Replies: 14
| visibility 1
|
Orange Blooded [4036]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3528
Joined: 8/19/03
|
I was at game - questions
Dec 4, 2016, 8:03 AM
|
|
Targeting - was it the correct call. It did not look bad in real time. Punt interference - what was the announcers reaction. Sure seemed like there was no penalty. Fake punt - was it really tipped?
Lots of breakdowns on defense. Trick plays, etc. frustrating to not be able to hold at 21 point lead. The good thing is that Ohio state s not a good passing team if we play them.
|
|
|
|
110%er [7191]
TigerPulse: 70%
Posts: 20374
Joined: 8/18/06
|
Re: I was at game - questions
Dec 4, 2016, 8:07 AM
|
|
It was targeting because the two players helmets hit. It didn't look like punt interference,but you do have to give the punt returner space.Our guy did not. Don't recall if it was tipped or not.
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10674]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10939
Joined: 8/20/07
|
Ball was tipped before the LOS, but barely.***
Dec 4, 2016, 8:08 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [67917]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 115510
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: I was at game - questions
Dec 4, 2016, 8:09 AM
[ in reply to Re: I was at game - questions ] |
|
I think he went in w shoulder but the force cause the helmets to hit.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2371]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1997
Joined: 11/7/14
|
Re: I was at game - questions
Dec 4, 2016, 8:16 AM
|
|
Helmets hit when the receiver ducked his head. The receiver was probably "more responsible" for the contact than O'Daniel. He was sorely missed for the rest of the game!
Was it "targeting"? Well, by rule, probably so... I still think the rule is stupid! The word "targeting" implies intent... and on that play, there was no "intent."
I felt like Jeff Flanagan (Referee) was "targeting" when he called Mitch Hyatt for holding. He gets the Ron Cherry Award for that one!
|
|
|
|
|
Trainer [41]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 60
Joined: 10/4/15
|
Re: I was at game - questions
Dec 4, 2016, 11:09 AM
|
|
That was my take on the targeting call too: the receiver lowered hi s head and caused the head to head collision.
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [244]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 450
Joined: 2/2/11
|
Re: I was at game - questions
Dec 4, 2016, 11:17 AM
[ in reply to Re: I was at game - questions ] |
|
I'd like to see them start calling it on the "defenseless" player if they are the ones lowering their helmets.
I mean altogether I would rather the penalty be gone.
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [203]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 308
Joined: 9/30/16
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1109]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 2009
Joined: 2/20/08
|
Yeah unfortunately all those listed were correct
Dec 4, 2016, 8:09 AM
|
|
Or at least based on something real. Hyatt's holding call however, was not
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [957]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 534
Joined: 9/7/09
|
The targeting call was probably correct...
Dec 4, 2016, 8:17 AM
|
|
except I don't know what Dorian could have done to not deliver the hit - he was committed and that's just how it is. I thought it was good technique but the targeting rule does not care about technique. Thankfully it happened in the first half. The punt catch penalty was totally subjective. I thought he had enough space, but it was close and I'd say it looked too close for the referee in-person. The fake punt was tipped almost exactly at the line of scrimmage. Just an inch or two further and the call is confirmed.
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [910]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 298
Joined: 9/5/14
|
Re: The targeting call was probably correct...
Dec 4, 2016, 8:25 AM
|
|
Agreed with everyone the call was correct on Dorian. The only way to avoid that would have to be a form tackle driving through the players chest. Instead he went for the big highlight hit and it led to a targeting call.
|
|
|
|
|
1st Rounder [624]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 893
Joined: 2/6/02
|
what he could've done was just make a good form tackle
Dec 4, 2016, 9:05 AM
[ in reply to The targeting call was probably correct... ] |
|
and we get the ball back and continue to dominate. I hate the targeting rule as much as anybody but you gotta know the rule and play accordingly.
|
|
|
|
|
Scout Team [165]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 151
Joined: 10/2/16
|
Re: I was at game - questions
Dec 4, 2016, 8:45 AM
|
|
2/3 were correct. The punt interference was total BS. The guy caught the ball clean and was immediately hit. For it to be interference Scott would have had to hit him early and impede his ability to catch it. They did away with halo rule so if he doesn't call fair catch, all bets are off.
|
|
|
|
|
MVP [531]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 241
Joined: 3/19/05
|
Re: I was at game - questions
Dec 4, 2016, 8:56 AM
|
|
Here's my question:
Why in the world would you field a punt on your own 20 yard line with about 8 seconds left in the half?
And fair catch?
Just let the ball hit the ground...get away from it.
As a coach, I wouldn't even put anybody back there.
How stupid would you look(be) if he fails to catch it and turns it over to them for a free field goal?
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [48078]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 49059
Joined: 5/16/04
|
Here
Dec 4, 2016, 11:14 AM
|
|
Targeting: yes. Accidental, but yes. Punt interference: Yes Fake Punt: I don't recall if it was tipped.
|
|
|
|
Replies: 14
| visibility 1
|
|
|