|
|
Post by grackle on Nov 30, 2021 17:34:10 GMT -8
Unless I'm mistaken, wasn't the cheap shot targeting hit that occurred toward the end of the game last Saturday thrown by the same jacka$$ Quack defensive back that was in on the gratuitous injury to Gebbia last year in Reser stadium?
PS -- I'm still amazed that targeting wasn't upheld last Saturday. What part of spearing, above-the-neck and helmet-to-helmet contact do the airhead referees in the PAC not understand?? Sheesh...
|
|
|
|
Post by damnstraight on Nov 30, 2021 17:39:20 GMT -8
Yes, same dude. Verone McKinley, #23
|
|
|
|
Post by lebaneaver on Nov 30, 2021 17:39:50 GMT -8
Unless I'm mistaken, wasn't the cheap shot targeting hit that occurred toward the end of the game last Saturday thrown by the same jacka$$ Quack defensive back that was in on the gratuitous injury to Gebbia last year in Reser stadium? PS -- I'm still amazed that targeting wasn't upheld last Saturday. What part of spearing, above-the-neck and helmet-to-helmet contact do the airhead referees in the PAC not understand?? Sheesh... Yep. He'll continue being a cheap shot artist because he faces NO consequences. He pulls that s%#t in the NFL, and he WILL be dealt with. If not by the league......other avenues. |
|
mb
Freshman
Posts: 394 
|
Post by mb on Nov 30, 2021 21:02:48 GMT -8
Yes, same dude. Verone McKinley, #23 the 3rd. |
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Nov 30, 2021 22:07:11 GMT -8
Unless I'm mistaken, wasn't the cheap shot targeting hit that occurred toward the end of the game last Saturday thrown by the same jacka$$ Quack defensive back that was in on the gratuitous injury to Gebbia last year in Reser stadium? PS -- I'm still amazed that targeting wasn't upheld last Saturday. What part of spearing, above-the-neck and helmet-to-helmet contact do the airhead referees in the PAC not understand?? Sheesh... What bothers me about the reversal of the targeting call is that it should have been some kind of penalty. If they don’t have the balls to call it targeting, then call it something else without the suspension…spearing, unnecessary roughness, something. I think this play shows a weakness in the targeting rules. Everyone in the stadium and on the field knew it was a nasty hit deserving of a penalty. Ref knew it when he threw the flag. Not upholding the targeting call shouldn’t mean the hit was OK. That’s the problem. |
|
cake
Sophomore
Posts: 1,460
|
Post by cake on Dec 1, 2021 13:29:17 GMT -8
Unless I'm mistaken, wasn't the cheap shot targeting hit that occurred toward the end of the game last Saturday thrown by the same jacka$$ Quack defensive back that was in on the gratuitous injury to Gebbia last year in Reser stadium? PS -- I'm still amazed that targeting wasn't upheld last Saturday. What part of spearing, above-the-neck and helmet-to-helmet contact do the airhead referees in the PAC not understand?? Sheesh... What bothers me about the reversal of the targeting call is that it should have been some kind of penalty. If they don’t have the balls to call it targeting, then call it something else without the suspension…spearing, unnecessary roughness, something. I think this play shows a weakness in the targeting rules. Everyone in the stadium and on the field knew it was a nasty hit deserving of a penalty. Ref knew it when he threw the flag. Not upholding the targeting call shouldn’t mean the hit was OK. That’s the problem. I agree it should have been upheld, but I don't think replay allows for adding a penalty they didn't call on the field. I may be wrong though.
Here's a play where targeting wasn't called, the play was reviewed, targeting was added but no penalty yards were given.
|
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Dec 1, 2021 14:11:57 GMT -8
To me the "rule" should be two fold...
- flag thrown for PF... label it as you please, unnecessary roughness, using the helmet as a weapon, spearing...
- review if it is targeting. If so, it involves player ejection and missing 1st ½ of the next game... 15 yd penalty. If not deemed "targeting", player stays, 15 yd PF penalty still enforced.
Not really rocket science. The official saw a personal foul. the targeting may be more subjective, but the flag in all should not be nullified.
If that's the case every flag should be reviewed. Face masks called that aren't. Holding calls are/aren't called are totally subjective and not reviewed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Dec 1, 2021 14:47:15 GMT -8
To me the "rule" should be two fold... - flag thrown for PF... label it as you please, unnecessary roughness, using the helmet as a weapon, spearing... - review if it is targeting. If so, it involves player ejection and missing 1st ½ of the next game... 15 yd penalty. If not deemed "targeting", player stays, 15 yd PF penalty still enforced. Not really rocket science. The official saw a personal foul. the targeting may be more subjective, but the flag in all should not be nullified. If that's the case every flag should be reviewed. Face masks called that aren't. Holding calls are/aren't called are totally subjective and not reviewed. That's exactly the way the rule was a couple of years ago and then they changed it. The penalty stood, whether it was targeting or not. That's the way is should be. |
|
|
|
Post by kersting13 on Dec 1, 2021 15:17:54 GMT -8
To me the "rule" should be two fold... - flag thrown for PF... label it as you please, unnecessary roughness, using the helmet as a weapon, spearing... - review if it is targeting. If so, it involves player ejection and missing 1st ½ of the next game... 15 yd penalty. If not deemed "targeting", player stays, 15 yd PF penalty still enforced. Not really rocket science. The official saw a personal foul. the targeting may be more subjective, but the flag in all should not be nullified. If that's the case every flag should be reviewed. Face masks called that aren't. Holding calls are/aren't called are totally subjective and not reviewed. That's exactly the way the rule was a couple of years ago and then they changed it. The penalty stood, whether it was targeting or not. That's the way is should be. If they determine it's NOT targeting, why should any part of the penalty stand? For the most part, I've been pretty cool with the targeting penalties this year. I've seen some stuff that was called targeting on the field, but was revealed to be a shoulder hit or just "not targeting" reversed, and I think that's great. The reversal in the CW was the first egregious reversal/non-reversal I've seen this year - and I watch a lot of football. It's one of the few rules that NCAA currently has that I think should be adopted by the NFL. I've seen a couple of "helmet to helmet" hits called in the NFL (they don't call it "targeting") that were clearly NOT initiated by the defender/NOT launching/NOT actually helmet to helmet that could have been corrected if the NFL had the ability to review them. |
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Dec 1, 2021 15:52:24 GMT -8
That's exactly the way the rule was a couple of years ago and then they changed it. The penalty stood, whether it was targeting or not. That's the way is should be. If they determine it's NOT targeting, why should any part of the penalty stand? For the most part, I've been pretty cool with the targeting penalties this year. I've seen some stuff that was called targeting on the field, but was revealed to be a shoulder hit or just "not targeting" reversed, and I think that's great. The reversal in the CW was the first egregious reversal/non-reversal I've seen this year - and I watch a lot of football. It's one of the few rules that NCAA currently has that I think should be adopted by the NFL. I've seen a couple of "helmet to helmet" hits called in the NFL (they don't call it "targeting") that were clearly NOT initiated by the defender/NOT launching/NOT actually helmet to helmet that could have been corrected if the NFL had the ability to review them. I would actually like to see different levels of targeting. One where it is an ejection and one that is just a penalty. The injection should only be for launching with the helmet down. |
|
|
|
Post by kersting13 on Dec 1, 2021 15:58:23 GMT -8
If they determine it's NOT targeting, why should any part of the penalty stand? For the most part, I've been pretty cool with the targeting penalties this year. I've seen some stuff that was called targeting on the field, but was revealed to be a shoulder hit or just "not targeting" reversed, and I think that's great. The reversal in the CW was the first egregious reversal/non-reversal I've seen this year - and I watch a lot of football. It's one of the few rules that NCAA currently has that I think should be adopted by the NFL. I've seen a couple of "helmet to helmet" hits called in the NFL (they don't call it "targeting") that were clearly NOT initiated by the defender/NOT launching/NOT actually helmet to helmet that could have been corrected if the NFL had the ability to review them. I would actually like to see different levels of targeting. One where it is an ejection and one that is just a penalty. The injection should only be for launching with the helmet down. I believe you are correct. There are some targeting calls that appear to be inadvertent or even unavoidable, but still should be "safety" penalties. Again, the *uck defender's play in CW seemed to meet neither of those criteria. |
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Dec 1, 2021 16:32:11 GMT -8
If the idea is to improve the safety of the players, then they clearly failed, plain and simple. That play was safe for neither the receiver nor the defender, and it was clearly instigated by the defender. Whether the receiver was defenseless or not, the hit was an unsafe one, and everybody knew that—even that eye patch guy. Not penalizing the play is a disservice and suggests that they really don’t care about player safety.
Either they need a broader definition of what targeting is or they need to adjust things so that there are different degrees of the penalty….something akin to murder charges, perhaps.
|
|
|
|
Post by beaver94 on Dec 1, 2021 16:56:02 GMT -8
If the idea is to improve the safety of the players, then they clearly failed, plain and simple. That play was safe for neither the receiver nor the defender, and it was clearly instigated by the defender. Whether the receiver was defenseless or not, the hit was an unsafe one, and everybody knew that—even that eye patch guy. Not penalizing the play is a disservice and suggests that they really don’t care about player safety. Either they need a broader definition of what targeting is or they need to adjust things so that there are different degrees of the penalty….something akin to murder charges, perhaps. That's what I don't understand most about the call. If they want to say that wasn't targeting because Harrison braced and took most of the contact with his shoulder, sure I guess I can understand that. But, the tackle itself was the type of tackle that I thought they were specifically trying to remove from football. To not have it be some type of penalty is hard to believe. |
|
|
|
Post by hottubbeaver on Dec 1, 2021 17:05:01 GMT -8
That's exactly the way the rule was a couple of years ago and then they changed it. The penalty stood, whether it was targeting or not. That's the way is should be. If they determine it's NOT targeting, why should any part of the penalty stand? For the most part, I've been pretty cool with the targeting penalties this year. I've seen some stuff that was called targeting on the field, but was revealed to be a shoulder hit or just "not targeting" reversed, and I think that's great. The reversal in the CW was the first egregious reversal/non-reversal I've seen this year - and I watch a lot of football. It's one of the few rules that NCAA currently has that I think should be adopted by the NFL. I've seen a couple of "helmet to helmet" hits called in the NFL (they don't call it "targeting") that were clearly NOT initiated by the defender/NOT launching/NOT actually helmet to helmet that could have been corrected if the NFL had the ability to review them. To your point in bold, I've noticed the same thing. In fact, upon a different angle to view from I have been quite impressed with the number of times defenders made extraordinary attempts requiring remarkable athleticism to adjust the head just enough to initiate contact with the shoulder. To be clear, that was not what anyone witnessed in the Civil War targeting case, including the ducks own coaches. When your reverse the call on the field and there is absolutely no evidence to justify such a reversal then the obvious conclusions will be drawn for why that was the case. |
|
|
|
Post by speakthetruth on Dec 1, 2021 17:09:14 GMT -8
Lets end this right here. Phil reviewed it and said it wasn't targeting.
|
|
