I question about Cyclones Cotton-Moya ..........

[JustinTyem]

After re-watching the game,what was taken out of the back of Cotton-Moya's shoulder pads???

[SamsRams]

After re-watching the game,what was taken out of the back of Cotton-Moya's shoulder pads???
wondered the same thing when I saw it live.

[NDSUBowler]

My likely guess is a sensor to track movement.

The NFL is starting to use them this year.



Every NFL player will wear two tiny sensors in his shoulder pads this season in the first "live" phase of a project the league hopes will enhance the in-stadium experience as well, with further media expansion and integration with teams' existing training technology likely down the line.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2014/07/30/metrics-sensor-shoulder-pads-zebra-speed-tracking/13382443/

[JustinTyem]

My likely guess is a sensor to track movement.

The NFL is starting to use them this year.



http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2014/07/30/metrics-sensor-shoulder-pads-zebra-speed-tracking/13382443/Huh,MeH:confused: Oh Ok,its gives the other teams plays,LoL

[1998braves64]

I don't think that was it, I wondered if it was something for the radio communication to helmet? Do those use a box for that or are those devices all self contained in helmets? Since this box was rectangular and larger than a hand. Didn't look at all like the picture they showed.
Sent from Win8 phone on a bullet train from Hillsboro.

[westnodak93bison]

What do you think about the hit? It didn't look intentional to me. Our receiver was pretty low to the ground and moving head first. Not sure how the safety could have avoided it?

[bisonpride4ever]

When I was on the CF board I came across this picture of their captains. It looks like the two captains on the right have something sticking out the side of their sock. I wonder if it's the same thing they pulled out of Cotton-Moya's shoulder pads?

http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/09/02/da2bf56bf92ad1117f1de86ea40a25e0.jpg


Sent using both a Speak-n-Spell and an Etch-a-Sketch

[Ndsu84]

I was going to ask too. Maybe someone can ask on the cyclone board or wherever.

Whatever they are, it didn't work well enough to win. Maybe they need electric shock motivation after they get down by 3.

[BisonCardinal]

What do you think about the hit? It didn't look intentional to me. Our receiver was pretty low to the ground and moving head first. Not sure how the safety could have avoided it?

I agree. Would not have been happy if one of our safeties had been ejected for it.

[NorthernBison]

What do you think about the hit? It didn't look intentional to me. Our receiver was pretty low to the ground and moving head first. Not sure how the safety could have avoided it?
He intended to blow the receiver up. After that, the only question tends to be where you hit the receiver. If you hit him in the head or neck area, you are almost always going to get flagged. It doesn't matter if you hit the receiver with your helmet or your shoulder IF you hit him in the head or neck. That was a comment made by Mike Pereira the officiating guru. You avoid it by pulling off the hit. Thorton did it on a swing pass that got dropped. He was going to light the guy up and laid off when the ball got dropped. The way the game is officiated has changed. Smart players adjust.

[HerdBoy]

When I was on the CF board I came across this picture of their captains. It looks like the two captains on the right have something sticking out the side of their sock. I wonder if it's the same thing they pulled out of Cotton-Moya's shoulder pads?

http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/09/02/da2bf56bf92ad1117f1de86ea40a25e0.jpg

Sent using both a Speak-n-Spell and an Etch-a-Sketch

I think the things in their socks might be their mouthpieces.

[LITTLEGUYSINGREEN]

I think the things in their socks might be their mouthpieces.


Actually, I think it was their nutsacks.

[HerdBoy]

He intended to blow the receiver up. After that, the only question tends to be where you hit the receiver. If you hit him in the head or neck area, you are almost always going to get flagged. It doesn't matter if you hit the receiver with your helmet or your shoulder IF you hit him in the head or neck. That was a comment made by Mike Pereira the officiating guru. You avoid it by pulling off the hit. Thorton did it on a swing pass that got dropped. He was going to light the guy up and laid off when the ball got dropped. The way the game is officiated has changed. Smart players adjust.

Yeah if you watch the replay in slo-mo the guy dips his head down just before the contact.

[HerdBot]

One angle it looked like it was and the other angle it didnt. He was woozy which makes me think he was, unless it was good acting

[Bison 4 Life]

I have a hunch it's something like this.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2014/07/30/metrics-sensor-shoulder-pads-zebra-speed-tracking/13382443/

As for the hit, if there had been an attempt to arm tackle, the art of which has been sorely lost, there may not have been a penalty. Instead the defender tried to use his body as a ballistic missile which runs the risk of targeting.

As has been said, smart players adjust.

[MAKBison]

Well it would be one thing if he had his head up, but he dips his head and uses the crown of the helmet.

[semobison]

Actually, I think it was their nutsacks.


Good one, sure, pic must have been taken before the game because in the 4th quarter their sacs were seen just below their esophagus!

[Bisonguy]

I have a hunch it's something like this.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2014/07/30/metrics-sensor-shoulder-pads-zebra-speed-tracking/13382443/

As for the hit, if there had been an attempt to arm tackle, the art of which has been sorely lost, there may not have been a penalty. Instead the defender tried to use his body as a ballistic missile which runs the risk of targeting.

As has been said, smart players adjust.


Arm tackling isn't exactly an art form that is desired in the sport of football.

[missingnumber7]

I don't think that was it, I wondered if it was something for the radio communication to helmet? Do those use a box for that or are those devices all self contained in helmets? Since this box was rectangular and larger than a hand. Didn't look at all like the picture they showed.
Sent from Win8 phone on a bullet train from Hillsboro.

Those are all self contained in helmets, however I didn't think those were allowed in college.

[Bison 4 Life]

Arm tackling isn't exactly an art form that is desired in the sport of football.

What do you think that was when Brian Schaetz buried Wimberly?

[Ndsu84]

According to the rules it was targeting. And it's a good rule. I feel bad for the tacklers because when the offenses head lowers it's natural for the tackler to lower his. If he doesn't get low enough, it looks like targeting.

Our high school team I played on used targeting on most tackles. More than 50% of our games the ambulance was called onto the field. I played linebacker with another who was 240 and tough as hell. I stood the runner up at the line and the other guy tackled his thighs, snapped the thigh. Two years later, we were playing the same team, same exact play, same spot on the field, only this time I was a second slow so the big guy beat me to the tackle. He met the runner head on and broke his neck right in front of me. Terrible. Not intentional, just hard.

I would have loved to play for the Bison but I was too slow and I always led with my helmet. Trying to do that against players like the Bison I wouldn't have had any brains left.

[missingnumber7]

According to the rules it was targeting. And it's a good rule. I feel bad for the tacklers because when the offenses head lowers it's natural for the tackler to lower his. If he doesn't get low enough, it looks like targeting.

Our high school team I played on used targeting on most tackles. More than 50% of our games the ambulance was called onto the field. I played linebacker with another who was 240 and tough as hell. I stood the runner up at the line and the other guy tackled his thighs, snapped the thigh. Two years later, we were playing the same team, same exact play, same spot on the field, only this time I was a second slow so the big guy beat me to the tackle. He met the runner head on and broke his neck right in front of me. Terrible. Not intentional, just hard.

I would have loved to play for the Bison but I was too slow and I always led with my helmet. Trying to do that against players like the Bison I wouldn't have had any brains left.

I think you are misunderstanding what Targeting is in College Football:

Targeting is contact with the crown of the helmet on any player or Forcible contact in the head and neck area on a defenseless player.

There is a difference between leading with the head and hitting with the crown of the helmet, although many HS players do both. The HS Targeting rule is several steps behind, and I would really like to see the HS rule come in line with the college rule, I am not sure they would include the ejection, however states like Texas who use NCAA rules do utilize the full Targeting rule. The issue is in ND when you get ejected from a game, for any reason at all, you have to sit out the next game. I think long and hard about kicking a kid out of a game for their actions during the game.

[Bisonguy]

What do you think that was when Brian Schaetz buried Wimberly?


Definitely not an arm tackle.

[Ndsu84]

I do understand the targeting rule, but you're right, I was thinking beyond that. Our coaches only taught us to wrap up and make a good solid tackle. The upper class-men expected heads to come off.

I don't agree with the players being ejected and they shouldn't have to sit an extra game unless it's somehow malicious. A defenseless receiver needs some protection.

[Bison 4 Life]

Definitely not an arm tackle.

ok, maybe we're getting caught up in semantics. I mean a tackle in which you use your arms instead of making yourself as tight as possible and ramming into a player in an attempt to blow them up. Nothing good ever happens in that case.

[missingnumber7]

I do understand the targeting rule, but you're right, I was thinking beyond that. Our coaches only taught us to wrap up and make a good solid tackle. The upper class-men expected heads to come off.

I don't agree with the players being ejected and they shouldn't have to sit an extra game unless it's somehow malicious. A defenseless receiver needs some protection.

I like the way that the NCAA made it so that it is basically the same penalty no matter when you get kicked out without penalizing to much. And how games without replay have an opportunity to bring the player back. That being said, last year Rodgers Redding was the only person that could reinstate between games, and I think he said there was less than 5 that he overturned.

I think if HS implemented the same disqualification standard it would work, rest of the game if in the 1st half, miss the 1st half of next game if in the second half. I have done 4 HS games this year and have only had 2 'targeting' penalties, but both would've been penalties last year where targeting didn't exist. Helmet to helmet contact is still an issue in ND, but the contact to the head and neck isn't an issue that I've seen a whole lot of. But we will see. Most of the issues I think that gets run into is in a difference in talent level.

[Bisonguy]

ok, maybe we're getting caught up in semantics. I mean a tackle in which you use your arms instead of making yourself as tight as possible and ramming into a player in an attempt to blow them up. Nothing good ever happens in that case.


I hear ya. That sounds more like a plain old textbook tackle. An arm tackle is usually when someone is out of position and flails an arm towards the ball carrier with a hope and a wish of bringing them down.

[CyPanth]

After re-watching the game,what was taken out of the back of Cotton-Moya's shoulder pads???


I think that may have been a concussion monitor that records impact inside the helmet. I don't know, but I've heard about these things and it is what came to mind when I read your post.

[CyPanth]

One angle it looked like it was and the other angle it didnt. He was woozy which makes me think he was, unless it was good acting

It may have fit the technical definition of targeting, but it wasn't a very good job of it. He was coming up and spinning away rather than making full impact. And the TV announcer said he talked to the official at halftime who said that if the call had gone the other way (no call), he wouldn't have been able to reverse it. Thus, by the official's own statement, it was not a definitive act of targeting. Of course, a player has to be careful, especially in the first game of the season with a rule like targeting that they want to be enforced.

[BisManBison]

I just watched the replay a couple times. I agree with the call. Both players took a couple steps before the safety hit the receiver. He had an opportunity to avoid the hit but chose to hit him, pretty easy call if you ask me.

[CyPanth]

I just watched the replay a couple times. I agree with the call. Both players took a couple steps before the safety hit the receiver. He had an opportunity to avoid the hit but chose to hit him, pretty easy call if you ask me.



The official who was spoken to by the TV announcer doesn't agree with you about the call. However, you are correct that Cotton-Moya should have pulled up and avoided a hit with his helmet anywhere near the player.

[BisManBison]

The official who was spoken to by the TV announcer doesn't agree with you about the call. However, you are correct that Cotton-Moya should have pulled up and avoided a hit with his helmet anywhere near the player.

Was that Mike Pereria? I was fast forwarding through the game and didn't listen to his thoughts on it. What were his thoughts?

[NorthernBison]

Was that Mike Pereria? I was fast forwarding through the game and didn't listen to his thoughts on it. What were his thoughts?

Pereira was talked to by a studio crew. Don't remember if it was at the half or between games. He said the call was correct.

It's disingenuous to say if it had been called the other way that they couldn't change it. Duh. No initial flag means there is no review period.

I don't know why people find it so hard to understand. The call was reviewed from all available angles by trained officials who could have reversed it and they decided it was a violation.

[missingnumber7]

It may have fit the technical definition of targeting, but it wasn't a very good job of it. He was coming up and spinning away rather than making full impact. And the TV announcer said he talked to the official at halftime who said that if the call had gone the other way (no call), he wouldn't have been able to reverse it. Thus, by the official's own statement, it was not a definitive act of targeting. Of course, a player has to be careful, especially in the first game of the season with a rule like targeting that they want to be enforced.

Targeting rule hasn't changed, they changed one word to make it easier on the defense, and for the Record Perrera is an NFL rules guy and was wrong repeatedly over the weekend on college rules. This was a cut and dry targeting due to Forcible contact to the head and neck area. You cannot look at intent at all with the hit. Also whoever told the TV announcer that you can review Targeting needs to check the rules again. They can review the play but they cannot review specifically weather there was targeting. I love that people who have no clue that are allowed to give advice to TV guys, or TV guys that don't understand rules...how hard is it to read a rule book...SMH.

[NorthernBison]

I'm pretty sure the process HAS changed. Last year, the review could overturn the ejection but the 15 yard penalty wasn't reversed.

This year, the flag gets picked up if targeting is reversed.

[missingnumber7]

I'm pretty sure the process HAS changed. Last year, the review could overturn the ejection but the 15 yard penalty wasn't reversed.

This year, the flag gets picked up if targeting is reversed.

Yes this year they can reverse the yardage, but the comment that was made that you can challenge a no call and get a call is what is wrong, that is simply not possible. People who get their information from anyone other than one of the Conference Officials Supervisors or Rodgers Redding should not be 100% believed without proper references. The Big 12 Supervisor is Walt Anderson, NFL White Hat.

[CyPanth]

Pereira was talked to by a studio crew. Don't remember if it was at the half or between games. He said the call was correct.

It's disingenuous to say if it had been called the other way that they couldn't change it. Duh. No initial flag means there is no review period.

I don't know why people find it so hard to understand. The call was reviewed from all available angles by trained officials who could have reversed it and they decided it was a violation.


As I recall, the announcer said that he talked to an official who said if the call had gone the other way (no flag for targeting), the video evidence wouldn't have been enough to reverse it (and make it a targeting violation). I know it is just a hypothetical discussion. It just makes the point that this was a judgment call (like many NDSU fans have already said), not a blatant case-closed call. And no one is saying it was a blatantly bad call. Some of us just wish that the judgment call had gone our way.

And technically, I think the review official determined that "the call on the field stands," not that "the call on the field was confirmed."

P.S. Do you argue this hard for the refs after a call goes against you?

[1998braves64]

My opinion it definitely match the criteria of the targeting call. I think ISU coach was trying to lament the fact that our receiver went to his knees and fell forward (what his knees theatrics was all about not that it matters what receiver does for the defender in this situation) giving his guy no where to go, which is why defenders are not suppose to launch so they have the opportunity to abort the tackle, also why you keep your head up so you can see what the player is doing as others stated do a traditional arm/form tackle and the penalty would not occur. The review from all angles clearly show the crown of the defender's helmet contacting the receiver's helmet. Once that happens there is not a whole lot of situations where you avoid a targeting call.

Again his intent imo was not to "target"/hit the receiver in the helmet, but his methods caused it to.

[CyPanth]

My opinion it definitely match the criteria of the targeting call. I think ISU coach was trying to lament the fact that our receiver went to his knees and fell forward (what his knees theatrics was all about not that it matters what receiver does for the defender in this situation) giving his guy no where to go, which is why defenders are not suppose to launch so they have the opportunity to abort the tackle, also why you keep your head up so you can see what the player is doing as others stated do a traditional arm/form tackle and the penalty would not occur. The review from all angles clearly show the crown of the defender's helmet contacting the receiver's helmet. Once that happens there is not a whole lot of situations where you avoid a targeting call.


And you certainly aren't going to get a call reversed once you've made helmet to helmet contact.

[missingnumber7]

As I recall, the announcer said that he talked to an official who said if the call had gone the other way (no flag for targeting), the video evidence wouldn't have been enough to reverse it (and make it a targeting violation). I know it is just a hypothetical discussion. It just makes the point that this was a judgment call (like many NDSU fans have already said), not a blatant case-closed call. And no one is saying it was a blatantly bad call. Some of us just wish that the judgment call had gone our way.

And technically, I think the review official determined that "the call on the field stands," not that "the call on the field was confirmed."

P.S. Do you argue this hard for the refs after a call goes against you?

The ruling would fall into the defenseless reciever category. The stands/confirmed verbage is mute with targeting.

As far as it being hard for officials, I would rather see it corrected if I was wrong. With the speed of the game there is only so much that I can do to make the calls I see. The example I will use is the backwards pass in the Louisville/Miami game. Review fixed that, someone blew there whistle and didn't come in and kill it until the Field Judge who was 10 yards away came in and it isn't even anywhere near his call. Now I don't know who blew the whistle, and I don't know if anyone on that entire crew will fess up to it, but in the end they made the mistake and replay fixed it for them.

[ndsubison1]

I don't think that was it, I wondered if it was something for the radio communication to helmet? Do those use a box for that or are those devices all self contained in helmets? Since this box was rectangular and larger than a hand. Didn't look at all like the picture they showed.
Sent from Win8 phone on a bullet train from Hillsboro.

yeah the device was prolly for communicating plays/assignments

[missingnumber7]

yeah the device was prolly for communicating plays/assignments

Not allowed under NCAA rules. It is more than likely the tracking thing brought up last year.

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/02/sec_pac-12_and_big_12_will_ele.html

[NorthernBison]

As I recall, the announcer said that he talked to an official who said if the call had gone the other way (no flag for targeting), the video evidence wouldn't have been enough to reverse it (and make it a targeting violation). I know it is just a hypothetical discussion. It just makes the point that this was a judgment call (like many NDSU fans have already said), not a blatant case-closed call. And no one is saying it was a blatantly bad call. Some of us just wish that the judgment call had gone our way.

And technically, I think the review official determined that "the call on the field stands," not that "the call on the field was confirmed."

P.S. Do you argue this hard for the refs after a call goes against you?

The answer to your P.S. Is Yes.

I recall a targeting call against one of our dbacks (Shepard?) that I agreed with and most fellow fans didn't. Basically the same arguments about intent etc.

And I don't think the review was really in doubt. He hit the defenseless receiver in the head/neck. Intent and shoulder contact shouldn't matter based on how the game is being officiated.

[ndsubison1]

Not allowed under NCAA rules. It is more than likely the tracking thing brought up last year.

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/02/sec_pac-12_and_big_12_will_ele.html

or that...