|
|
Post by jackedforlife on Nov 19, 2017 21:57:52 GMT -6
Targeting is such a dumb rule. They've gone way too far with it. There wasn't even a flag on the play (right?), it's too much for me that they can review for something that wasn't even called on the field and then eject the player for the next half of a game. Well I think when it comes to player safety they're going to be able to look it over. Just be thankful they can't use replay to call holds. There'd be a penalty on almost every play. There are many who think they've gone too far with it. But it's a rule for now and until it gets evaluated and changed it's here to stay. We had one called earlier in the season on our Safety Farina...it's part of the game. |
|
|
|
Post by Yotes on Nov 19, 2017 22:04:02 GMT -6
I get that it's part of the game now, but perhaps if everyone rejects it they will repeal it. I'll continue to complain every time I see it called since the hits never seem to have malicious intent.
|
|
|
|
Post by jackedforlife on Nov 19, 2017 22:05:53 GMT -6
And that type of Helmet to Helmet contact happens every game multiple times between LBers Safeties and OL - Never gets called. Technically I agree with you - it fits the definition. It is just never called. So it should only be called if the receiving party is injured and play stops long enough for the refs to check the film? He drives upward with the crown of the helmet...But yes, if it knocks the player out or is injured and the reply official has that time to see it. Hits that look similar to that may happen but might not get called because the other guy doesn't get injured and plays go on. That may also mean it wasn't as egregious if it didn't injure someone, that's a good thing. Look, if it was reversed and it was a Jacks player that had this hit I be arguing this point just the same on our board. |
|
obc
Senior Member
Posts: 784
|
Post by obc on Nov 19, 2017 22:08:49 GMT -6
And that type of Helmet to Helmet contact happens every game multiple times between LBers Safeties and OL - Never gets called. Technically I agree with you - it fits the definition. It is just never called. So it should only be called if the receiving party is injured and play stops long enough for the refs to check the film? He drives upward with the crown of the helmet...But yes, if it knocks the player out or is injured and the reply official has that time to see it. Hits that look similar to that may happen but might not get called because the other guy doesn't get injured and plays go on. That may also mean it wasn't as egregious if it didn't injure someone, that's a good thing. Look, if it was reversed and it was a Jacks player that had this hit I be arguing this point just the same on our board. I don't doubt you would be consistent with your view. My challenge to you would be to watch a complete game of just the OL and watch how many hits (helmet to helmet similar to that) happen in the course of a game. Just like your example of being able to review holding after the fact there would be a hold every play. I would say there would be a helmet to helmet targeting several times a game. |
|
|
|
Post by elcoyote on Nov 19, 2017 22:11:34 GMT -6
Targeting is such a dumb rule. They've gone way too far with it. There wasn't even a flag on the play (right?), it's too much for me that they can review for something that wasn't even called on the field and then eject the player for the next half of a game. It's not a bad rule but I do agree that it's gone too far in that it's just so inconsistently called. I can't remember where to find it and am too lazy to look, but there was a targeting call against a Memphis State player yesterday that just defies belief. I also agree about checking for something that wasn't called originally. What's next, reviewing each play for possible missed holding calls? OK...a little late with the last statement. Hadn't seen the above. |
|
|
|
Post by jackedforlife on Nov 19, 2017 22:21:23 GMT -6
He drives upward with the crown of the helmet...But yes, if it knocks the player out or is injured and the reply official has that time to see it. Hits that look similar to that may happen but might not get called because the other guy doesn't get injured and plays go on. That may also mean it wasn't as egregious if it didn't injure someone, that's a good thing. Look, if it was reversed and it was a Jacks player that had this hit I be arguing this point just the same on our board. I don't doubt you would be consistent with your view. My challenge to you would be to watch a complete game of just the OL and watch how many hits (helmet to helmet similar to that) happen in the course of a game. Just like your example of being able to review holding after the fact there would be a hold every play. I would say there would be a helmet to helmet targeting several times a game. The main difference here is Gray launched with the crown of the helmet upward with about 4-5 yards head of steam, coupled with Genant's head of steam. Normally head to head collisions are from a 3 point stance a yard apart from each other. I believe if Gray makes contact but doesn't drive upward there's no foul. It's his upward momentum that looks and is bad and ultimately causes the injury. |
|
obc
Senior Member
Posts: 784
|
Post by obc on Nov 19, 2017 22:24:34 GMT -6
I don't doubt you would be consistent with your view. My challenge to you would be to watch a complete game of just the OL and watch how many hits (helmet to helmet similar to that) happen in the course of a game. Just like your example of being able to review holding after the fact there would be a hold every play. I would say there would be a helmet to helmet targeting several times a game. The main difference here is Gray launched with the crown of the helmet upward with about 4-5 yards head of steam, coupled with Genant's head of steam. Normally head to head collisions are from a 3 point stance a yard apart from each other. I believe if Gray makes contact but doesn't drive upward there's no foul. It's his upward momentum that looks and is bad and ultimately causes the injury. The upward thrust I agree stands out. But think of all the blitz pickup blocks OL have against LB'ers and Safeties - almost all are helmet to helmet and running start hits. Never (almost) called. |
|
|
|
Post by jackedforlife on Nov 19, 2017 22:37:53 GMT -6
The main difference here is Gray launched with the crown of the helmet upward with about 4-5 yards head of steam, coupled with Genant's head of steam. Normally head to head collisions are from a 3 point stance a yard apart from each other. I believe if Gray makes contact but doesn't drive upward there's no foul. It's his upward momentum that looks and is bad and ultimately causes the injury. The upward thrust I agree stands out. But think of all the blitz pickup blocks OL have against LB'ers and Safeties - almost all are helmet to helmet and running start hits. Never (almost) called. Then maybe we are in agreement that the upward thrust with the crown is the bad part of this play. I'll call out one of our guys now with the play at 2:33:56. Your RB was down, whistle blown and 95 Stacker tried to punch the ball out. Bush league there...but I also saw the DB do that to Goedert after his highlight catch, I believe it was Gray(9) trying to punch it out of TC's hands when we were backed up after the goalline stand and 44 do it to TC after the final kneel down. Frustrating to lose but that's unnecessary. Chippy play on both sides at times...rivalry, sure but we are both better than that. |
|
|
|
Post by formeryote on Nov 20, 2017 7:40:52 GMT -6
I know it's been said several times, but the "cramps" were absolutely BS. Total momentum killer. Shockingly not one offensive bunny got cramps. It was the equivalent of having a dozen time outs and coincidentally when the Yotes were gaining momentum. Total bush league BS.
|
|
|
|
Post by yodayote on Nov 20, 2017 8:17:06 GMT -6
It's a defensive back taking on a block from a charging offensive lineman who outweighs him by 100 pounds. Holy Christ, are we really debating this? That is the kind of bizzaro call that only a MVFC officiating crew can make. Has anybody ever seen a call like that made in any football game ever? Yeah, can't quite let it go I guess. Yes we're debating this or at least I will as sensibly as possible if you're open to said debate. Go to the espn3 replay, 2:21:13 mark is when the play happens. First off it was your LB 6'3 225# vs an OL 6'4 300#, he gave up some weight but could have chosen not to engage. He was a pulling guard looking to kick out the LB which would be Gray. Gray diagnoses it rather well and engages Genant, turning the RB inside. The trouble is as Gray engages he leads and launches with the crown of his helmet, delivering what is essentially an uppercut punch. Hence Genant dropping to his knees. A hit like that is as dangerous for Gray in regards to neck and spinal cord injuries. What I find interesting is that at the conclusion of the play Gray immediately turns and looks back to where Genant is. I believe he knows that hit was a hard hit. Do I think Gray was fully intentional in trying to injure, not at all. He did intend to deliver a blow though, he wasn't trying to shed the block. The speed of the game is crazy. Bizarro call? No, it was the correct call, that's why it is reveiwed. Someone mentioned the Backhaus hit should've been targeting. I'd like to know when that happened to see the replay. I'm remembering he was blocked into that play. I'd like to see it again though The definition of the targeting rule: "No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI) Note 1: "Targeting" means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to: Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area. Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet" The Backhaus hit was around 2:51.00 on the video replay. |
|
|
|
Post by Yote 53 on Nov 20, 2017 8:33:20 GMT -6
If you are taking on a 300+ lb offensive lineman coming down on you, bet your a$$ your going to take on that block with force, and by that I mean you are going to be the aggressor and explode your body into him. The head just happens to be a part of your body. I'm guessing our Jack friend here never played on the interior of the defensive line and never had a pulling guard coming down on him. You meet that block with violent force. You don't and you will never see the field.
If this is what football is coming to, these kinds of calls, then I'm about out.
For the record, the targeting call I think should have been called actually happened twice, two late hits when a USD runner was already on the ground. One of them for sure the helmet was the first thing to make contact.
Intent of the rule is to protect defenseless players and malicious hits. Should not be applied to everyday line play. Again, has anybody ever seen a targeting play like that called? Only in the Valley.
|
|
|
|
Post by flagshipU on Nov 20, 2017 8:39:32 GMT -6
Regrading the targeting call; I have a somewhat unique perspective as I had the chance to play both LB and OL in college. In my opinion the call was complete BS as the OL was leading with his head on the block, which is completely normal and the LB played the block with perfect technique. When these two thing occur, there will be head contact. If this is the new standard for targeting, they will need to call at least 10 if not more throughout a game.
And about the "cramps"...there is no doubt that this was a stalling technique to break momentum. NDSU did it quite frequently last year in Vermillion. I know that I saw at least one time last year that it seemed to be signaled from the sideline to go down (speculation on my part I know). Like it of not, this appears to be a part of the strategy used by teams to slow down tempo offenses. I think that the only solution would be to make players sit an extended period of time should they lay on the field (say a quarter).
|
|
|
|
Post by Yote 53 on Nov 20, 2017 8:43:49 GMT -6
Yep. Player safety. There needs to be a rule put in place for injuries that cause a stoppage of play. A minimum time a player has to sit out of the game, 5 minute, 10 minutes, a quarter. That would prevent players from trying to "go" when they really shouldn't be out there and players faking injuries.
|
|
wiley
Freshman Member
Posts: 85 
|
Post by wiley on Nov 20, 2017 8:59:17 GMT -6
If you are taking on a 300+ lb offensive lineman coming down on you, bet your a$$ your going to take on that block with force, and by that I mean you are going to be the aggressor and explode your body into him. The head just happens to be a part of your body. I'm guessing our Jack friend here never played on the interior of the defensive line and never had a pulling guard coming down on him. You meet that block with violent force. You don't and you will never see the field. If this is what football is coming to, these kinds of calls, then I'm about out. For the record, the targeting call I think should have been called actually happened twice, two late hits when a USD runner was already on the ground. One of them for sure the helmet was the first thing to make contact. Intent of the rule is to protect defenseless players and malicious hits. Should not be applied to everyday line play. Again, has anybody ever seen a targeting play like that called? Only in the Valley. While I sort of agree that, by rule, this was targeting, this is the first time I've seen it in this type of play. I've seen it a number of times where any player (lineman, RB) is on the ground and they are hit first with a helmet of the opposing team. Whether diving at them or thrown to the ground by someone. I understand the targeting rules and their intent, but have no clue what a coach is supposed to say to a player in this situation. "You're about to get trucked and it's going to hurt, but it's best if you just take it so you don't get penalized and tossed."
As always, good summary OBC.
|
|
obc
Senior Member
Posts: 784
|
Post by obc on Nov 20, 2017 10:59:15 GMT -6
Someone posed the question earlier and just getting around to look it up - how long until SDSU made the playoffs and how long until they won. First 10 years for each school:
First 10 years for SDSU in FB
Total D1 wins = 43
0 BCS wins (first BCS win happened in yr 12 at KU)
3 playoff appearances
2 playoff wins (first in yr 9, second in yr 10)
first playoff appearance in year 6 (loss to Montana on the road)
first playoff win in year 9 against Eastern Illinois at home
First 10 years for USD in FB (we are in our 10th year this season, so this is still TBD)
Total D1 wins = 33
2 BCS wins (Minnesota in year 3, and Bowling Green in year 10)
1 playoff appearance in year 10 (outcome TBD)
0 playoff wins (outcome TBD)
first playoff appearance in year 10 against Nicholls St
first playoff win TBD
|
|
