Marc Morehouse (CR Gazette) blames the refs

[clonedude]

So I get my morning paper today (CR Gazette), and for the most part the Hawkeye journalists were very respectful of ISU earning yesterday's victory.

Mike Hlas and Scott Dochtermann both gave ISU the credit for the win.

Then I stumble upon this big article written by Marc Morehouse basically blaming the loss on the refs due to the targeting call. Nice journalistic integrity right there.

He didn't seem to want to point to all the times in the game where ISU got screwed over by the refs that cost us big time as well. Why didn't he discuss the PI call that the ref actually called and started to walk off, and then they picked it up and said... nope, no PI here folks. That probably cost us 4 pts.

Oh, and you call defensive holding on Brandon Jensen on Rudock's TD run. Seriously? Or what about on that one scramble by Rudock where Ferch is getting dragged down from behind by his jersey, but no call.

I don't know, maybe it's just me being grumpy about living in Hawkeyeland, but c'mon... as a journalist just look at the game at least a little more objectively. I know you're a Hawkeye football journalist, but it just makes you look like a whiny sore loser to write an entire article blaming the refs when it is only one play out of the entire game.

Iowa did not lose because of the refs Marc. Sorry. Everyone thought Iowa would come in and run it down ISU's throat, me included, but instead they averaged 2.9 yds per carry. That is what cost them the game. ISU won the battle on the line of scrimmage on defense. Period. I just wish you would admit it.

Oh, here's link to the article..........

http://thegazette.com/subject/sports/targeting-call-bites-hawkeyes-20140913

 

[Spanky]

You're not holding your breath are you?

 

[CYCLNST8]

Wow. I'm shocked. :dull:

 

[HFCS]

I blame the refs too. Remember when they called an obvious penalty then reversed it for absolutely no reason killing a drive? Oh wait that was a potential 4 point gift for Iowa.

Might as well blame injuries when ISU had more starters injured.

 

[CoKane]

Nobody click that link. I'm sure that Marc gets some sort of payment for online reads of his article.

 

[ISUCubswin]

I love the players that are ******** about it.

In the Big 12, that's an automatic reprimand!

 

[DuckDynastyCy]

Yep, we could have easily been up 11 and could have ran out the clock to win. Better team won. Period.

How's that for journalism boys?

 

[chuckd4735]

I see that as an article that is discussing the ejection, not blaming the refs. Regardless, the same exact call hurt ISU against NDSU with Cotton-Moya. Yeah there was no intent, and I think you should have to confirm intent before the ejection, but it was the right call based on the current rules. Good teams can overcome the loss of key players.

 

[HFCS]

So I get my morning paper today (CR Gazette), and for the most part the Hawkeye journalists were very respectful of ISU earning yesterday's victory.

Mike Hlas and Scott Dochtermann both gave ISU the credit for the win.

Then I stumble upon this big article written by Marc Morehouse basically blaming the loss on the refs due to the targeting call. Nice journalistic integrity right there.

He didn't seem to want to point to all the times in the game where ISU got screwed over by the refs that cost us big time as well. Why didn't he discuss the PI call that the ref actually called and started to walk off, and then they picked it up and said... nope, no PI here folks. That probably cost us 4 pts.

Oh, and you call defensive holding on Brandon Jensen on Rudock's TD run. Seriously? Or what about on that one scramble by Rudock where Ferch is getting dragged down from behind by his jersey, but no call.

I don't know, maybe it's just me being grumpy about living in Hawkeyeland, but c'mon... as a journalist just look at the game at least a little more objectively. I know you're a Hawkeye football journalist, but it just makes you look like a whiny sore loser to write an entire article blaming the refs when it is only one play out of the entire game.

Iowa did not lose because of the refs Marc. Sorry. Everyone thought Iowa would come in and run it down ISU's throat, me included, but instead they averaged 2.9 yds per carry. That is what cost them the game. ISU won the battle on the line of scrimmage on defense. Period. I just wish you would admit it.

Oh, here's link to the article..........

http://thegazette.com/subject/sports/targeting-call-bites-hawkeyes-20140913

I don't mean to sound like a jerk but it's 2014. You just need to unsubscribe, save a tree, and get in the web Sunday mornings. I'd understand if you were an ISU fan getting the Ames trib or it was NYT or WSJ or chicago trib, but a paper writing that crap should get zero $ from ISU fans and our growing alumni base.

 

[Mtowncyclone13]

I thought the targeting call was suspect at best. I think the targeting call on us 2 weeks ago was also suspect at best. At least they are consistent with it. The back is going to aim for the receivers' chest before the receiver decides to bend down. The back can't help that but the rule is there for safety not for any other reason.

Those two penalties on our last drive Iowa cost them the game. We couldn't get a 3-and-anything for the previous 3 quarters and then they go and give us two penalties on 3rd down. I know the worst feeling I have as a fan this year is when we have 3rd-and-5 or 6. I know we're not going to get it.

Anyway, back to the article. There were some questionable calls but there always are in football. I'm just glad for once it helped the good guys.

 

[ISUCubswin]

I see that as an article that is discussing the ejection, not blaming the refs. Regardless, the same exact call hurt ISU against NDSU with Cotton-Moya. Yeah there was no intent, and I think you should have to confirm intent before the ejection, but it was the right call based on the current rules. Good teams can overcome the loss of key players.

Agree, 100%

I think the rule should go as this:

Confirm: Ejection

Stands: Penalty remains, player stays in game

Overturned: Obvious.

 

[BallSoHard4Cy]

It was only a matter of time before a member of the Hawk media blamed the refs. It's almost a given every time they lose a football or basketball game to us.

 

[clonedude]

I thought the targeting call was suspect at best. I think the targeting call on us 2 weeks ago was also suspect at best. At least they are consistent with it. The back is going to aim for the receivers' chest before the receiver decides to bend down. The back can't help that but the rule is there for safety not for any other reason.

Those two penalties on our last drive Iowa cost them the game. We couldn't get a 3-and-anything for the previous 3 quarters and then they go and give us two penalties on 3rd down. I know the worst feeling I have as a fan this year is when we have 3rd-and-5 or 6. I know we're not going to get it.

Anyway, back to the article. There were some questionable calls but there always are in football. I'm just glad for once it helped the good guys.

I don't disagree with anything you are saying, but it was one call on one play in the game. It looks like sour grapes when you don't consider there are over 100 plays in a game and calls go both ways all day long that hurt or help both teams.

ISU had their fair share of horrible calls all day too that cost them as well.

If Iowa had completely dominated the game and lost because they were called for 15 penalties to ISU's 1 penalty or something like that, then fine. But that isn't even close to what happened. Both teams had some very questionable calls against them equally.

And ISU did exactly what they had to do to win this game. Sam played great, the defense stopped Iowa's run game really well, we finally got a turnover, our kicker stepped up, etc, etc, etc. But according to Marc, it was only the targeting call that cost Iowa the game. None of those other facts mattered. That is BS, and he knows it. He just is upset that his Hawks lost. That's all.

 

[Beyerball]

The targeting call was not even close to being questionable if you read the rules. First, his head was down, had his head been up they would not have ejected him but still given a penalty likely. Second, it doesn't have to be a helmet to helmet, the rule states that if a helmet or forearm or SHOULDER makes contact to helmet of a defenseless player then it's a targeting penalty. Most people saw that his helmet just barely grazed West helmet but it was his SHOULDER that hit it. That's the rule.

 

[jsb]

I thought it was worse than Cotton-Moya's targeting call. So if they are going to call that, they have to call this one.

 

[roundball]

So I get my morning paper today (CR Gazette)

Then the joke's on you, pal.

 

[isucy86]

I think you have to understand Marc Morehouse's role among the Gazette's writers, he the staff's pimp for Iowa FB. He is just writing to his audience. The targeting call is tough when it goes against you team, because it penalizes a team for what has been considered a great football play for the last 20 years,

 

[LivntheCyLife]

The targeting call was not even close to being questionable if you read the rules. First, his head was down, had his head been up they would not have ejected him but still given a penalty likely. Second, it doesn't have to be a helmet to helmet, the rule states that if a helmet or forearm or SHOULDER makes contact to helmet of a defenseless player then it's a targeting penalty. Most people saw that his helmet just barely grazed West helmet but it was his SHOULDER that hit it. That's the rule.

I don't think this is possible. If a team is penalized for targeting, the player has to be ejected. I wish they'd allow the officials to have some discretion where something like only clear helmet to helmet hits were ejections.

I thought Lomax's hit was slightly worse than Cotton-Moya's because he left his feet and I thought launched at the receiver a little more, but if I set the rules I wouldn't have ejected either of them.
[h=3][/h]

 

[ThatllDoCy]

Sour grapes.

 

[UNIGuy4Cy]

I see that as an article that is discussing the ejection, not blaming the refs. Regardless, the same exact call hurt ISU against NDSU with Cotton-Moya. Yeah there was no intent, and I think you should have to confirm intent before the ejection, but it was the right call based on the current rules. Good teams can overcome the loss of key players.

I read the article too, not blaming the refs imo