Re: UNI Post Game Thoughts & Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CAS4127
So it’s spearing then?
And you can see his eyes?
Mine are rolling right now.
For the record, I hate the targeting rule, as it’s rare for a player to actually do so intentionally, but, if it’s gonna be a rule, then call it correctly.
He did not use the top of his helmet (former spearing). His facemask is up. When you lower your head your facemask is down. You can also use the crown on a launch so lowering your head is not the only way to get 9-1-3 targeting.
The intent involved with targeting though is what this guy did. Flying in recklessly with no attempt to tackle. If you do that it's very unlikely you are going to commit targeting. In this case if he didn't commit targeting it wasn't for lack of trying. That's one of the reasons I'm good with the powers that be wanting this to be targeting.
Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Re: UNI Post Game Thoughts & Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ByeSonBusiness
Football is a fast game. You got three guys running full speed.
Guy #1 catches the ball.
Guy #2 initiates a tackle and begins to bring him down.
Guy #3 is going to tackle Guy #2 who begins to go down and ends up hitting him in the head but not in a malicious way by any standard.
If thats targeting, they need to call it about 5 times a game at least. At the very least, the spirit of the rule is not intended to penalize that play. Its supposed to stop the Vontaze Burfict's of the world. Not a play like that.
You ever play football?
Guy 3 dips head, launches both feet in the air, hits player 1 in his helmet so hard with his helmet he spins him 180 degrees in the air while making no attempt at wrapping up to make a tackle. Yeah, that's targeting.
Re: UNI Post Game Thoughts & Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CAS4127
So momentum trumped the force/velocity of the backward toss/throw? Got it, but I need an aspirin for the headache I now have, and for other preventive measures.
They’re changing the recommendations on that. Be careful.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Re: UNI Post Game Thoughts & Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GreenfieldBison
They’re changing the recommendations on that. Be careful.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Of course “they” are. Be careful, but not in the context your referencing.
My eyes are still rolling ...
I’m thinking my eggs in morning are next, along with VD and zinc, all of witch I was taking long before Wuhan C19 got sprung/dumped on us. Ahead of the times as usual in my house. Got plenty of asswhipe and other necessities too, at lower prices than will come. Plus a good supply of climate changing gas that should walk me throw the next several months.
Let’s go Brandon!
Re: UNI Post Game Thoughts & Discussion
So this lil pitch is prolly illegal too eh
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cnb1gnotLr8
UNI Post Game Thoughts & Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CAS4127
is this post in purple? Can’t tell on my IPhone. If not, how do you throw a ball backwards, but have it go forward? Magic?
CAS, go to the 4:00 mark.
https://youtu.be/by-duIX_Lr8
Re: UNI Post Game Thoughts & Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CalBison97
The missed targeting call by field and replay officials was blatant. Just like this “forward” pitch that overturned a Colts touchdown, which would have cemented a Colts win. Ravens did not have enough time to score 3 tds in the 4th.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...57b8f708ba.jpg
Agree with you in the call. But it didn’t cost them the game as the Colts scored a TD on that drive.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Re: UNI Post Game Thoughts & Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IndyBison
There is a Forum article (i don't have subscription so I can't read) where Entz said the league told him the no call was wrong. I have not seen anything publicly from the league but we don't know what they said. I've seen situations where a league stated something like "we would have supported targeting" and the coach twisted that to say the call on the field was wrong
It's very possible the league said this should have been called. It's close but depends entirely on how you interpret the crown of the helmet. His facemask and the forehead part of the helmet is what appears to make contact. We've been told the forehead is part of the crown. What I'm not clear on is if the forehead plus part of the top is what they meant (this is how it was always given as an example) or if a hit that includes only the forehead and facemask is also sufficient for 9-1-3 targeting (initiating with crown).
I've shared this with several college officials and the responses based entirely on the guidance they've received on the crown is different. The action the defender had of just trying to blow up a defender rather than tackle him is dangerous and part of what targeting and blindside blocks are trying to reduce. That's why I'm ok if they want this called as targeting. I'm just not 100% certain this meets the current definition. If this is targeting any tackle that includes the facemask and forehead could be targeting. Do we really want that?
Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Except it wasn’t close. The defender launched himself. Lead with his helmet and struck our guy in the helmet. That’s targeting 101 by any definition.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Re: UNI Post Game Thoughts & Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Buthockey
It's hard to tell with the poor video quality, but it appears that the ball travels parallel or mabye a little bit backwards on that pass.
Re: UNI Post Game Thoughts & Discussion
Anyone got a link to the crypt-keepers post game presser for this game
I enjoy the opponent’s side of the post game pressers much more than Listening to Entz.