|
Post by lebaneaver on Nov 27, 2021 16:06:14 GMT -8
….to question Smitty’s decision to go for two after our first score. Head scratcher, for sure. To beat a dead horse over and over and over again is folly. I hope the PAC-12 offers an explanation on the reversal of the obvious targeting penalty. That kind of s%#t simply feeds conspiracy theories. No excuse for that reversal. Beavs showed heart. Nolan was GREAT! Our D improved after the half. Schmucks made more plays.
|
|
|
Post by beaver55to7 on Nov 27, 2021 16:18:15 GMT -8
Meh, we got beat by 9, not 3 , 2 or 1. The 3 points left on the extra points not that big a deal in the end. I will be interested in his explanation, but not going to lose any sleep over it. What I will always remember this year for is beating SC on the road, UW, ASU, Stanford and Utah at home, The good memories. Yet always scratch my head at the results at Cal and Colorado.
|
|
|
Post by korculabeav on Nov 27, 2021 16:23:47 GMT -8
Meh, we got beat by 9, not 3 , 2 or 1. The 3 points left on the extra points not that big a deal in the end. I will be interested in his explanation, but not going to lose any sleep over it. What I will always remember this year for is beating SC on the road, UW, ASU, Stanford and Utah at home, The good memories. Yet always scratch my head at the results at Cal and Colorado. Agreed. Yes it may have been a tactical error but not a big deal in the end. JS will learn from this and become the wiser coach in the future.
|
|
|
Post by Mike84 on Nov 27, 2021 16:36:27 GMT -8
I think the reversal of the targeting call, which was completely mysterious, led to some of the scuffles that followed. Beavers probably felt they were owed and both teams probably felt the refs were not going to try to stop anything before it got out of hand.
|
|
|
Post by bleedorange21 on Nov 27, 2021 16:54:19 GMT -8
Meh, we got beat by 9, not 3 , 2 or 1. The 3 points left on the extra points not that big a deal in the end. I will be interested in his explanation, but not going to lose any sleep over it. What I will always remember this year for is beating SC on the road, UW, ASU, Stanford and Utah at home, The good memories. Yet always scratch my head at the results at Cal and Colorado. Agreed. Yes it may have been a tactical error but not a big deal in the end. JS will learn from this and become the wiser coach in the future. It wasn't a big deal in the end but it easily could've been and probably affected the players psyche. When the plays are down 2 scores as opposed to 1 close to the end of the game would change if the players still think they have a chance or not. Sure it didn't matter with the final score but what if they got the final onside? They could've had the chance to win or tie it but because of the decisions would be down 2 scores instead. Bottom line is it was a poor decision and a trend with Smith. The no targeting was just egregious. You have to think that the suspension in the Championship game had to play a factor. They should be filing a complaint with the pac 12 office or someone because it's a safety factor and defeats the purpose of the rule. Even the biased announcers were dumbfounded. The game breaking out in fights was a clear result or the players feeling slighted by the refs. I don't blame Harrison for jumping into the scuffle after that. They basically were saying that his health wasn't a priority or at least that's probably how he felt. Super disappointing to see when they have the benefit of replay.
|
|
|
Post by carlosdanger on Nov 27, 2021 17:04:53 GMT -8
It wasn't targeting since the contact was to the shoulder. This is something that the clueless broadcasting crew never pointed out, which leads to the generally clueless public not being able to pick up on it.
As for Jonathan Smith, he is an astonishingly ignorant coach. There is really no need to get into the minutiae of it since this is readily apparent to anyone with a brain. Hell, even going for 2 at the very end was foolish.
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Nov 27, 2021 17:14:50 GMT -8
It wasn't targeting since the contact was to the shoulder. This is something that the clueless broadcasting crew never pointed out, which leads to the generally clueless public not being able to pick up on it. As for Jonathan Smith, he is an astonishingly ignorant coach. There is really no need to get into the minutiae of it since this is readily apparent to anyone with a brain. Hell, even going for 2 at the very end was foolish. Contact... to... the... Shoulder. Which one of the 37 different angle of McKinley putting the crown of his helmet into the ear hole of Harrison's helmet showed this one? Must be that U of O education... oh wait, you are a duck fan, of COURSE you didn't graduate.
|
|
|
Post by qbeaver on Nov 27, 2021 17:16:11 GMT -8
Harrison was still upset over the reversal of the targeting call...he was jawing with McKinley after the play. I don't blame him for giving the duck player a cheap shot. Payback. Sadly,it will likely cost him the first half of the bowl game. The PAC-12 refs need to step up and not make this conference look like chumps reversing an obvious targeting call...plays like that are how players get concussed,and why the rule was instituted in the first place. It makes no difference if it was to the shoulder...you can't use the crown of the helmet...McKinley did. Read the rules...
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Nov 27, 2021 17:18:03 GMT -8
...to sing the blues.
|
|
|
Post by beavaristotle on Nov 27, 2021 17:20:57 GMT -8
It wasn't targeting since the contact was to the shoulder. This is something that the clueless broadcasting crew never pointed out, which leads to the generally clueless public not being able to pick up on it. As for Jonathan Smith, he is an astonishingly ignorant coach. There is really no need to get into the minutiae of it since this is readily apparent to anyone with a brain. Hell, even going for 2 at the very end was foolish. the only thing Carlos is in danger of is catching an STD in that sewer hole down south. What he is not in danger of is finding employment or running out of toothpaste
|
|
|
Post by carlosdanger on Nov 27, 2021 17:27:58 GMT -8
Again, this isn't really a debatable topic. If you look at replay angle from behind the end zone, which is the only angle that captures where the contact actually took place, it is clear that the defender's facemask contacts the receiver's shoulder. If you aren't able to decipher this, your mental acuity might be on par with Jonathan Smith, or you need a higher definition television.
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Nov 27, 2021 17:30:31 GMT -8
Again, this isn't really a debatable topic. If you look at replay angle from behind the end zone, which is the only angle that captures where the contact actually took place, it is clear that the defender's facemask contacts the receiver's shoulder. If you aren't able to decipher this, your mental acuity might be on par with Jonathan Smith, or you need a higher definition television. Doesn't everyone understand? Carlos says this is not debatable.
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Nov 27, 2021 17:31:13 GMT -8
Again, this isn't really a debatable topic. If you look at replay angle from behind the end zone, which is the only angle that captures where the contact actually took place, it is clear that the defender's facemask contacts the receiver's shoulder. If you aren't able to decipher this, your mental acuity might be on par with Jonathan Smith, or you need a higher definition television. Doesn't everyone understand? Carlos says this is not debatable. Only thing here debatable is what mental ward he escaped from. Somebody needs to put him back.
|
|
|
Post by carlosdanger on Nov 27, 2021 17:34:38 GMT -8
Again, this isn't really a debatable topic. If you look at replay angle from behind the end zone, which is the only angle that captures where the contact actually took place, it is clear that the defender's facemask contacts the receiver's shoulder. If you aren't able to decipher this, your mental acuity might be on par with Jonathan Smith, or you need a higher definition television. Doesn't everyone understand? Carlos says this is not debatable. It is just a fact. Watch the replay, then watch it again, and watch it again. Just because the announcers don't pick up on it, which influences the perception of the average dullard fan that watches these games, doesn't change the reality of the situation. The tape doesn't lie.
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Nov 27, 2021 17:37:02 GMT -8
It wasn't targeting since the contact was to the shoulder. This is something that the clueless broadcasting crew never pointed out, which leads to the generally clueless public not being able to pick up on it. As for Jonathan Smith, he is an astonishingly ignorant coach. There is really no need to get into the minutiae of it since this is readily apparent to anyone with a brain. Hell, even going for 2 at the very end was foolish. Wasn’t this like the first game this year without a Duck player being ejected for targeting? Face it, you got the call because you were in Autzen. Ducks play dirty. Everyone in the Pac 12 knows it. And fans don’t care because most of them are bandwagon fans only caring if the Ducks win, not whether they are true sportsmen. Enjoy your win. At least we hung 29 points on you and your team. You might need a few of those against Utah, since you could only manage 7 last time. (Don’t forget that we’re the only team to beat Utah this year.)
|
|