|
|
Post by beavadelic on Oct 31, 2016 12:03:40 GMT -8
It's my understanding that it'd just be the first half against Stanford. Still think that's a ridiculous call - he was already launched to make the tackle when the QB dropped to give himself up - that wasn't some clear slide. Couldn't agree more. Total bs, "give no respect to a team when they're down" call. I would go so far as to say that the law of physics would have to be defied when a player has already launched (in this case at a level to hit a ball carrier below the knees on a regular play) there is zero chance to avoid what happened. "Targeting" implies intent, and Bright (who just happens to be our best, most consistent defender, to boot) couldn't have planned to have Falk essentially slide at his feet and have his head be fibia-high. Just pure garbage, and another example of how gutless and clueless that crew was. Any reasonable replay official who saw what we all saw on the Jumbotron would have rectified that wrong on review. It's ridiculous that they didn't overturn that, and painful that we'all have to play a half without one of our best defensive players as a result. I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I don't think the officials take us very seriously these days either. Whether marking our progress on plays a good half to full yard short or the opponent's a half to full yard extra 5 or 6 times each game, keeping the flag in their pockets on blatant PIs by opponents (like on Victor's awesome catch - pathetic) or personal fouls (actually gave Bailey an unsportsmanlike conduct for coming to victor's defense after he was drilled 2 steps out of bounds against the Cougs, we get little love from the zebs! The targeting is a good example as well. I'll never forget Markus Wheaton nearly getting his head knocked off against UW in Seattle - easy targeting call. He was nailed in the head violently by their DB and he wasn't even bending over. He missed the rest of the game and the following week due to concussion protocol, we were dealt our first loss to an inferior team after starting 6-0, and there was NO FLAG! With replay, either get it right or don't ever call it! |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Oct 31, 2016 12:41:43 GMT -8
They have three angles. Something clearly impacts Falk's head. From the third angle, it looks like the crown of the helmet impacts the side of Falk's head. ESPN does not have a slow-motion option to my knowledge. If it were on a different website, I could manipulate the feed and screen capture the hit. Can someone beside Fever weigh in? When you get hammered in the shoulder pad (even a glancing hit) your head often snaps backwards. This was just like the BS PF call on Al Afalava in the 2007 Civil War when he hammered Jeff Maehl in the shoulder pad. Maehl's head snapped back, although there was no contact outside of Afalava's helmet contacting Maehl's right shoulder pad. People swore on that one that it was a helmet-to-helmet hit. Slowing the play down literally frame-by-framed proved otherwise, however. The rules were different in 2007. There was no targeting. Helmet-to-helmet was a foul. I agree that Afalava should not have been flagged. Now, up on Youtube. In 1/4 speed, something impacts Falk's helmet, so that it dipped to the left and down at the exact moment that Ugwuegbu hit Falk. He definitely speared him, but, in 1/4 speed, it appears that you are correct that he speared his shoulder and not his helmet. This year, though, if it is spearing of a defenseless player, whether or not it is a helmet-to-helmet hit, it is targeting. Falk gives himself up before Ogwuegbu even lowered his head and was down before Ogwuegbu lunged at him. The fact that the impact hit Falk in the shoulders and drove his head backwards was the icing on the targeting cake. Saulo was in the exact same position but did not spear or target Falk. Ogwuegbu's form was terrible on the tackle. He did not need to do it and should not have done it. By the rules, it was targeting. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike84 on Oct 31, 2016 12:53:28 GMT -8
I have heard two different answers to the same question: Is Ugwuegbu disqualified for the first half of the next game or the entire game? I heard that since he was ejected in the second half it is a complete game DQ against Stanford. Does anyone know the answer? Also where was Paul Lucas? I've read through this whole thread and I don't think anybody gave a definitive answer to the question. I found this in an article about the targeting foul on ncaa.com: "If a player is flagged for targeting in the first half of the game, he is ejected and must sit out the second half of that contest. If a player is flagged for targeting in the second half of a game, he is ejected and must sit out the first half of the next game." So, Bright must sit out the first half of the Stanford game. I imagine he'll be more than ready to play when the second half starts! targeting fouls |
|
|
|
Post by fumblerooski on Nov 1, 2016 10:47:27 GMT -8
I was out of the country and unable to watch the last game. Is there video of the hit somewhere?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2016 11:22:05 GMT -8
I saw it as intentional. I don't care where the hit landed.....he was going for his head. It doesn't take replay film to see that.
|
|
|
|
Post by blackbug on Nov 4, 2016 21:03:34 GMT -8
I think this type of call is more harmful that beneficial. You are teaching quarterbacks that if you can time your slide to when a defender has committed to the hit then you can gain an additional 15 yards for your team. I agree that Bright's form on the tackle was not good. I remember watching the game and thinking to myself "Falk is not going to slide, he is going into this tackle aggressive" and then suddenly at the last moment he makes an awkward slide. Mark my words you will see a quarterback fake a slide and take off if it hasn't happened already. I saw a similar play in another game, except the targeting was not called and the explanation was that the slide was to late. If Falk was really trying to avoid contact then because of his aggressive approach he should have employed a dodge and dive to the ground. I have seen Garretson do this at times when he knew that because of the aggressive run this was the best way to avoid contact.
They need to figure out a way to account for reasonable reaction time otherwise quarterbacks will continue the late slides. The late slide just puts the quarterback in a more vulnerable position increasing the likelihood of a vicious hit. It actually makes the situation more dangerous rather than the reverse.
|
|
|
|
Post by kersting13 on Nov 4, 2016 21:55:59 GMT -8
I think this type of call is more harmful that beneficial. You are teaching quarterbacks that if you can time your slide to when a defender has committed to the hit then you can gain an additional 15 yards for your team. I agree that Bright's form on the tackle was not good. I remember watching the game and thinking to myself "Falk is not going to slide, he is going into this tackle aggressive" and then suddenly at the last moment he makes an awkward slide. Mark my words you will see a quarterback fake a slide and take off if it hasn't happened already. I saw a similar play in another game, except the targeting was not called and the explanation was that the slide was to late. If Falk was really trying to avoid contact then because of his aggressive approach he should have employed a dodge and dive to the ground. I have seen Garretson do this at times when he knew that because of the aggressive run this was the best way to avoid contact. They need to figure out a way to account for reasonable reaction time otherwise quarterbacks will continue the late slides. The late slide just puts the quarterback in a more vulnerable position increasing the likelihood of a vicious hit. It actually makes the situation more dangerous rather than the reverse. I agree that I think the "slide" actually causes more severe injuries than it limits. Alex Smith in the NFL took two vicious hits on late slides in the Chiefs game last week and is now out with a concussion. I would venture to guess that if he'd just run through and taken a "normal" tackle, he'd probably be fine. |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Nov 5, 2016 8:10:06 GMT -8
I saw it as intentional. I don't care where the hit landed.....he was going for his head. It doesn't take replay film to see that. No, they weren't. Neither one. Now if he had been down already, rather than a bang/bang hundredths of a second momentum thing on their part, you'd have a point. In my view Bright hadn't fully launched by the time the slide began but he had more or less committed to taking the QB out at the hips or thigh level. He'd have to have the reactions of a cat to pull up, he'd have to be some kind of calculus/geometry savant to ascertain where the QB's head was going to be the split second that his helmet arrived at where the collision occurred. Unless the ball carrier is litterally on their knees or in someone's grasp and more or less in a static position, I'd think any time a 6 foot tall QB or RB gets his head clocked 32 inches off the ground you have to revisit whether the head to head contact was fully intentional on the defender's part, there's just too little time to make that decision in most cases. A personal should have been called, the intentional targeting call is very suspect in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by snohobeav on Nov 5, 2016 11:01:44 GMT -8
They have three angles. Something clearly impacts Falk's head. From the third angle, it looks like the crown of the helmet impacts the side of Falk's head. ESPN does not have a slow-motion option to my knowledge. If it were on a different website, I could manipulate the feed and screen capture the hit. Can someone beside Fever weigh in? When you get hammered in the shoulder pad (even a glancing hit) your head often snaps backwards. This was just like the BS PF call on Al Afalava in the 2007 Civil War when he hammered Jeff Maehl in the shoulder pad. Maehl's head snapped back, although there was no contact outside of Afalava's helmet contacting Maehl's right shoulder pad. People swore on that one that it was a helmet-to-helmet hit. Slowing the play down literally frame-by-framed proved otherwise, however. No, the head snaps backward if you're hit in the head. It snaps FORWARD if you're hot in the shoulder, chest, etc. Alfalava's hit was shoulder in the chest, so head snapped forward. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Nov 5, 2016 18:00:54 GMT -8
Falk gives himself up before Ogwuegbu even lowered his head and was down before Ogwuegbu lunged at him. No, he didn't and wasn't. My friend, watch the tape. You can pause it, when Falk gives himself up. Ogwuegbu's head is up. He lowers his head to spear after that. He spears Falks shoulder. Dumb and poor form. Ogwuegbu is just as likely to hurt himself as he is Falk, but spearing is a good way to hurt someone. |
|
