Recent Comments
The answer to why it was upheld... Ron Cherry. I didn't get to watch any of this game, but my dad did and he said that the officiating was awful. I bet a lot of people are envious of Dadi for getting to hit Ron Cherry.
I thought it was the right call. I don't think that ball was catchable. Doesn't matter. We won. Let's talk about something different.
Bad call.
I felt this was absolutely true in terms of telling a player to take the time needed to get checked. Time winding down in the game, defense on their heels. Player goes down only to walk off under his own power seconds later, looked to be what the team needed in order to get a sub in. I've seen classic "fakes", but this seemed just getting a player off the field.
An ejection isn't automatic. If the review shows the intent wasn't there then the team is only hit with a 15 yard penalty.
I think if Bucky had the year he had last year he would be higher and should leave. If the NFL draft board is saying you should stay I really don't know how you go against that and enter the draft. If he has a great year next year he is first round potential. You have possible first round money and attention or 4 round or later money and attention. To me this is a no brainer.
In a way there are two penalties. Once targeting is called you get 15 yards regardless, but the review is to see if an ejection is warranted as well. Even if the review shows that there really was no targeting and the player isn't ejected, you still get hit with a 15 yarder.
Not soon enough.
Judging by the weather, it could be any time now...
Michael Brewer will go down as one of my favorites. Endured a lot of adversity, was tough as hell, and embodied everything it means to be a Hokie.
🦀🦀SHEEEEEEEEIT🦀🦀
|
10 years 7 months
# | OT: Star Wars Episode VII (SPOILERS. SO. MANY. SPOILERS.) I can answer this: NO. One simple reason, Harrison Ford would likely never allow it. He didn't want to do this movie to begin with.
I believe it was against K. Jarrett
It seemed to me that Tulsa was in worse shape than VT, and they are used to that tempo.
It seems to me that Stroman was indeed cramping. Maybe Bud was telling them to fake it, but I would like to think that he noticed Stroman was not 100%. Who knows for sure, but Tulsa had a couple players cramping as well. It was a long game and a hot one for this time of year.
I'm pretty sure we ended up taking a TO anyway, so even if he was faking, it isn't like we gained much of an advantage.
Just hard to enforce.
If I was the defensive coach against these high tempo teams, I would tell the players that if they get a little banged up and need to sub for a play, drop down. If not for the tempo, there would be ample time to limp off and run on a sub.
I'm not 100% certain of that. I think Fuente is about to walk into more of a conditioning situation than he was aware of. We're one of the only programs in P5 football that didn't do two-a-days. Our offense was gassed in the fourth quarter against Tulsa, and it showed. I think it's going to take a season to get the offense as a whole in shape to run Fuente's offense for four quarters.
And only the third time in school history ('86 & '93)
He was 6'7" at the snap. We're not sure how much he grew while running his route.
They said it was unwatchable, but if the DB wasn't draped over him for about the last 5 yards of his route, it was easily catchable for Hodges. Another bad call.
Yeah, the targeting rule pisses me off when it is applied to a good form tackle, not a cheap shot. Maybe I'm old school, but it seems like it applies to hits that are deemed too hard. I guess if the Nebraska LB had slowed down to accept instead of deliver the tackle blow, it would be fine and dandy. As a former defensive player, I've yet to see any of these calls go against a 240 pound RB ramrodding a 180 pound DB with the crown of his helmet. Also, have injuries gone down since the institution of these rules? Yeah, maybe slightly in terms of head and neck-related injuries, but probably more leg injuries. This isn't touch football, so if we can't accept good, clean, yet hard tackling in TACKLE football, then maybe we either need better protective equipment, or just have a touch league for those who want to play without the hitting. Seems like it would be more of an injury risk to defenders trying to execute a tackle knowing they have a 'strike zone' to make a tackle, with anything too high or too low getting flagged.
I think the bigger risk than good, hard form tackles are the horse-collar type tackles where the players' leg(s) are rolled over, which is when we see the horrific leg injuries. Those hits are NOT the type that should be taught in organized football (more like street ball), and should be outlawed from the game IMO.
There is a rule.
This is what I saw and thought when it happened as well. Don't think it was faking but I also agree with cds7c in that it's gamesmanship and I don't see anything wrong with it. Until they write rules prohibiting it then I don't see the big deal
I thought the ball landed in the endzone and it looked catchable to me, however I was pounding 16 ouncers at the time. If what you're saying is correct, I agree, but I remember watching it a few times and cussing a lot. I'd like to see a screenshot.
I think there are three things at play in the seemingly new increase in officiating issues:
1. It appears to me that some newer rules, or clarifications of older rules, are written in a way that introduces more ambiguity into the rulebook. The targeting rule is a very poorly written example. It does not differentiate between contact that is malicious and contact that is purely incidental. It includes the phrase, "defenseless player" which can be interpreted differently by officials. It doesn't leave room to account for an offensive player that lowers his head or drops his body in the split second before contact which causes a hit intended for the upper torso to contact the head or neck. Lastly, the "when in doubt, it is foul" attitude of enforcement goes against everything we usually think of as just when it comes to rule enforcement, especially when the penalty is as severe as ejection.
2. Instant replay has introduced a level of scrutiny that previously did not exist. When plays are slowed down so much, people tend to lose regard for basic laws of physics. I have seen many examples of a player who begins the process of a tackle only to see the offensive player adjust position such that contact that would previously be legal, becomes illegal while the defender no longer has the ability to overcome his momentum enough to adjust to the adjustment. A helmet gets grazed and its a foul. In super slow motion it looks like foul. In real time it all happens in a few milliseconds. This also has a lot to do with the new found ambiguity regarding what is an isn't a catch. In slow-mo replay you can see if the ball touches the ground or if it moves or if it is bobbled or if feet touch in or out of bounds. We analyze routine plays with Zapruder Film level scrutiny nowadays, but if you scrutinize it too much you can pretty much convince yourself of either outcome on 50/50 plays.
3. Inconsistent enforcement will always be an issue when humans are involved. But this can be mitigated. Better written rules would help, but what is also needed is stronger clarifications with regards to the intent of rules combined with clear oversight by the officiating committee. Full-time officials would really help here. Allowing officials to focus only on being officials would allow for more in depth study of rules and their real world application. This could also lead to officials that are in better physical shape to allow them to better keep up with the freak athletes they are trying to officiate. Full-time officials with stronger oversight and clarification of rules should also help with what appears to be a lack of knowledge of the rules evident in far too many games (*cough* Danny Coale caught that ball *cough*).