How precisely does the bushleague b1g not make a comment about the BLATANT result-changing non-call in scUM-Illinois game?

[CbusLion10]

It was on ESPN the day of the game multiple times.

Oh ok, can't go back and watch ESPN that day but I believe you. Interesting I only heard the OPI opinion, and literally every source i see in the top few pages of search result intimates indicates or outright argues that it was a dubious non-call, and clearly OPI.

It's one thing to say that officials make honest mistakes and that there is no anti-PSU conspiracy, but it's amazing to me anyone with a legitimate knowledge of the written rules would claim that it was a legal play.

 

[CbusLion10]

Sorry--so you want to play Clemson and UNC and are pretending they're on the level of Ohio State and Michigan. The ACC is garbage and we all know it. You just think we'd win more in the ACC. Then if that doesn't work out you'd probably want to form our own conference.

Some big10 frustration is understandable, but I agree that joining any other conference especially the ACC is it stands now...
not the answer.

 

[The Spin Meister]

It was a good non-call. If it was called OPI against us you more than anyone would have complained. I was never "proven wrong". Multiple former officials have said they wouldn't have called it OPI because he disengaged and demonstrated a route at the end. You just make up stuff to fit your conspiracy theory. I assure you that you argued the call against Minnesota was wrong and the officials were cheating when they weren't. You're just pathetic honestly

It was a terrible OPI. He drove the guy 4-5 yards downfield and then ‘disengaged’ to make it look like it was inadvertant. But in real life, it’s not offensive interference if the offensive player makes contact and then immediately disengages so that the contact is viewed as more accidental instead of intentional. This was blatantly obvious pushing the defensive player down field which means it was......OPI.

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

It was a terrible OPI. He drove the guy 4-5 yards downfield and then ‘disengaged’ to make it look like it was inadvertant. But in real life, it’s not offensive interference if the offensive player makes contact and then immediately disengages so that the contact is viewed as more accidental instead of intentional. This was blatantly obvious pushing the defensive player down field which means it was......OPI.

The ACTUAL NCAA RULE clearly states that an "eligible receiver" is not permitted to INTENTIONALLY ENGAGE AND CONTACT a defender on a forward pass WHATSOEVER. This includes all eligible receivers - even those not at the direct point of attack of the pass. In this case it was particularly egregious because it was at the direct location and area of the forward pass: AND the contact was not only INTENTIONAL, but maintained 100% of the time the ball was in the air -- BEYOND BLATANT AND OBVIOUS Offensive Pass Interference as clearly stated in the NCAA Rulebook.

The receiver is NEVER allowed to INTENTIONALLY initiate contact on any defender on a forward pass - NEVER, absolutely prohibited BY RULE. The eligible offensive receiver is permitted to "run through" contact initiated by a defender. IOW, the receiver must try to run past the defender - not directly into them thereby initiating the contact. If the defender moves into the receiver as they attempt to run past them (i.e., contact initiated by defender), the receiver is permitted to "run through" the contact. There is a clear difference between who is INITIATING the contact in these scenarios and the NCAA Rulebook is quite clear, and definitive, that the contact may not be initiated by an eligible offensive player - and if it is, it is Offensive Pass Interference.

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

Hit the following hotlink:

https://www.totalprosports.com/ncaa/michigan-illinois-fixed-video-evidence/

 

[DUNNELLONFLBUCK]

Clearly OPI....... PSU going through the BS Sanctions is getting back to where they belong at the upper echelon of the Big 10. When we came into the Big 10 1993 and 1994 we dominated........then with JP's age and the sanctions we dropped back,but are coming on.

We have most of the key positions with key players.....QB, RB, DE, LB, all of the DBs.....need WRS and a couple more OL and DTs and we will be back.

Once we become a dominant money maker venture, we will start to get the calls that OSU and Mich have gotten, OSU due to their wins in past 10 years and Michigan due to their history.

I agree. I think Penn State will eventually dominate the BIG. Just think they would absolutely dominate the ACC

 

[DUNNELLONFLBUCK]

This guy is so full of sh$t it’s not even funny - I am so sick of this crappy conference and yes I would rather be in the ACC mainly due to geography and long term rivalries but also to get away from the garbage officiating that we have been subjected too all these years. Funny how Illinois just woke up - maybe the rest of the doormat schools will as well - i but USC won’t put of with this crap when they come in.

Hell yeah. Agree 100%

 

[Waltwam]

You have to realize that Penn State will never ever beat Ohio State and Michigan on a regular basis. Their just not on that level, but if Penn State went to the ACC they could at least compete for a league championship and maybe a play off spot. I think they could.

Hey Buck, why did OSU and Michigan not want PSU in the B10 in the first place? Can you tell me why the reps who voted for the National Champions in 94 chose Nebraska? (I'll remind you that's the year Ohio State was handed their worst loss in history) I have lots of other questions, but I think those 2 should suffice!

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

It was a good non-call. If it was called OPI against us you more than anyone would have complained. I was never "proven wrong". Multiple former officials have said they wouldn't have called it OPI because he disengaged and demonstrated a route at the end. You just make up stuff to fit your conspiracy theory. I assure you that you argued the call against Minnesota was wrong and the officials were cheating when they weren't. You're just pathetic honestly

So full of shit liar-boy, there is not a single reference of a legit Rules Expert that you can provide because you are making up this claim just like you scUM assholes did in 2005 claiming that Avante's catch was a "good catch" under the Rulebook despite fully half his "first foot landing" being Out-of-Bounds (the NCAA Rulebook requires the entire "first foot landing" to come down In-Bounds if one of your feet are the first body parts landing - if any other part of the body, other than a foot, is the first part landing, it is point of initial contact being in or out - if initial contact straddles OB Stripe, it's OB.). Making bullshit claims (i.e., lying and making shit up in defense of cheating b1g hack officials) seems to be a time-honored tradition with you scUM a-holes. The reason I know you're making bullshit up is that your claims are DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSITE what is SPECIFICALLY WRITTEN in the applicable NCAA Rule. Here is the ACTUAL applicable NCAA Rule:

b. Offensive pass interference is contact by a Team A player beyond the neutral zone that interferes with a Team B player during a legal forward pass play in which the forward pass crosses the neutral zone. It is the responsibility of the offensive player to avoid the opponents. It is not offensive pass interference (A.R. 7-3-8-IV, V, X, XV and XVI):
1. When, after the snap, a Team A ineligible player immediately charges and contacts an opponent at a point not more than one yard beyond the neutral zone and maintains the contact for no more than three yards beyond the neutral zone. (A.R. 7-3-10-II) RULE 7 / SNAPPING AND PASSING THE BALL FR-83
2. When two or more eligible players are making a simultaneous and bona fide attempt to reach, catch or bat the pass. Eligible players of either team have equal rights to the ball (A.R. 7-3-8-IX).
3. When the pass is in flight and two or more eligible players are in the area where they might receive or intercept the pass and an offensive player in that area impedes an opponent, and the pass is not catchable.

The above rule very specifically, and clearly, states that it is ILLEGAL for an Offensive "eligible" Receiver to INTENTIONALLY INITIATE CONTACT with a defender, let alone to maintain that INTENTIONALLY INITIATED CONTACT for 5 yards down the field of play the entire time the ball is in the air!!! The rule SPECIFICALLY STATES:

It is the responsibility of the offensive player to avoid the opponents.

You have admitted repeatedly on here that the contact was INTENTIONALLY INITIATED by the scUM receiver (an offensive eligible player) on a forward pass - a clear violation of the Rule 7-3-8-b and a DEFINED PENALTY (A.R. 7-3-8-IV through 7-3-8-VI Offensive Pass Interference - 15 Yard Penalty on Offensive Team from prior spot, replay down [A.R. means "Appoved Ruling"]):

IV. At the snap, A88 is on the end of the line of scrimmage 10 yards from the tackle position and A44 is in the backfield, four yards to his inside. Just before the Team A passer releases the ball, A88 contacts B1 five yards beyond the neutral zone. The pass is thrown to A44, who has moved in front and to the outside of the spot where A88 had contacted B1. RULING: Team A foul, offensive pass interference. Penalty—15 yards from the previous spot. V. Before the ball is thrown, wide receiver A88 moves four yards downfield directly toward and in front of the defender, B1. At this spot, B1 pushes A88, who then uses his hands to contact B1. RULING: Team A foul, offensive pass interference, if the legal forward pass is beyond the neutral zone. Penalty—15 yards from the previous spot. VI. Before the ball is thrown, wide receiver A88 slants to the inside where linebacker B1 attempts to block him. A88 uses his hands to shove B1 away. RULING: Team A foul, offensive pass interference, if the legal forward pass crosses the neutral zone. If B1’s initial contact was below the waist and beyond the neutral zone, Team B also has fouled and the live-ball fouls offset.

You are UNEQUIVOCALLY WRONG that an offensive "eligible" receiver is permitted to INTENTIONALLY initiate contact with a defensive player on a forward pass (again, let alone maintain INTENTIONAL contact five yards down the field and the entire time the ball is in the air) - they are not by CLEARLY WRITTEN RULE and associated "Approved Rulings" in the A.R. Section of the NCAA Rulebook. It is an immediate flag for Offensive Pass Interference - your utterly bullsit claims to the contrary that it is "legal" in any way notwithstanding.

 

[LandoComando]

It was a terrible OPI. He drove the guy 4-5 yards downfield and then ‘disengaged’ to make it look like it was inadvertant. But in real life, it’s not offensive interference if the offensive player makes contact and then immediately disengages so that the contact is viewed as more accidental instead of intentional. This was blatantly obvious pushing the defensive player down field which means it was......OPI.

Correct--he "disengaged to make it look like it was inadvertent". I've said all along it was by design but because he disengages to "pretends" to run a route it won't be called. That's the difference between this play and the call against us in 2019 which I still claim that shouldn't have been OPI either

 

[DUNNELLONFLBUCK]

Hey Buck, why did OSU and Michigan not want PSU in the B10 in the first place? Can you tell me why the reps who voted for the National Champions in 94 chose Nebraska? (I'll remind you that's the year Ohio State was handed their worst loss in history) I have lots of other questions, but I think those 2 should suffice!

1) Don't think the Bucks gave a flat one way or another. 2) How would I know and the Bucks did the same thing to Penn State the very next year, if I remember correctly. What other questions can I do ya for?

 

[KCLion]

Correct--he "disengaged to make it look like it was inadvertent". I've said all along it was by design but because he disengages to "pretends" to run a route it won't be called. That's the difference between this play and the call against us in 2019 which I still claim that shouldn't have been OPI either

So you agree then that Michigan got a call that PSU would never get, both being at about the approximate same time in the game and both PSU and MI undefeated at the time.

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

Correct--he "disengaged to make it look like it was inadvertent". I've said all along it was by design but because he disengages to "pretends" to run a route it won't be called. That's the difference between this play and the call against us in 2019 which I still claim that shouldn't have been OPI either

God you're so full of shit it's ridiculous - you keep claiming he is permitted to initiate contact and engage as long as he eventually disengages.... blah, blah, blah, which is DIAMETRICALLY CONTRARY to what the NCAA Rule actually says and what the "Approved Ruling" examples say. Just COMPLETELY UNEQUIVOCALLY dead WRONG, but you keep claiming it's legal despite it being the diametric opposite and patently illegal just like the utterly wrong douche scUM a-holes posted ad infinitum after the cheating call made on the Avante "catch" in 2005 - what a coincidence!

Not only are you patently wrong about the initial contact being "legal", but your nonsense about "disengaging" is patently laughable - the scUM eligible receiver initiated the contact (which is illegal by itself), but then drives the Illinois defender 5 yards down the field and is engaged with the Illinois Defender after initiating the contact the ENTIRE TIME THE BALL WAS IN THE AIR! That is so absurdly, and blatantly, against Rule 7-3-8-b Offensive Pass Interference, it isn't even remotely subjective.

 

[LandoComando]

So you agree then that Michigan got a call that PSU would never get, both being at about the approximate same time in the game and both PSU and MI undefeated at the time.

I said the call against us wrong that doesn't mean we'd never get it.

 

[LandoComando]

God you're so full of shit it's ridiculous - you keep claiming he is permitted to initiate contact and engage as long as he eventually disengages.... blah, blah, blah, which is DIAMETRICALLY CONTRARY to what the NCAA Rule actually says and what the "Approved Ruling" examples say. Just COMPLETELY UNEQUIVOCALLY dead WRONG, but he keeps claiming it's legal despite it being the diametric opposite and patently illegal just like the utterly wrong douche scUM a-holes posted ad infinitum after the cheating call made on the Avante "catch" in 2005 - what a coincidence!

Not only is he patently wrong about the initial contact being "legal", but his nonsense about "disengaging" is patently laughable - the scUM eligible receiver initiated the contact (which is illegal by itself), but then drives the Illinois defender 5 yards down the field and is engaged with the Illinois Defender after initiating the contact the ENTIRE TIME THE BALL WAS IN THE AIR! That is so absurdly, and blatantly, against Rule 7-3-8-b Offensive Pass Interference, it isn't even remotely subjective.

Literally every time you post nonsense I'm responding with the word LIAR and a copy to today's thread.

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

Literally every time you post nonsense I'm responding with the word LIAR and a copy to today's thread.

Wrong Again douche meatchicken-boy. LMAO

 

[LandoComando]

Wrong Again douche meatchicken-boy. LMAO

Respond in the other thread LIAR

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

Respond in the other thread LIAR

I posted the ACTUAL Rule Directly from the NCAA Rulebook which UNEQUIVOCALLY proves you are DIAMETRICALLY WRONG on 100% of your typically inane asinine claims..... and that makes me a "liar" according to the posing "we fan" meatchicken douche-boy LMAO!

By the way dipshit, the "Approved Rulings" listed in the NCAA Rulebook for that specific Rule (Rule 7-3-8-b), which are written examples of how the rule should be applied, also UNEQUIVOCALLY prove how full of shit you are with your bullshit:

IV. At the snap, A88 is on the end of the line of scrimmage 10 yards from the tackle position and A44 is in the backfield, four yards to his inside. Just before the Team A passer releases the ball, A88 contacts B1 five yards beyond the neutral zone. The pass is thrown to A44, who has moved in front and to the outside of the spot where A88 had contacted B1. RULING: Team A foul, offensive pass interference. Penalty—15 yards from the previous spot. V. Before the ball is thrown, wide receiver A88 moves four yards downfield directly toward and in front of the defender, B1. At this spot, B1 pushes A88, who then uses his hands to contact B1. RULING: Team A foul, offensive pass interference, if the legal forward pass is beyond the neutral zone. Penalty—15 yards from the previous spot. VI. Before the ball is thrown, wide receiver A88 slants to the inside where linebacker B1 attempts to block him. A88 uses his hands to shove B1 away. RULING: Team A foul, offensive pass interference, if the legal forward pass crosses the neutral zone. If B1’s initial contact was below the waist and beyond the neutral zone, Team B also has fouled and the live-ball fouls offset

Every one of the ARs listed for Rule 7-3-8-b above (A.R. 7-3-8-IV through A.R. 7-3-8-VI) demonstrate how UNEQUIVOCALLY DIAMETRICALLY WRONG you are as per usual.

 

[LandoComando]

I posted the ACTUAL Rule Directly from the NCAA Rulebook which UNEQUIVOCALLY proves you are DIAMETRICALLY WRONG on 100% of your typically inane asinine claims..... and that makes me a "liar" according to the posing "we fan" meatchicken douche-boy LMAO!

By the way dipshit, the "Approved Rulings" listed in the NCAA Rulebook for that specific Rule (Rule 7-3-8-b), which are written examples of how the rule should be applied, also UNEQUIVOCALLY prove how full of shit you are with your bullshit:



Every one of the ARs listed for Rule 7-3-8-b above (A.R. 7-3-8-IV through A.R. 7-3-8-VI) demonstrate how UNEQUIVOCALLY DIAMETRICALLY WRONG you are as per usual.

Not wrong LIAR

Don’t look now Lando

But Bushy (@CJFisJoePaII) may be proven right after all regarding Ohio University Football this year. I’ll let you guys argue it out, but I do seem to remember you mocking him when he said they were going to win their division and possibly the MAC title. Have fun with this, LOL!!

bwi.forums.rivals.com

Respond

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

Not wrong LIAR

Don’t look now Lando

But Bushy (@CJFisJoePaII) may be proven right after all regarding Ohio University Football this year. I’ll let you guys argue it out, but I do seem to remember you mocking him when he said they were going to win their division and possibly the MAC title. Have fun with this, LOL!!

bwi.forums.rivals.com

Respond

Yes, you are very DIAMETRICALLY WRONG in 100% of your bullshit claims about the non-called BLATANT Offensive Pass Interference by scUM on 4th-&-3 with 53 seconds remaining against Illinois this past weekend --- ABSURDLY WRONG as per usual.

 

[LandoComando]

Yes, you are very DIAMETRICALLY WRONG in 100% of your bullshit claims about the non-called BLATANT Offensive Pass Interference by scUM on 4th-&-3 with 53 seconds remaining against Illinois this past weekend --- ABSURDLY WRONG as per usual.

LIAR

Don’t look now Lando

But Bushy (@CJFisJoePaII) may be proven right after all regarding Ohio University Football this year. I’ll let you guys argue it out, but I do seem to remember you mocking him when he said they were going to win their division and possibly the MAC title. Have fun with this, LOL!!

bwi.forums.rivals.com

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

LIAR

Don’t look now Lando

But Bushy (@CJFisJoePaII) may be proven right after all regarding Ohio University Football this year. I’ll let you guys argue it out, but I do seem to remember you mocking him when he said they were going to win their division and possibly the MAC title. Have fun with this, LOL!!

bwi.forums.rivals.com

Yes, you are very DIAMETRICALLY WRONG in 100% of your bullshit claims about the non-called BLATANT Offensive Pass Interference by scUM on 4th-&-3 with 53 seconds remaining against Illinois this past weekend --- ABSURDLY WRONG as per usual meatchicken douche-boy.

 

[LandoComando]

Yes, you are very DIAMETRICALLY WRONG in 100% of your bullshit claims about the non-called BLATANT Offensive Pass Interference by scUM on 4th-&-3 with 53 seconds remaining against Illinois this past weekend --- ABSURDLY WRONG as per usual meatchicken douche-boy.

Don’t look now Lando

But Bushy (@CJFisJoePaII) may be proven right after all regarding Ohio University Football this year. I’ll let you guys argue it out, but I do seem to remember you mocking him when he said they were going to win their division and possibly the MAC title. Have fun with this, LOL!!

bwi.forums.rivals.com

LIAR

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

Don’t look now Lando

But Bushy (@CJFisJoePaII) may be proven right after all regarding Ohio University Football this year. I’ll let you guys argue it out, but I do seem to remember you mocking him when he said they were going to win their division and possibly the MAC title. Have fun with this, LOL!!

bwi.forums.rivals.com

LIAR

Yeah I'm a liar because I posted the actual NCAA Rule and accompanying ARs.... whatever you say MeatChicken douche-boy. LMAO.

 

[LandoComando]

Yeah I'm a liar because I posted the actual NCAA Rule and accompanying ARs.... whatever you say MeatChicken douche-boy. LMAO.

No you're a liar because you continually lie about everything.

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

No you're a liar because you continually lie about everything.

LMAO - you're either putting on an act or mentally deranged Always Wrong MeatChicken douche-boy(we'll just call your never ending lies "Wrong-headedness" wink, wink).

 

[LandoComando]

LMAO - you're either putting on an act or mentally deranged Always Wrong MeatChicken douche-boy(we'll just call your never ending lies "Wrong-headedness" wink, wink).

I provided you link. You can search the site. Every post you've ever made with Purdue and Ohio are generated and you never said that. You said Central Michigan would win the MAC and the media that voted was clueless because you thought them scoring a bunch of late points against OK State was meaningful. You also said I said Purdue couldn't win 8 games when I said they'd win "at least 7" so again wrong. "What a sad old man you are."

 

[CbusLion10]

Hey it stinks in here.

So sounds like we all agree that it was a missed non-call and Michigan got away with a blatant OPI.

Hope everyone has a nice day.

 

[LandoComando]

Hey it stinks in here.

So sounds like we all agree that it was a missed non-call and Michigan got away with a blatant OPI.

Hope everyone has a nice day.

It wasn't OPI. Michigan's receiver was well coached to disengage and pretend it was a route. We know the intent but the non-call was right. People just hate Michigan getting anything they believe we wouldn't have got even if they can't say if we would have gotten it or not

 

[The Spin Meister]

So tomorrow is Thanksgiving, a day that all political talk is forbidden as divides families and leaves permanent scars. But many in my family find it near impossible to do....especially me!🥺 So to keep the peace in my family I am invitining @LandoComando and @CJFisJoePaII to attend my family dinner in W Pa. After seeing these two go at it any political discussions will seem mild in comparison!🙀

 

[CbusLion10]

It wasn't OPI. Michigan's receiver was well coached to disengage and pretend it was a route. We know the intent but the non-call was right. People just hate Michigan getting anything they believe we wouldn't have got even if they can't say if we would have gotten it or not

Nope. Can't block before the ball is thrown. It's a penalty. Blame it on Michigan hatred if you want, but that's a cop out rather than addressing the rule itself.

And yes so was 2019 PSU Minnesota. Doesn't matter if you disengage eventually, once you block it's a penalty.

 

[LandoComando]

So tomorrow is Thanksgiving, a day that all political talk is forbidden as divides families and leaves permanent scars. But many in my family find it near impossible to do....especially me!🥺 So to keep the peace in my family I am invitining @LandoComando and @CJFisJoePaII to attend my family dinner in W Pa. After seeing these two go it any political discussions will seem mild in comparison!🙀

Well played!
If you need a Republican to fight with people I'd be glad to fill that role as well lol

 

[LandoComando]

Nope. Can't block before the ball is thrown. It's a penalty. Blame it on Michigan hatred if you want, but that's a cop out rather than addressing the rule itself.

And yes so was 2019 PSU Minnesota. Doesn't matter if you disengage eventually, once you block it's a penalty.

But the argument being made is he wasn't blocking. He was fighting through contact within a yard, disengaged and demonstrated a route. We all know he was blocking but his actions make the play legal.

The biggest mistake Illinois made was lining up in bump coverage. If the defender is 2-3 yards off their you see a flag.

 

[The Spin Meister]

Correct--he "disengaged to make it look like it was inadvertent". I've said all along it was by design but because he disengages to "pretends" to run a route it won't be called. That's the difference between this play and the call against us in 2019 which I still claim that shouldn't have been OPI either

Incorrecto Comando! You are clipping my comment as bad as MSNBC or FoxNews clips comments for their preferred spin. I I said he pushed the defender 4-5 yards back....which is illegal by rule at all levels of football....except when one of the serfdom level teams are playing Royal Family of Ohio State and Michigan. 100% OPI......undoubtedly, indisputably, and undeniably!

 

[LandoComando]

Incorrecto Comando! You are clipping my comment as bad as MSNBC or FoxNews clips comments for their preferred spin. I I said he pushed the defender 4-5 yards back....which is illegal by rule at all levels of football....except when one of the serfdom level teams are playing Royal Family of Ohio State and Michigan. 100% OPI......undoubtedly, indisputably, and undeniably!

It isn't illegal if it's not deemed blocking and it's driving to create separation when contact occurs within a yard of the LOS which it did. Just like the defender can make contact with him at that point. Once the defender gets to his left he disengages and "fakes" a route. Hence not called. You just want it to be OPI

 

[The Spin Meister]

It isn't illegal if it's not deemed blocking and it's driving to create separation when contact occurs within a yard of the LOS which it did. Just like the defender can make contact with him at that point. Once the defender gets to his left he disengages and "fakes" a route. Hence not called. You just want it to be OPI

Not 4-5 yards past the LOS.

 

[Waltwam]

1) Don't think the Bucks gave a flat one way or another. 2) How would I know and the Bucks did the same thing to Penn State the very next year, if I remember correctly. What other questions can I do ya for?

You have no answers, or maybe you do and are denying it, so I have no more questions! Go back and hassle your own board members.

 

[ivan brunetti]

Not 4-5 yards past the LOS.

If you bother to watch the play, the Illini defender jumps towards the sideline and is the player who initiates contact. That makes it more of a judgement call with the refs. The defender is attempting to wreck the timing of the pass patern. The tight end is attempting to run a six yard inward curl. Every game has dozens of such judgement calls that refs go either way on.

 

[joeaubie21]

You're not

Says the pit commie.

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

If you bother to watch the play, the Illini defender jumps towards the sideline and is the player who initiates contact. That makes it more of a judgement call with the refs. The defender is attempting to wreck the timing of the pass patern. The tight end is attempting to run a six yard inward curl. Every game has dozens of such judgement calls that refs go either way on.

Here is a video of the play:



You are completely full of shit that the Illini defender initiates the contact OR that the scUM receiver attempts to run past him on sideline side. After running directly into his chest, the scUM eligible receiver attempts to wall and drive Illini defender to inside and in fact the defender finally escapes to the scUM receiver's very clear INTENTIONAL block to the scUM players left-hand side (i.e., toward the sideline) while the scUM receiver rolls off the Illini defender to the Illini players right. It would be the diametric opposite if the defender had initiated the contact and attempted to trap scUM player against sideline.

You scUM fans are so pathetic - this is BEYOND BLATANT and OBVIOUS Offensive Pass Interference and to claim otherwise is laughable.