|
Post by spudbeaver on Nov 27, 2021 17:41:13 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. Dude, open your eyes!! Er, never mind. And you’re right. The tape doesn’t lie.
|
|
|
Post by sparty on Nov 27, 2021 17:41:27 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. Even Parker and crew was questioning it through the whole game and post game.
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Nov 27, 2021 17:43:27 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. Even Parker and crew was questioning it through the whole game and post game. Well, those guys were great coaches in their own right, so….
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Nov 27, 2021 17:49:44 GMT -8
Harrison never went for the ball. He was more concerned about the coming contact. Maybe the replay officials did not consider him to be unprotected on the play? BTW, not sure why Harrison and Lindsay continue to get so much playing time with all the drops this season. I'm sure they add more speed, etc. but that doesn't mean much if you are inconsistent catching the ball.
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Nov 27, 2021 18:12:48 GMT -8
It wasn't targeting since the contact was to the shoulder. You apparently don't even understand the targeting rule fully so forgive me for not taking your word on whether the call was correctly overturned or not. Plus I believe the real ref in the booth/telecast asserted it was indeed targeting.
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Nov 27, 2021 18:35:10 GMT -8
That's only part of the rule and but one definition of "targeting". It can be targeting if contact is made with the player in an area other than their head or neck. That’s known as “balls targeting” It was a s%#tty call, but it didn’t affect the game. There’s a lot of other things to bitch about.
|
|
|
Post by beaver94 on Nov 27, 2021 18:35:11 GMT -8
I don’t know the official definition of targeting, but isn’t it to protect the defensive player as well as the offensive player? That guy launched himself, helmet first, at the receiver. If that’s not part of the definition it should be.
|
|
|
Post by zeroposter on Nov 27, 2021 18:51:24 GMT -8
I don’t know the official definition of targeting, but isn’t it to protect the defensive player as well as the offensive player? That guy launched himself, helmet first, at the receiver. If that’s not part of the definition it should be. Screw targeting. The leading with the head like that is good, old-fashioned spearing. That has been a penalty for a long time.
|
|
|
Post by flyfishinbeav on Nov 27, 2021 18:51:47 GMT -8
The defense was the issue in this one.....kinda reminded me of our defense under Tibesar. No pressure, made Brown look like a competent passer.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Nov 27, 2021 18:56:41 GMT -8
I don’t know the official definition of targeting, but isn’t it to protect the defensive player as well as the offensive player? That guy launched himself, helmet first, at the receiver. If that’s not part of the definition it should be. Screw targeting. The leading with the head like that is good, old-fashioned spearing. That has been a penalty for a long time. I agree 100% with this. It should have been a penalty regardless of whether it was targeting or not. It looked like the crown of the helmet hit the receiver's earhole and that it was textbook targeting, but I have not re-watched it. I am annoyed at the reversal. It is only supposed to be reversed, if it definitively was not targeting, and I do not know how anyone watching that could come to that conclusion. The fact that it was Oregon in Autzen gives me that 2006 Oklahoma feeling, where rules are more like guidelines that really only apply to the Ducks' benefit.
|
|
EOBeav
Freshman
Posts: 499
Grad Year: 1989, 2002
|
Post by EOBeav on Nov 27, 2021 19:28:04 GMT -8
The story today isn't 1 of 4 on PAT conversions. It's the non existent defense the entire first half.
|
|
|
Post by bleedorange21 on Nov 27, 2021 19:29:47 GMT -8
Someone should ask coach Smith if he got an explanation and if he'll inquire farther. The officials need to be held responsible for letting such an egregious play go like it was no big deal. This is just dangerous and Harrison is lucky to not be hurt. The game was essentially over at that point too which makes it all the more malicious. The fact the announcers and everyone knew it was and got overturned with a obvious replay available is just inexcusable. Smith owes it to his players to make a stink about this to protect them. Its his job and they would respect him for it.
|
|
|
Post by shelby on Nov 27, 2021 19:32:40 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. Pretty apparent that you are a $uck fan ... enjoy your next beat down !
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Nov 27, 2021 22:32:03 GMT -8
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. The magnitude of your asinine arrogance is not debatable.
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Nov 28, 2021 9:49:28 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. ...to be furious that those failed 2-point PAT's kept OSU from covering the spread.
|
|