|
Replies: 53
| visibility 2323
|
Webmaster [∞]
TigerPulse: 100%
∞
Posts: 46611
Joined: 2012
|
New Story: Targeting: Smith out for first half at GT after questionable ruling on hit
Nov 7, 2014, 11:00 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
National Champion [7284]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
Posts: 10321
Joined: 1998
|
No ACC appeal process? *
Nov 7, 2014, 11:03 AM
|
|
nm
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2507]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
The targeting rule has changed where that isn't an option***
Nov 7, 2014, 11:07 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1701]
TigerPulse: 96%
31
|
Ive wondered the same ive seen yes and no.
Nov 7, 2014, 11:08 AM
[ in reply to No ACC appeal process? * ] |
|
You would think the acc could just look at it and say look they missed a call and it was a mistake. That's all they have to say and you can't really complain about it. But to let this keep going will make them out to be a joke. Espn and a lot of college football websites are all reporting on the awful call so one would think the acc would try to do a little damage control and nip it in the bud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [62797]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 62814
Joined: 2007
|
Re: Ive wondered the same ive seen yes and no.
Nov 7, 2014, 5:55 PM
|
|
I agree, I agree , and I agree with it all except the one part I don't understand what you really meant. This, what does this mean >>>> ( But to let this keep going will make them out to be a joke.) I'm having a hard time of recalling when was it that >>>>ACC reffs were promoted from being the biggest absolute joke of the ACC. They would have been promoted for your statement to have had any meaning, and they haven't that I recall. They would have been promoted after our last few acc basketballs games last season, and I haven't heard that they had been removed from the biggest Joke list of the acc since then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [111]
TigerPulse: 96%
11
|
Re: No ACC appeal process? *
Nov 7, 2014, 11:50 AM
[ in reply to No ACC appeal process? * ] |
|
This call was bovine excrement. Coming after the "it's okay for Wake to put hands to the face, but not Clemson" call, it made the referee crew out there look like paid employees of wFU.
I hate that Smith won't be there for the whole Tech game. I went to both schools. I want to see full teams on both sides!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mascot [28]
TigerPulse: 100%
3
|
Re: No ACC appeal process? *
Nov 7, 2014, 7:18 PM
[ in reply to No ACC appeal process? * ] |
|
The ACC's hands are tied by the NCAA, there needs to be an NCAA appeal process
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solid Orange [1397]
TigerPulse: 100%
28
|
ACC official quote?
Nov 7, 2014, 11:09 AM
|
|
You need to update your article with a quote from the ACC ref official who said on the broadcast that to him it looked like it was a clean hit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet GOAT [∞]
TigerPulse: 100%
∞
|
Re: ACC official quote?
Nov 7, 2014, 11:10 AM
|
|
We have left voicemails for the acc head of officials and are trying to reach him for comment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Elite [69913]
TigerPulse: 100%
61
Posts: 41649
Joined: 2001
|
Can that crew, or individual official, be suspended without
Nov 7, 2014, 11:12 AM
|
|
pay for a game for their error in judgement?
I make a mistake and I get sued.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [6622]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
|
Same here
Nov 7, 2014, 1:26 PM
|
|
I screw up that bad at my job and people may die. As a result, there will be repercussions and consequences. As a ref, you can screw the pooch ever how big and it's no big deal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7980]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
Posts: 22418
Joined: 2002
|
The replay official would have to be the one in trouble
Nov 7, 2014, 2:37 PM
[ in reply to Can that crew, or individual official, be suspended without ] |
|
Can't blame the ref for throwing the flag, watching it live and at full speed thats a tough call to get right. Its the right call to throw the flag and depend on the replay official who has full use of slow motion and other angles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1513]
TigerPulse: 69%
30
|
Re: ACC official quote?
Nov 7, 2014, 11:16 AM
[ in reply to Re: ACC official quote? ] |
|
ACC football officiating is at best--poor game in and game out! At times they seem clueless and at others intent on making themselves the focal point of a given game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rookie [18]
TigerPulse: 71%
2
|
Re: ACC official quote?
Nov 7, 2014, 12:22 PM
|
|
Amen
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [7]
TigerPulse: 100%
1
|
Re: ACC official quote?
Nov 7, 2014, 4:28 PM
[ in reply to Re: ACC official quote? ] |
|
Perhaps there is the Las Vegas influence involved in making and even worse substantiating the "targeting" call.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [62797]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 62814
Joined: 2007
|
Re: ACC official quote?
Nov 7, 2014, 6:05 PM
[ in reply to Re: ACC official quote? ] |
|
Good luck with that but, my money is on you will never get a return over this. That was what is call a flagrant bad call. They know it and will refuse any conversation about it. Here are their feeling exactly about it. It was a flagrant bad call so what do you want us to do, fine or suspend the flagrant bad caller. Well its not going to happen, and if we did that to all our unskilled, uninformed referees, we wouldn't have enough to work one game a week, much less several!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [128]
TigerPulse: 65%
11
|
Re: New Story: Targeting: Smith out for first half at GT after questionable ruling on hit
Nov 7, 2014, 11:23 AM
|
|
The acc official in the broadcast booth that stated the targeting call should be overturned was Doug Rhodes, the head of acc officials.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1910]
TigerPulse: 99%
31
|
This is a shame
Nov 7, 2014, 11:23 AM
|
|
A senior is missing a half of football in a relatively big game in what could very well be his last year playing football, for a hit that is very controversial, with even the head of officials live on air saying it shouldn't be targeting.
The fact that there is no appeal process kind is kind of baffling. What do you lose by having a process? a little more work to do? If a play is targeting and they try to appeal then you simply deny the appeal, but in a situation like this where It is very likely not targeting, the player is the one who's losing.
IMO Smith made an excellent play hitting the player hard right where the ball should have been caught and would have knocked it loose if the Wake player had caught the ball. If he hits low-Smith probably hits him in the groin/knee area (which still could severely injure someone) and if the Wake guy was making the catch, he could have still held on to the ball.
I keep hearing that its because Smith left his feet, well when you have a 6'3" tight end jumping up to get a ball, vs a 5'11" safety, the safety is going to have to get a little elevation to make a play. I think Smith came 2 or 3 inches off the ground before contact. (Not much of a launch)
Dont get me wrong, I dont like seeing dirty hits (like Williams' hit on the punter well after the punt) But this IMO was simply a hard clean hit. (which I like to see) and its a shame any player would be penalized for that
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [261]
TigerPulse: 100%
14
|
Re: This is a shame
Nov 7, 2014, 11:39 AM
|
|
Shame is that all hard hits pretty much get flagged now. Refs hear a good pop, flags come out for targeting, helmet to helmet, etc. Issue was being discussed on 105.5 this morning. NFL and NCAA
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2850]
TigerPulse: 100%
33
|
I guess I don't understand the targeting rule
Nov 7, 2014, 11:41 AM
[ in reply to This is a shame ] |
|
I thought any helmet-to-helmet contact would result in a targeting call and ejection. And there was helmet-to-helmet (or helmet-to-facemask anyway) contact on the hit last night. I don't see how anyone can say that it clearly is not targeting.
I agree that it looked like a good old-school football play. But old-school isn't the way the game is called these days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [598]
TigerPulse: 91%
20
|
Re: I guess I don't understand the targeting rule
Nov 7, 2014, 11:44 AM
|
|
Helmet to helmet is, and should be a penalty. But when you hit a guy with your shoulder square in his chest, any incidental contact with the helmets is NOT a penalty.
It was clearly not targeting. Targeting is when you go at a player above his shoulders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rookie [18]
TigerPulse: 71%
2
|
Re: I guess I don't understand the targeting rule
Nov 7, 2014, 12:20 PM
|
|
Calls just like that one is why there is a no review policy in the account. If they had a review policy it would make the refs look like idiots, in which they are. Sorry refs, they should be suspended for a game. I guess the refs can do what ever they want and get away with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mascot [17]
TigerPulse: 100%
2
|
Re: I guess I don't understand the targeting rule
Nov 7, 2014, 1:19 PM
|
|
From the 2013-2014 Rule Book: (while this is last years rule, I believe this portion is unchanged)
Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the
Helmet
ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an
opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.
(Rule 9-6) (A.R. 9-1-3-I)
Note 1: “Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes
of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a
legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are
not limited to:
• Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward
and forward thrust of the body to make contact in the head or neck area
• A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with
contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the
ground
• Leading with helmet, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with
contact at the head or neck area
• Lowering the head before attacking by initiating contact with the
crown of the helmet
***********************************************************************
If I recall, Doug Rhodes indicated that there was enough shoulder to chest contact to nullify the "head or neck area" criteria.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [27824]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 48313
Joined: 2010
|
Yes, he did.***
Nov 7, 2014, 5:07 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [566]
TigerPulse: 100%
20
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1910]
TigerPulse: 99%
31
|
If your going to say any helmet to helmet contact is
Nov 7, 2014, 12:46 PM
[ in reply to I guess I don't understand the targeting rule ] |
|
targeting, there would be no one left to play the games, especially on the offensive and defensive lines
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2680]
TigerPulse: 100%
33
|
Re: I guess I don't understand the targeting rule
Nov 7, 2014, 2:39 PM
[ in reply to I guess I don't understand the targeting rule ] |
|
Mighty Zep, you must have watched a different hit than the one I did last night. I saw a shoulder hit in the chest area of the receiver. By rule, that is not targeting!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [7]
TigerPulse: 100%
1
|
Re: I guess I don't understand the targeting rule
Nov 7, 2014, 4:17 PM
|
|
There were several calls or missed calls that make one question the ability or integrity of some officials. The fact that this "targeting" call cannot be appealed is a black- eye for the ACC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [598]
TigerPulse: 91%
20
|
Re: This is a shame
Nov 7, 2014, 11:41 AM
[ in reply to This is a shame ] |
|
The hit was NOT controversial. It was a clean hit. The guy in the review booth should be fined and must sit out the next game. There was absolutely no reason to NOT overturn that call.
This is also where I wish Dabo would just go off and call them on it, and our AD should back him up if they (the ACC) were to try and fine Dabo or suspend Dabo for a game. Our AD should just tell them, "Dabo will not sit out a game and you can fine us and we will pay the fine, but they need to be called out.
In fact, that entire crew should have to sit out. That was some of the most JV officiating I have seen in major college football. Some of the calls were head scratchers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [33378]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 48309
Joined: 1999
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [102418]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 98934
Joined: 2009
|
With this kind of chit going on is it any wonder many of the
Nov 7, 2014, 11:45 AM
|
|
better players coming out of HS go to the SEC?
Shoot ACC, you need to make this conference attractive to HS players if you want us to climb to the top of the big five.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2762]
TigerPulse: 100%
33
|
I will say our "final product" sells itself. Cat, Nuk, Andre
Nov 7, 2014, 8:42 PM
|
|
Bashaud, D. Allen, etc has without a doubt been the best marketing both in terms of the two customers listening- the player and the parents (mom most importantly...)
I can't tolerate espn college programming so have been getting my Clemson news here and the NFL channel. There is NO shortage of positive Clemson coverage from the NFL. I've seen nothing but successful productivity and character integrity on NFL channel. For perspective, I've tuned in to coverage of non-Clemson items and have seen two scar segments with one wondering how a 1st round pick could squander such an opportunity, and the other being about a safety that doesn't play with respect.
Clemson's final product is what players and parents want- and that's excluding the no 1 college experience in the country. Fuq the sec. Lets just kick their #### =)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [78571]
TigerPulse: 100%
62
Posts: 120222
Joined: 1998
|
Re: New Story: Targeting: Smith out for first half at GT after questionable ruling on hit
Nov 7, 2014, 12:17 PM
|
|
I'm certain this would be overturned if he were a Tarheel
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3233]
TigerPulse: 98%
34
|
Some of those PI calls and no calls were bs***
Nov 7, 2014, 12:31 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2507]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
Mike Williams was getting mugged, again. Just like BC game***
Nov 7, 2014, 1:06 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Day Hero [4150]
TigerPulse: 100%
36
|
Nikki: what was questionable about the hit??
Nov 7, 2014, 12:38 PM
|
|
even the CYA TV Officiating Expert said it was a bad call and those guys are PAID to make sure every call the refs make is "legitimate".
It was a terrible call and needs to be defined as such.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [858]
TigerPulse: 94%
23
|
Targeting Rule defined
Nov 7, 2014, 1:06 PM
|
|
http://www.afca.com/article/article.php?id=2342
RULES
Targeting and Initiating Contact With the Crown of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3)
No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.
Targeting and Initiating Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player (Rule 9-1-4)
No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 2-27-14)
Note: Beginning in 2013, ejection from the game is a part of the penalty for violation of both Rule 9-1-3 and Rule 9-1-4.
KEY ELEMENTS
Target—to take aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with an apparent intent that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball.
Crown of the Helmet—the top portion of the helmet.
Contact to the head or neck area—not only with the helmet, but also with the forearm, fist, elbow, or shoulder—these can all lead to a foul.
Defenseless player—a player not in position to defend himself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Day Hero [4132]
TigerPulse: 100%
36
|
Words mean things and it's VERY annoying
Nov 7, 2014, 1:10 PM
|
|
when someone in uses phrases like you used here, "despite angles that appeared to show a clean hit, the call was allowed to stand.".
Either it showed clearly, or it almost did. What we saw last night, did not "appear" to show a clean hit, it DID show one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Conference [428]
TigerPulse: 76%
17
|
Re: New Story: Targeting: Smith out for first half at GT after questionable ruling on hit
Nov 7, 2014, 1:15 PM
|
|
I would get a civil lawyer and contest the call to be reinstated for next game. this bunch of ######### were true tarhole refs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Conference [433]
TigerPulse: 100%
17
|
Re: New Story: Targeting: Smith out for first half at GT after questionable ruling on hit
Nov 7, 2014, 1:16 PM
|
|
We struggled in pass defense last time Smith was out. Look for GT to try and take advantage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3722]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
Let's not pi$$ the official off.. we still have GT to play
Nov 7, 2014, 1:17 PM
|
|
The PHANTOM holding call will be roaming the mid field...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [0]
TigerPulse: 100%
1
|
Re: Let's not pi$$ the official off.. we still have GT to play
Nov 7, 2014, 2:09 PM
|
|
Your acting like DS. Stand up for your players. Get it right. CU can afford the fine from the ACC. Man Up Now. It will be good practice for when he meets that Coot Coach at mid field prior to the State Championship. Doug Rhodes Head of ACC Refs said it was a bad call. Spend the hour on the phone and get it over turned. The ACC needs to make it right
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3722]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
You need to turn on your sarcasm meter.***
Nov 7, 2014, 2:16 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [0]
TigerPulse: 100%
1
|
Re: You need to turn on your sarcasm meter.***
Nov 7, 2014, 2:37 PM
|
|
How does Mr. Sarcasm play at Safety?? Hopefully Daabo will not regret blowing this off if GT score on a missed a missed assignment in the 1st half at GT
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [235]
TigerPulse: 100%
13
|
Curious why there is no appeal.
Nov 7, 2014, 2:59 PM
|
|
I don't think you can get mad at the officials on the ground for this call. It was a bang - bang type play, and the aftermath took the Wake player out of the game. Or at least, he went back to the locker room, and I am not sure if he returned. Player safety should be top priority. And the officials have been told to err on the side of caution. So these types of calls on the field should be expected.
Now that being said, I feel like the hit was a good hard but clean hit. Like someone else posted, our guy (98 ?) hitting the Wake punter was more of a cheap shot, than this hit. I don't think the intention of the hit was dirty. I think the intention was to make a hit that would break up the pass. What is concerning is that the review booth upheld the targeting decision while 2 different officials that saw the footage said they did not believe it was a targeting penalty. Now obviously these types of calls can get down to splitting hairs. But from all the accounts that are coming in on this, there is obviously some degree of variation regarding the interpretation of this rule. Again, I have no problem with the call being made. And I can also stomach the disqualification for the balance of the game. Someone has to make the decision, and the game must go on. But in regards to being suspended for the next game, I think there should be a 3/5 member panel of officials that on a weekly basis review these types of calls, and cast a vote. Majority rules. Maybe have the chief official from each group look at the footage and give there judgement. A system like that can at least try to give a measured judgement regarding a "questionable type" call.
Go Tigers
LNT
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [0]
TigerPulse: 100%
1
|
Re: Curious why there is no appeal.
Nov 7, 2014, 3:04 PM
|
|
ACC has no appeal process
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rookie [15]
TigerPulse: 100%
2
|
Re: New Story: Targeting: Smith out for first half at GT after questionable ruling on hit
Nov 7, 2014, 3:42 PM
|
|
That was the worst call of the game. But there were other really lousy calls. The no called pass interference when the defender tripped Stanton Seckenger was a bad one. The one where Dabbo ran out on the field and protested was blatant. The wind was bad enough but the refs working against you made it even worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rookie [15]
TigerPulse: 100%
2
|
Re: Smith Targeting: great hit- Every pro scout loved what they saw
Nov 7, 2014, 4:08 PM
|
|
Smith's draft stock just soared with that hit ??. The whole country grunted on that one ??
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scout Team [188]
TigerPulse: 100%
12
|
Re: Smith Targeting: great hit- Every pro scout loved what they saw
Nov 7, 2014, 5:34 PM
|
|
And if it was the SEC it would be on every time they broke for commercials for a year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
null [null]
TigerPulse: null%
-1
|
|
|
|
|
|
null [null]
TigerPulse: null%
-1
|
Referee's Questionable Call
Nov 7, 2014, 6:16 PM
|
|
What a horrible call by the refs. I believe this is the same "crew" that refereed the FSU game. Does anyone know for certain?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Playmaker [363]
TigerPulse: 100%
16
|
Re: New Story: Targeting: Smith out for first half at GT after questionable ruling on hit
Nov 7, 2014, 10:21 PM
|
|
I did not feel like it was targeting and neither did some of the broadcaster who did the game.
Yes,it was a hard hit and he did hit him high, just don't think it was targeting. Of course, we was in NC. I've never saw so many flags against Clemson this year. Oh well... that was last night.
We have Georgoia Tech this week. Tigers you will need to be on guard focus, believe and execute.
Believe in yourselves and each other just like you have all year. They are elusive but I know you guys can get the job done. GO Tigers ... don't let the yellow jacket sting you. .
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1571]
TigerPulse: 100%
30
|
Somebody check with Vic and see if #77 held on to him
Nov 7, 2014, 10:55 PM
|
|
all the back to Clemson last night or did he finally let go.
On Big G's sack he was held by 2 different guys and still made
made an incredible play. The sad thing as bad a call as the targeting
penalty was it was not the worse call at all last night. That game
was filled with phantom Pass INT's and INT's that were not called.
When they go back and score the Officials on this game they will be lucky
to call a Div III game in the future. If you do not think I am not accurate then
by all means go back and watch this game with a note pad and pen as I did and I found
23 not called penalties and 9 of the called penalties questionable at best.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14640]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
Posts: 13573
Joined: 2001
|
I'm old enough and have worked long enough where to I think
Nov 8, 2014, 9:31 AM
|
|
I have a pretty fair bullsh-- detector. The needle is red-lining right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 53
| visibility 2323
|
|
|
50
