UNI Post Game Thoughts & Discussion

[IndyBison]

Sounds like MVFC officials are admitting blown targeting call on Watson hit. Haven’t read this thread completely, but guessing Indy defended the no-call.

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

[GreenfieldBison]

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?

Close. “Momentum” was the correct answer though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bison Bridge Guy]

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

I don't know the details of the rule but what jumped out at me seeing it live at the dome and then later on replay is the defender lowered his head, left his feet and launched at a player already going down. I feel like that's either targeting or unnecessary roughness, i.e. it wasn't necessary (and it was dangerous) to hit him like that.

[Hammerhead]

I don't know the details of the rule but what jumped out at me seeing it live at the dome and then later on replay is the defender lowered his head, left his feet and launched at a player already going down. I feel like that's either targeting or unnecessary roughness, i.e. it wasn't necessary (and it was dangerous) to hit him like that.

Part of what might have made the defender look like he was launching is when he left is feet to either avoid contact with another defender or maybe the other defender's body knocked his legs up in the air. It still seemed like he crouched and then went upwards to make helmet-to-helmet contact.

[EC8CH]

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?

Throw a handfull of bedazzle rinestones backwards out of your truck window while traveling 80 down the interstate. Guess what... they actually will go forward.

[EC8CH]

Part of what might have made the defender look like he was launching is when he left is feet to either avoid contact with another defender or maybe the other defender's body knocked his legs up in the air. It still seemed like he crouched and then went upwards to make helmet-to-helmet contact.

Lowered head, hit helmet to helmet, launched with both feet off the ground, hit hard enough to spin Watson 180 degrees. Targeting. All day. Every day.

[bisonaudit]

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

Can they change the rule or is it to foundational?

[bisonaudit]

Lowered head, hit helmet to helmet, launched with both feet off the ground, hit hard enough to spin Watson 180 degrees. Targeting. All day. Every day.

Didnt we used to have a thing called spearing? Or is that something else?

[tony]

Lowered head, hit helmet to helmet, launched with both feet off the ground, hit hard enough to spin Watson 180 degrees. Targeting. All day. Every day.

And twice on Sundays. If that was not targeting (and it sure has heck was), then they might as well not have the rule.

[CAS4127]

Close. “Momentum” was the correct answer though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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.