Tiger Board Logo

Donor's Den General Leaderboards TNET coins™ POTD Hall of Fame Map FAQ
GIVE AN AWARD
Use your TNET coins™ to grant this post a special award!

W
50
Big Brain
90
Love it!
100
Cheers
100
Helpful
100
Made Me Smile
100
Great Idea!
150
Mind Blown
150
Caring
200
Flammable
200
Hear ye, hear ye
200
Bravo
250
Nom Nom Nom
250
Take My Coins
500
Ooo, Shiny!
700
Treasured Post!
1000

YOUR BALANCE
I was at game - questions
storage This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
Archives - Tiger Boards Archive
add New Topic
Replies: 14
| visibility 1

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.

2024 white level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Ball was tipped before the LOS, but barely.***


Dec 4, 2016, 8:08 AM



military_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgringofhonor-74tiger.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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!

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

null


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.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

You have no clue what you're talking about***


Dec 4, 2016, 11:20 AM [ in reply to Re: I was at game - questions ]



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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?

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Replies: 14
| visibility 1
Archives - Tiger Boards Archive
add New Topic