sense

 

[IndySouthsider]

Give a Purdue team momentum and a big opportunity, and they'll find a way to blow it. They were just out-physicalled today. And the secondary just simply sucked. Holt needs to start reviewing who's playing in the secondary and make some changes.

The replacements aren’t on campus yet.

 

[purduepat1969]

I don’t necessarily agree. It looked like he hit him square in the chest. I do agree it was a fumble and not an interception.

He led with the crown of his helmet, of which a portion hit Hopkins in the face mask. He was a defenseless player. If that's not targeting, I'm not sure what is.

 

[purdueplayer]

Defense really only gave up 7 points in the second half. I don’t place much blame on a single player ever, especially in football, but this is arguably one of Blough’s worst performances as a Boiler.

I would hope so considering MSU has injuries all over the place and they had a freshman QB who we made look amazing because we refused to be within 10 yards of a wide receiver at the line of scrimmage in the first half.

Blough was done in the first quarter. Was way off and started to get antsy with the pass rush coming at him. Probably should have had 2-3 more interceptions

 

[IndySouthsider]

Defense really only gave up 7 points in the second half. I don’t place much blame on a single player ever, especially in football, but this is arguably one of Blough’s worst performances as a Boiler.

Well I think you mean Brohm era. He was pretty bad in 2016

 

[Purdue Grad in Texas]

Doesn’t matter...if you lead with the crown of the helmet, it is targeting

Yes; however, I don't think that was a crown-leading shot either. It was close to me but clean. Seeing the play live I thought targeting as well, especially when the announcers stated there was a flag.

I understand though where others may think it was targeting, and I was surprised they didn't at least review for targeting because it looked close to the neck area.

 

[PaBoiler78]

Go for it on 4th! Gotta know our kicker is a choke artist.

choke artist? 64 just let a guy come through to block it.

 

[ahhculdee]

We were outplayed today. No days off the rest of the season. That was a major error by Brohm.

 

[FLAG HUNTER]

Seemed like some Purdue defenders were watching the game instead of playing

 

[JohnnyDoeBoiler]

Yes; however, I don't think that was a crown-leading shot either. It was close to me but clean. Seeing the play live I thought targeting as well, especially when the announcers stated there was a flag.

I understand though where others may think it was targeting, and I was surprised they didn't at least review for targeting because it looked close to the neck area.

https://ibb.co/mEw4DA

 

[Mighty Argyll]

[QUOTE=" I do agree it was a fumble and not an interception.[/QUOTE]

But if the ball never hits the ground, which it didn’t, then it’s not a fumble. Had the ball hit the ground I think they call it am incomplete pass. IMO

 

[Purdue Grad in Texas]

https://ibb.co/mEw4DA

Well....there's the distinct possibility I could be wr....wr....wro....not exactly right.

Needed to review that one either way.

 

[IndySouthsider]

" I do agree it was a fumble and not an interception.

But if the ball never hits the ground, which it didn’t, then it’s not a fumble. Had the ball hit the ground I think they call it am incomplete pass. IMO

But that’s silly. It was a clear catch and run. If I catch the ball and run 20 yards but the defender is able to take it way from me that’s an INT?

 

[BoilerBulldog]

Yes; however, I don't think that was a crown-leading shot either. It was close to me but clean. Seeing the play live I thought targeting as well, especially when the announcers stated there was a flag.

I understand though where others may think it was targeting, and I was surprised they didn't at least review for targeting because it looked close to the neck area.

This was my thought too. It looked worse live than the replay. I'm surprised they didn't review. But I personally don't think the review would have called it targeting. I don't think he led with this helmet. At least not from the review I saw. Oh well. That play didn't lose the game for us.

 

[BoilerBulldog]

https://ibb.co/mEw4DA

Again, in the replay it looked like his hands hit his chest first. Not his helmet. But I agree it should've been reviewed.

 

[Purdue Grad in Texas]

[QUOTE=" I do agree it was a fumble and not an interception.

"But if the ball never hits the ground, which it didn’t, then it’s not a fumble. Had the ball hit the ground I think they call it am incomplete pass."

Unless he's considered a runner at that point....then it's still a fumble. With this ruling, had the ball hit the ground, yes, it would have been an incomplete pass.

 

[BoilerBulldog]

Again, in the replay it looked like his hands hit his chest first. Not his helmet. But I agree it should've been reviewed.

The decision to review for targeting comes from upstairs, right? He clearly had time to watch the replay multiple times and never thought it looked like targeting.

 

[02Boilermaker]

The decision to review for targeting comes from upstairs, right? He clearly had time to watch the replay multiple times and never thought it looked like targeting.

If the call isn't made on the field, the "booth" can still call for a review for targeting (if it's called on the field, a booth review is automatic). As you mention, the booth had quite a bit of time to look at it w/o stopping play. They could have determined the hit wasn't to the helmet, or they could have decided it was a catch & fumble (once you're considered a runner, you're no longer defenseless).

 

[Mighty Argyll]

But that’s silly. It was a clear catch and run. If I catch the ball and run 20 yards but the defender is able to take it way from me that’s an INT?

I think so, as strange as it seems. In any case, on that play the receiver lost the ball when he was hit, but the ball never hit ground. Kind of the same as a ball hitting a receiver and bouncing up in the air.

 

[IndySouthsider]

I think so, as strange as it seems. In any case, on that play the receiver lost the ball when he was hit, but the ball never hit ground. Kind of the same as a ball hitting a receiver and bouncing up in the air.

But he took 3 steps and was a runner at that point.

 

[PrintersRowBoiler]

I think so, as strange as it seems. In any case, on that play the receiver lost the ball when he was hit, but the ball never hit ground. Kind of the same as a ball hitting a receiver and bouncing up in the air.

I think the ruling was he never caught it. The other ref actually called it incomplete.

 

[Mighty Argyll]

But he took 3 steps and was a runner at that point.

I see what you’re saying, if he’s considered a runner, it is a fumble. I’m just going by watching the replay, which I thought would have made it incomplete if it hit the ground...thus an INT based on what happened. Either way we come out on the short end.

 

[Purdue Grad in Texas]

But he took 3 steps and was a runner at that point.

Yes, but he wasn't heading toward the door.

 

[FLAG HUNTER]

That fumble was at the worst possible time. Team was moving , then boom, the momentum was killed. Every team makes a lot of plays, the winners make them when needed.