Kimbrough to Sit Out vs. Wofford

[asumike83]

http://www.journalnow.net/index.php/app_trail/entry/kimbrough-will-miss-wofford-game/

The Winston-Salem Journal is reporting that Kimbrough will in fact miss the Wofford game due to an SoCon rule after that mandates a suspension after his ejection for unsportsmanlike conduct penalties against Chattanooga. Brandon McGowan will start in his place. I really like what I have seen out of McGowan. He was a 3-star recruit that de-committed from Wake Forest to come to Boone and has shown some pretty good instincts in limited playing time. He has a bright future, but losing the reigning national defensive POW for our biggest road game of the year is tough.

[biggie]

Since that^ is on my ignore list, I'm just going to guess its real dumb.

Kimbrough will be a big hole to fill. We'll see if even more youth can fill in.

[md64179]

Someone is a sore loser.
And that little fat boy owned your offence Saturday!
xlolx

[Go Apps]

And what about Gainey and Tanyi

[asumike83]

And what about Gainey and Tanyi

Nobody knows for sure but based purely on message board rumors, doesn't sound like they will be on the field anytime soon if at all. Check out MMB.

[Reign of Terrier]

This bodes well for Wofford.

[asumike83]

This bodes well for Wofford.

Yes it does, McGowan is no slouch though. However, I doubt that he has much experience against a wishbone.

[Reign of Terrier]

I doubt that he has much experience against a wishbone.

This why I like Wofford's chances on offense in general (as long as we don't turn the ball over of course). App is now down 3 veteran starters on a squad that was bringing back 7 defensive starters IIRC, it'll be interesting to see how well the newbies on the field play against our offense when in fact App's entire D is somewhat of a newbie in the system. This is the first game in the new system against the triple option and only 4 starters are back from the year before that defended.

[biggie]

To be technical, Tanyi wouldn't be considered a returning starter, as he was out all last year. But yes, still young, but the coaching staff is used to the TO and knows what to teach and it seems the kids are picking everything up pretty well.

[boonegoon]

This why I like Wofford's chances on offense in general (as long as we don't turn the ball over of course). App is now down 3 veteran starters on a squad that was bringing back 7 defensive starters IIRC, it'll be interesting to see how well the newbies on the field play against our offense when in fact App's entire D is somewhat of a newbie in the system. This is the first game in the new system against the triple option and only 4 starters are back from the year before that defended.


I don't know. Didn't Gainey and Tanyi miss last week? Kimbrough will be missed but we did hod Nooga to 32 yards rushing. I know Wofford is a different animal but I think we can perform alright.

[Mountaineer#96]

http://www.journalnow.net/index.php/app_trail/entry/kimbrough-will-miss-wofford-game/

The Winston-Salem Journal is reporting that Kimbrough will in fact miss the Wofford game due to an SoCon rule after that mandates a suspension after his ejection for unsportsmanlike conduct penalties against Chattanooga. Brandon McGowan will start in his place. I really like what I have seen out of McGowan. He was a 3-star recruit that de-committed from Wake Forest to come to Boone and has shown some pretty good instincts in limited playing time. He has a bright future, but losing the reigning national defensive POW for our biggest road game of the year is tough.

Makes me think of a moment in cinema history......http://youtu.be/yMpsttlXye8

[AppAlum2003]

Another reason to leave the stupid little SoCon... these officials are ridiculous and the SoCon rules are even worse. He's ejected but neither flag was for fighting/taunting. Let's use a little common sense and not make everything so black and white.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Another reason to leave the stupid little SoCon... these officials are ridiculous and the SoCon rules are even worse. He's ejected but neither flag was for fighting/taunting. Let's use a little common sense and not make everything so black and white.

Are the SoCon rules different than the rules in the CUSA or even other conferences? He got in the refs face or something from what I heard and I'm pretty sure if that is how it went down HE is the only one that ought to have the light shown on him.

How long has this rule been in place? Seems like the BSC has something like that and we don't blame the conference when it is the player that did the dirty work to get in that spot.

Maybe other conferences have these more grey area rules that you are speaking of but I don't know what they are so help a brother out if it's different.

[AppAlum2003]

Are the SoCon rules different than the rules in the CUSA or even other conferences? He got in the refs face or something from what I heard and I'm pretty sure if that is how it went down HE is the only one that ought to have the light shown on him.

How long has this rule been in place? Seems like the BSC has something like that and we don't blame the conference when it is the player that did the dirty work to get in that spot.

Maybe other conferences have these more grey area rules that you are speaking of but I don't know what they are so help a brother out if it's different.

From what I've read, he did not say anything to the official. He was flagged for excess celebration for a second time in the game. He thought the game was over when the pick happened (there was next to no time on the clock.) Am I saying that he did nothing wrong? No. He clearly got wrapped up into the emotion of the game of his life and pulled off his helmet because he thought the game was over. It was a stupid move by a 21 year old kid.

David Jackson, our Associate AD, said after the game that there is "gray area" there when it comes to the suspension. The SuckCon needs to realize this is not a suspend-able offense. If he was fighting or taunting, I can understand the suspension. But c'mon... use some common sense here. If there is "gray area" then this is a prime example of what it should exist for.

[asumike83]

Are the SoCon rules different than the rules in the CUSA or even other conferences? He got in the refs face or something from what I heard and I'm pretty sure if that is how it went down HE is the only one that ought to have the light shown on him.

How long has this rule been in place? Seems like the BSC has something like that and we don't blame the conference when it is the player that did the dirty work to get in that spot.

Maybe other conferences have these more grey area rules that you are speaking of but I don't know what they are so help a brother out if it's different.

Yeah, I'm not exactly sure how the other conferences do it. My understanding is that being ejected from the game for 2 unsportsmanlike penalties is an NCAA sanction, and the 1-game suspension is a SoCon rule that states you have to be suspended 1 game if you are ejected from a contest. Definitely a bonehead move by Kimbrough at the end of a very emotional win, but I think the conference should allow a little leeway.

[chattownmocs]

How much time was left when Chattanooga snapped the ball on that play? I think it was 35 seconds at least. How would you think that was the final play?

[asumike83]

Yeah, I really don't buy the 'he thought the game was over' explanation. I think there was closer to 0:45 or a minute left, he knew damn well it was not over. Boneheaded play but I still do not think it was egregious enough to warrant a suspension.

[Saint3333]

This bodes well for Wofford.

Gainey is probably the best run support corner on the team. Tanyl is one of the better lateral guys we have. Kimbrough is probably the best LB against the run ASU has.

ASU will have four defensive players that started vs. Wofford last year, Wylie, Grier, Rizor, and Sanders, that's it. Yes I'd think this gives Wofford has definite edge over ASU. No matter how good of athletes you have playing against a disciplined 3O team is though, just ask Clemson.

Defense had to step up last week, offense your turn this week. I'd ask Brian "the terrier killer" Quick to please stand up at this time.

[james_lawfirm]

He got in the refs face or something from what I heard and I'm pretty sure if that is how it went down HE is the only one that ought to have the light shown on him.

I disagree with your description. I sit at about the 42 yard line on the side where the 2nd penalty occurred & was looking straight at Kimbrough & the ref. Kimbrough had removed his helmet again (dumb) & as he walked past the ref & was ALMOST out of bounds, he said something to the ref. Don't know what he said, could have wished him a Merry Christmas, but the ref no sooner noticed him than he threw his hanky. No way to describe that as he got in his face. They sort of passed each other by a few yards & were never face to face with each other. I thought at the time that Kimbrough must have said something bad. However, other posters' explanation that the flag was for removing his helmet makes sense too. The goofy-a$$ed part of the whole thing was that the game was ALMOST over & Kimbrough was ALMOST out of bounds. Had the game been over or had he been out of bounds when he removed his helmet, there would have been no ejection. Sad.

Clearly, Kimbrough was the Player of the Week. Clearly, this was a game he will NEVER forget. I hope he has a good sense of humor. I'm sure he's learned his lesson.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

I disagree with your description. I sit at about the 42 yard line on the side where the 2nd penalty occurred & was looking straight at Kimbrough & the ref. Kimbrough had removed his helmet again (dumb) & as he walked past the ref & was ALMOST out of bounds, he said something to the ref. Don't know what he said, could have wished him a Merry Christmas, but the ref no sooner noticed him than he threw his hanky. No way to describe that as he got in his face. They sort of passed each other by a few yards & were never face to face with each other. I thought at the time that Kimbrough must have said something bad. However, other posters' explanation that the flag was for removing his helmet makes sense too. The goofy-a$$ed part of the whole thing was that the game was ALMOST over & Kimbrough was ALMOST out of bounds. Had the game been over or had he been out of bounds when he removed his helmet, there would have been no ejection. Sad.

Clearly, Kimbrough was the Player of the Week. Clearly, this was a game he will NEVER forget. I hope he has a good sense of humor. I'm sure he's learned his lesson.

Got it. My description came from another attendee and I may have used improper terminology if I said he was in the ref's face...I think I also said jawing at him which is probably more descriptive of what I was told.

I wasn't trying to intentionally overstate that but sometimes dudes just don't know how to shut up and it costs them and their team and you need to look at that guy as the source of the problem, not the ref, conference, etc.

[Block-A]

Pretty ironic that Kimbrough gets POtW honors & has to sit out next week.

This might get me some grief, but actually, I'm tired of App players getting unnecessary celebration penalties; for example, off the top of my head, Quick spiking the ball over the crossbar & AE doing a flip into the endzone. There are other examples.

Maybe this will put an end to it. I know the players are pumped when they make plays, and the celebration rule might be ridiculous, but it's the rule and the players know it. Quit costing your team 15 yards!

3 NC's & 6 straight conference titles, y'all. Act like you've been there before.

[Skjellyfetti]

He got in the refs face or something from what I heard and I'm pretty sure if that is how it went down HE is the only one that ought to have the light shown on him.

Uhm. No. He didn't.

He got two personal fouls for taking off his helmet going off the field in celebration. Dumb on his part to do it twice... but, the penalties should suffice. A week suspension is ridiculous.

[asumike83]

3 NC's & 6 straight conference titles, y'all. Act like you've been there before.

Case in point.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Uhm. No. He didn't.

He got two personal fouls for taking off his helmet going off the field in celebration. Dumb on his part to do it twice... but, the penalties should suffice. A week suspension is ridiculous.

Uhm...you must have missed the post where I already said that. Several people have said he was talking to the ref and that may not have mattered...I have no idea what he was saying.

The SoCon has the rule for the two personal fouls thing. Do they override that rule on some ocassions? If they have that rule and do not enforce it equally all the time then that would seem unfair to me. If they make exceptions have they done so in cases like this one in the past?

[GunsAndGuitars]

Rules are rules...I hope they don't occasionally override the rules Ursus. My question isn't really the defense. Like somebody said before, our coaching staff knows what we're going to see, it's just a matter of teaching the defense. Our offense is where I have my questions. Will we see the same O we saw at VPI and against UTC or will we see a spark of life in them? Who knows...

[T-Dog]

My gripe is that the punishment for taunting is the same for taking your helmet off. He could have grabbed his crotch twice or gave the finger twice and the punishment is the same. Taking your helmet off isn't a derogatory action against an opponent or the officials.

The first one was right in front of me. Kimbrough got a pick six and got mobbed by his team mates. He was out of the endzone. 10-15 seconds after the score, he took his helmet off, waived to the fans in the endzone seats, then cut across the field back to the sidelines and then the flag came out.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

My gripe is that the punishment for taunting is the same for taking your helmet off. He could have grabbed his crotch twice or gave the finger twice and the punishment is the same. Taking your helmet off isn't a derogatory action against an opponent or the officials.

The first one was right in front of me. Kimbrough got a pick six and got mobbed by his team mates. He was out of the endzone. 10-15 seconds after the score, he took his helmet off, waived to the fans in the endzone seats, then cut across the field back to the sidelines and then the flag came out.

Not to beat a point into the ground but it actually falls under the "unsportsmanlike" area. The players have all known this for a long time.

Unsportsmanlike Acts
ARTICLE 1. There shall be no unsportsmanlike conduct or any act that interferes with orderly game administration on the part of players, substitutes, coaches, authorized attendants or any other persons subject to the rules, before the game, during the game or between periods.

a. Specifically prohibited acts and conduct include:

1. No player, substitute, coach or other person subject to the rules shall use abusive, threatening or obscene language or gestures, or engage in such acts that provoke ill will or are demeaning to an opponent, to game officials or to the image of the game, including but not limited to:

(f) Removal of a player’s helmet before he is in the team area (Exceptions: Team, media or injury timeouts; equipment adjustment; through play; between periods; and during a measurement for a first down).

[asumike83]

The first one was right in front of me. Kimbrough got a pick six and got mobbed by his team mates. He was out of the endzone. 10-15 seconds after the score, he took his helmet off, waived to the fans in the endzone seats, then cut across the field back to the sidelines and then the flag came out.

I agree with you there. Like most ASU fans, I thought the flag was a little weak but a rule is a rule. Although after you have already gotten flagged for it once, there really is no reasonable explanation for taking your helmet off right in front of an official for the second time. A suspension does seem a bit harsh and I hate that it is for such a big game, but you have to be smarter than that.

[Skjellyfetti]

Uhm...you must have missed the post where I already said that. Several people have said he was talking to the ref and that may not have mattered...I have no idea what he was saying.

The SoCon has the rule for the two personal fouls thing. Do they override that rule on some ocassions? If they have that rule and do not enforce it equally all the time then that would seem unfair to me. If they make exceptions have they done so in cases like this one in the past?

I'm not saying Kimbrough should receive special treatment.

I'm saying it's a dumb rule and all ejections are not equal and they should be looked at on a case-by-case basis to determine if they warrant a suspension.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

It isn't a SoCon rule for the "two personal foul thing." It's an NCAA rule.

The SoCon rule is that if a player is ejected... then the player is suspended for the following game. Most ejections... and most suspensions are for fighting, spitting, physical contact with the ref, etc. I'm fine with those suspensions. I believe the penalty fits the infraction.

I do not believe a suspension for removing your helmet prematurely fits the infraction.

I know that sk I've been reading the thread and was referring to the SoCon's policy after the NCAA infractions. Sorry if that was not clear.

My question was not one of philosophy on the matter cuz I don't disagree with yours on the matter but if they have ever had this situation before and if it has been previously usurped?

If they have had a similar occurrence and did not then I can see the gripe about it. But if they have not then it is gonna have to be chocked up to it disagreeing with some App fans personal taste in this situation.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

I'm not saying Kimbrough should receive special treatment.

I'm saying it's a dumb rule and all ejections are not equal and they should be looked at on a case-by-case basis to determine if they warrant a suspension.

I can see the point on that but wouldn't that open up a whole lot of silly talk about "The SoCon didn't do this to team X but they did it to us!" type of thing? It's equally bad for everybody and I assume it was voted on by the members? Maybe they should take another look at it but I bet this isn't the first time it's happened.

[chattanoogamocs]

http://vmedia.rivals.com/uploads/1187/F836723.jpg

There has been a lot of spin...he was near the sideline walking off the field, he thought the game was over, etc. Pretty obvious he is right in the middle of the field celebrating, so I would say the call was warranted.

However, I said it in the press box after the game, I said it on Mocfans yesterday (before the ruling) and I will say it here again today...personally, I also think it is a bit overkill to sit a player for excessive celebration penalties. If the penalties were due to a fight or a personal foul that injured a player, that's one thing. I tend to agree...in a game that big and that close, there is going to be a lot of emotion (though I will say, it is a bit bone-headed to do it again after already getting busted once for the same thing).

Ironically, I have to be on the side of Kimbrough in the situation...if I am going to defend Huesman's emotion in his post-game comments as being "heat of the moment", then I also have to defend Kimbrough's emotional response(s) during the game as the same.

It was a great college football game that neither team wanted to lose (and both deserved to win)...everyone left it on the field on Saturday so it stands to reason there would be an overflowing of emotion before, during and after the game. This game will always be a fond memory for me (it would have been better if the Mocs had held on for the win :)), I am glad I got to see it in person.

[chattanoogamocs]

I can see the point on that but wouldn't that open up a whole lot of silly talk about "The SoCon didn't do this to team X but they did it to us!" type of thing? It's equally bad for everybody and I assume it was voted on by the members? Maybe they should take another look at it but I bet this isn't the first time it's happened.


I completely agree. The first time they ruled in favor of someone, every fan of every other school in the conference would be up in arm that the SoCon was playing favorites.

Maybe the answer is to exempt excessive celebration penalties from the rule (since they cause no real harm)...ejections and suspensions should be for fighting and/or dangerous/late hits.

[alvinkayak6]

Or you could just let everythinng that the U started 10 years ago back into college football. I'm completed fine with that...We know a good party when we see one. Enough of this "Sportmanships" crap.

[DP_ASU]

Or you could just let everythinng that the U started 10 years ago back into college football. I'm completed fine with that...We know a good party when we see one. Enough of this "Sportmanships" crap.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=za5wwChsCwg


It's all about The U....

[SpeedkingATL]

As a previous poster mentioned, this needless "look at me" crap has been going on for a long time and the 15 yard unsportsman like penalties have come close to costing App a few games in recent years. Every player knows that taking your helmet off before reaching the sidelines is a penalty and to do it twice in one game, no matter how emotional the moment, is a lack of discipline. Maybe with this the coaching staff will finally reach these kids on the importance of acting appropriately. Kimbrough is a beast and will be missed against Wofford. It just requires another frosh to step forward and perform. Hopefully if we score a big TD against Wofford the team will remember this lesson during that moment.

[PaladinFan]

Yes it does, McGowan is no slouch though. However, I doubt that he has much experience against a wishbone.

It's easy. Just tackle the man with the football, not the man you think has the football. :)

[SideLine Shooter]

It's easy. Just tackle the man with the football, not the man you think has the football. :)

Brilliant!!!xthumbsupxxsalutex

[Skjellyfetti]

I completely agree. The first time they ruled in favor of someone, every fan of every other school in the conference would be up in arm that the SoCon was playing favorites.

Maybe the answer is to exempt excessive celebration penalties from the rule (since they cause no real harm)...ejections and suspensions should be for fighting and/or dangerous/late hits.

I'm fine with this. I'm wasn't saying the SoCon should give Kimbrough special treatment. I think the rule is dumb and should be changed.

[gomocs79]

I am surprised the conference gave him player of the week when he has been suspended for the next game. He might have deserved it; just seems a little oxy-moronic.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

I am surprised the conference gave him player of the week when he has been suspended for the next game. He might have deserved it; just seems a little oxy-moronic.

Not really. It was voted on by whatever group and they didn't see that fact that he got two Unsportsmanlike's as a serious detriment to the game he had. What would seem pretty iffy is if they purposely kept it from him even though he was POTW because of that.

It seems completely reasonable to me.

[Skjellyfetti]

Watching BYU - Utah State game.

Utah State player just got EJECTED for making a hit on a BYU player in the endzone. Borderline 15 yard penalty. I'll give the ref the benefit of the doubt on the personal foul... But, an ejection?!

And if the WAC has a similar to the SoCon the kid would be suspended for next week's game. What a joke.