|
Replies: 12
| visibility 2554
|
Head Coach [971]
TigerPulse: 100%
24
|
Roughing call that set off Big Mack!
2
Nov 20, 2023, 7:38 AM
|
|
|
|
Had some say the roughing the passer call against UNC at the end of the first half was a BS call. If you didn’t watch until well after the play (and after Brown’s time out rant at the refs) you may have missed the replay that clearly shows a forceful hit to the helmet of Kublik. Can you imagine Brown’s outrage if a Clemson player had done the same to Maye and there was no roughing call?!?!!
Great Tiger win, now just need one more this month!
GO TIGERS!
|
|
|
|
 |
Clemson Icon [24077]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 20311
Joined: 2011
|
The last 3-5 years they've been calling almost ANY hit
6
6
Nov 20, 2023, 8:10 AM
|
|
to the head area after an attempted pass black.
Whether anyone thinks it's Ticky Tac or NOT, it doesn't matter, it IS the Rules. I can think of 4-5 of these type calls against Clemson over the last few seasons, didn't like em, but that's the rules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7980]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Re: The last 3-5 years they've been calling almost ANY hit
Nov 20, 2023, 8:45 AM
|
|
I agree with everything you said. Personally, I think the rule needs to be tweaked in some fashion. I didn't think the hit was "forceful", but he definitely made contact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [102960]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 98975
Joined: 2009
|
The defenders arm was going at full speed to disrupt the pass.
Nov 20, 2023, 8:56 AM
|
|
He was carelessly going for the QB's arm and hand with total disregard for anything else. The fact that it wasn't a knockout blow is seen in the photo. Cade had dodged, moving his head to the left away from the blow which made it a glancing-like strike.
The defender was over joyed to have the opportunity to hit Cade and got out of control. Cade played him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7980]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Re: The defenders arm was going at full speed to disrupt the pass.
Nov 20, 2023, 9:16 AM
|
|
Okay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [4757]
TigerPulse: 82%
37
|
Re: The last 3-5 years they've been calling almost ANY hit
Nov 20, 2023, 12:03 PM
[ in reply to Re: The last 3-5 years they've been calling almost ANY hit ] |
|
Those big guys don't have to take aim or have any bad intentions to ring the QB's bell on a play like that. That is why the refs call ANY contact to the head.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Conference [407]
TigerPulse: 100%
17
|
Re: The last 3-5 years they've been calling almost ANY hit
1
Nov 20, 2023, 8:47 AM
[ in reply to The last 3-5 years they've been calling almost ANY hit ] |
|
We had one of those where our defensive player hit the helmet (minor hit) and it was called on us. None of us liked it, but the rule is the rule.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3382]
TigerPulse: 100%
34
|
Re: The last 3-5 years they've been calling almost ANY hit
Nov 20, 2023, 11:22 AM
|
|
If I recall, one like this was called on XT this year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14599]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
Posts: 23670
Joined: 2004
|
Exactly
1
Nov 20, 2023, 11:13 AM
[ in reply to The last 3-5 years they've been calling almost ANY hit ] |
|
You can disagree with the rule, but this gets consistently enforced by the refs. It was a penalty and it got called.
If UNC wants to gripe about something it should probably be the unnecessary roughness call before that, or the lack of a measurement on the 3rd down conversion by Cade. I thought it looked like he made it, but then the refs pretty clearly marked the ball short of the line yet signaled 1st down anyway and allowed us to snap the ball without a measurement or review. That was a weird sequence.
The Cade TD was also a little questionable, but it really could've gone either way and there was no way they could overturn it after calling it a TD on the field. I think he probably did break the plane there, but it was incredibly close.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3283]
TigerPulse: 94%
34
|
So . . . what exactly is the rule?
Nov 20, 2023, 11:51 AM
[ in reply to The last 3-5 years they've been calling almost ANY hit ] |
|
I thought it looked like he was already in the process of trying to hit Cade but then the release happened and there didn't seem to be enough time to pull back. I saw the replay during the game and still thought that, but maybe there's some aspect to the rule that's more specific than what I'm considering. Is there a rule that any head contact in that situation trumps any of those consideration and that all head contact is therefore categorically a foul?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [10900]
TigerPulse: 100%
45
|
Mack and his RT owe XT
1
Nov 20, 2023, 11:28 AM
|
|
Dinner and a movie.
He got hugged, neck grabbed, pulled to the ground, jersey pulled, hugged some more, a few more neck grabs and I'll bet XT didnt even so much get a call the next morning.
And if anyone wearing light puffy blue gets invited to NY for the Heisman it should be #28. That dude is a monster
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5511]
TigerPulse: 100%
38
|
Re: Roughing call that set off Big Mack!
Nov 20, 2023, 11:36 AM
|
|
I hate the rule unless its bad, but I remember point blank XT and Trotter being called for the same exact thing in a game last year. So it is what it is, good call...tough rule.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Elite [69800]
TigerPulse: 100%
61
Posts: 90838
Joined: 2001
|
The defender clearly hit CK on the head...
Nov 20, 2023, 1:18 PM
|
|
If the defender doesn't hit CK on the head, the ref likely keeps the flag in his pocket.
As another poster mentioned, some may argue that it was a "ticky tac" call, which is totally irrelevant. That is the rule and it was the right call.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 12
| visibility 2554
|
|
|
50
