Bielema....

Spartanhusker

All-Conference
May 29, 2001
22,566
1,856
0
... always thought kind of a jerk, but i'm confused on the whole kerfuffle last night... he believed SC pulled a sly one? what did the substitution sign have to do with anything?

IF ALREADY COVERED, Forgive me... i'm just cornfusedšŸ˜‚
 

Hford

Redshirt
Aug 11, 2020
1,959
3
0
I think he's just a jerk and likes stirring shi*. Plenty of those types back in the old Big 8 in football and basketball. Everybody is more buttoned up now bc sports are basically a corporation now.
 

phoenix4nu

All-Conference
May 10, 2009
9,774
2,088
0
... always thought kind of a jerk, but i'm confused on the whole kerfuffle last night... he believed SC pulled a sly one? what did the substitution sign have to do with anything?

IF ALREADY COVERED, Forgive me... i'm just cornfusedšŸ˜‚
It wasn't a substitution sign. It was sign that a kick-off return man often gives to signal that he will let the ball go into the end zone for a touch back or not return the ball if he catches it in the end zone. The South Carolina kick returner gave that sign to make the Illinois players think that he wasn't going to return the ball when he caught it in the end zone. But after waiting a couple of seconds, he threw it to another SC player who ran it out of the end zone to the SC 25-yard line. Bielema thought it was poor sportsmanship and potentially could have caused an injury to the Illinois players who let up and then were blocked.
 
Last edited:

Spartanhusker

All-Conference
May 29, 2001
22,566
1,856
0
It wasn't a substitution sign. It was sign that a kick returner sometimes gives to signal that he will let the ball go into the end zone for a touch back. The South Carolina kick returner gave that sign to make the Illinois players think he wasn't going to field the ball, but then he fielded it. Bielema thought that it was poor sportsmanship and potentially could have caused an injury to the Illinois players who let up and then were blocked.
that makes sense to me for him to not like that.... how was it then taunting? i wonder if he could have something calmly to Beamer at the time?
 

Zeke2005

Redshirt
Nov 26, 2023
2,316
0
25
It wasn't a substitution sign. It was sign that a kick returner sometimes gives to signal that he will let the ball go into the end zone for a touch back. The South Carolina kick returner gave that sign to make the Illinois players think that he wasn't going to field the ball, but then he fielded it. Bielema thought it was poor sportsmanship and potentially could have caused an injury to the Illinois players who let up and then were blocked.
Is it an official signal? If not keep crying Bret
 

RBigredMax

Redshirt
Mar 23, 2023
4,700
2
0
Is it an official signal? If not keep crying Bret
He said in his post game that he recognizes it’s not in the rule book but it’s common practice that he thought they gamed. But ultimately it’s not a rule so he said it is what it is.
 

Zeke2005

Redshirt
Nov 26, 2023
2,316
0
25
He said in his post game that he recognizes it’s not in the rule book but it’s common practice that he thought they gamed. But ultimately it’s not a rule so he said it is what it is.
I despise Bret for his ability to routinely beat Nebraska, so f him šŸ˜†
 

Antwill

All-Conference
Dec 18, 2004
4,450
1,085
113
I have to admit, he's the dumbest looking smart guy I've ever seen.
 

SickOfPractice

Redshirt
Oct 10, 2021
2,997
1
0
The explanation that made sense to me was...

Beamer wasn't happy with what he thought were late substitutions by Illinois previously in the game. When the Illinois player went down Bielema went on the field to check on him. As if it wasn't already obvious, Bielema looked directly at Beamer and signalled Illinois was going to substitute for the injured player. Beamer went ballistic over that.

I didn't watch that game very closely and trying to decipher the media's explanation of what was going on during that incident was worthless. So I don't know if that explanation is accurate.

Bielema is a good coach and I agree with the previous post(s) that we need to learn how to beat that guy.
 
Jul 4, 2016
8,269
3,869
0
The explanation that made sense to me was...

Beamer wasn't happy with what he thought were late substitutions by Illinois previously in the game. When the Illinois player went down Bielema went on the field to check on him. As if it wasn't already obvious, Bielema looked directly at Beamer and signalled Illinois was going to substitute for the injured player. Beamer went ballistic over that.

I didn't watch that game very closely and trying to decipher the media's explanation of what was going on during that incident was worthless. So I don't know if that explanation is accurate.

Bielema is a good coach and I agree with the previous post(s) that we need to learn how to beat that guy.
Beamer went ballistic about everything…the entire game.

I loved the way Bielema out-smarted him with the late substitutions.
 

Redscarlet

Heisman
Jun 17, 2001
32,866
10,802
113
Bielema likes to tell his players to fake injuries after a big plays to stop momentum and then the player comes back in the game after the next play, which he did in the Nebraska game..

He also has players come in which you can do and it’s a rule, but Beamer was pissed because he would run players in to the game and another player would enter seconds later just to burn clock..
 

leodisflowers

Senior
Feb 25, 2011
14,801
808
0
Beamer went ballistic about everything…the entire game.

I loved the way Bielema out-smarted him with the late substitutions.
Yeah, Beamer does that **** all of the time. He's lucky he had a decent team this year finally because I can tell you their fan base was ready for him to be gone last year.
 

huskat

Senior
Jan 27, 2005
2,531
501
113
It wasn't a substitution sign. It was sign that a kick returner sometimes gives to signal that he will let the ball go into the end zone for a touch back. The South Carolina kick returner gave that sign to make the Illinois players think that he wasn't going to field the ball, but then he fielded it. Bielema thought it was poor sportsmanship and potentially could have caused an injury to the Illinois players who let up and then were blocked.
Yeah, Im with Brett on this one. They even knew it was a questionable tactic because they warned the refs about it before the game.
 

dinglefritz

Heisman
Jan 14, 2011
51,383
12,799
78
It wasn't a substitution sign. It was sign that a kick returner sometimes gives to signal that he will let the ball go into the end zone for a touch back. The South Carolina kick returner gave that sign to make the Illinois players think that he wasn't going to field the ball, but then he fielded it. Bielema thought it was poor sportsmanship and potentially could have caused an injury to the Illinois players who let up and then were blocked.
🤣. Brett’s just pissed because he didn’t think of it first. It was completely legal.
 

tro80

Senior
Nov 17, 2014
1,037
532
106
I know people on her hate Bielema and I have no love for him, but it was a bush-league play by SC along the lines of a feigned slide by a quarterback, IMO, and it absolutely put players at risk. It also means that no kicking team in the future can let up just because the receiver gives that signal - which also potentially puts the receiving team's players at risk when they relax after the receiver gives the sign only to get blasted by someone sprinting down on the kicking team who will no longer heed the sign. And, IMO, Beamer's reaction was more ******** than Bielema calling him out on it. Its the kind of reaction you'd expect from someone who already knew what he did was BS.
 

huskat

Senior
Jan 27, 2005
2,531
501
113
The explanation that made sense to me was...

Beamer wasn't happy with what he thought were late substitutions by Illinois previously in the game. When the Illinois player went down Bielema went on the field to check on him. As if it wasn't already obvious, Bielema looked directly at Beamer and signalled Illinois was going to substitute for the injured player. Beamer went ballistic over that.

I didn't watch that game very closely and trying to decipher the media's explanation of what was going on during that incident was worthless. So I don't know if that explanation is accurate.

Bielema is a good coach and I agree with the previous post(s) that we need to learn how to beat that guy.
That is not what the argument was about.
 

RBigredMax

Redshirt
Mar 23, 2023
4,700
2
0
The explanation that made sense to me was...

Beamer wasn't happy with what he thought were late substitutions by Illinois previously in the game. When the Illinois player went down Bielema went on the field to check on him. As if it wasn't already obvious, Bielema looked directly at Beamer and signalled Illinois was going to substitute for the injured player. Beamer went ballistic over that.

I didn't watch that game very closely and trying to decipher the media's explanation of what was going on during that incident was worthless. So I don't know if that explanation is accurate.

Bielema is a good coach and I agree with the previous post(s) that we need to learn how to beat that guy.
Beamer also mentioned in his post game that the signal was about the kickoff return in question.
 

Hoboken Joe

Redshirt
Nov 12, 2019
317
0
0
Beamer also mentioned in his post game that the signal was about the kickoff return in question.
This is correct.

It's not against the rules to signal the way the returner did on the kickoff.

But it's a little ***** tactic.

It's also not against the rules for, say, all defensive lineman to fire off the line at 100% when a team is in victory formation and has to kneel down twice.

It's completely legal. But it's a ***** tactic because it can result in injury.
 

dinglefritz

Heisman
Jan 14, 2011
51,383
12,799
78
This is correct.

It's not against the rules to signal the way the returner did on the kickoff.

But it's a little ***** tactic.

It's also not against the rules for, say, all defensive lineman to fire off the line at 100% when a team is in victory formation and has to kneel down twice.

It's completely legal. But it's a ***** tactic because it can result in injury.
How is it going to lead to an injury more so than any other kickoff? IF you’re on kickoffs either side you better be ready and have your head on a swivel.
 
Aug 18, 2016
16,626
10,902
113
How is it going to lead to an injury more so than any other kickoff? IF you’re on kickoffs either side you better be ready and have your head on a swivel.
It's like signaling for an intentional walk and then throwing some chin music or way inside. The batter is more relaxed thinking he is getting four pitches in the opposite batters box and then catches one in the ribs. The signal is pretty commonly used, watch kickoffs today and watch the ones where there is is fair catch called and no one is within 15 yards of the KO returner.
 

king_kong_

Redshirt
Nov 3, 2021
24,413
4
0
This is correct.

It's not against the rules to signal the way the returner did on the kickoff.

But it's a little ***** tactic.

It's also not against the rules for, say, all defensive lineman to fire off the line at 100% when a team is in victory formation and has to kneel down twice.

It's completely legal. But it's a ***** tactic because it can result in injury.
I don’t disagree.

I also think shuttling players in and out for 25 straight seconds to exploit the substitution rule is a little ***** tactic.

So they were even.
 

steinek11

All-Conference
Apr 18, 2004
13,481
1,215
113
I don’t disagree.

I also think shuttling players in and out for 25 straight seconds to exploit the substitution rule is a little ***** tactic.

So they were even.
Basically, two whiny little bitches, one with an eating disorder, went to head to head.
 

phoenix4nu

All-Conference
May 10, 2009
9,774
2,088
0
I don’t disagree.

I also think shuttling players in and out for 25 straight seconds to exploit the substitution rule is a little ***** tactic.

So they were even.
Add to that the obvious fake injuries by Illinois players.