RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: SouthGARef on October 13, 2013, 06:00:42 PM
-
Wasn't a real fan of the reversal here, does anybody have the capabilities of getting video? Believe it happened in the third quarter.
-
This one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Sen08GFF3Y (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Sen08GFF3Y)
or this one: http://youtu.be/YB0HOSNw98M (http://youtu.be/YB0HOSNw98M)
-
The one in the first quarter really surprised me, especially when the defender's first reaction was an "Oh CRAP" expression.
-
I was speaking of the first one. Sorry I got the time stamp wrong. I just don't see how that can be reversed.
-
I found it hard to believe they could reverse it. The more I see on targeting, the less I understand it.
-
IDK. Looks pretty evident to me.
-
Ejection for both - I see no mitigating circumstances here - they both launched.
-
I don't understand the reversal on the first one. The second one makes sense because it looks like he intended to wrap up, realized the ball was thrown so tried to hold up, but still made contact. I would have no foul on the second one, but can see why the R threw it.
-
Seems to me the IR official(s) are really intent on keeping players in the game. When this started I was expecting a number of ejections, and even at HS level they have not come to pass.
Would like to see the official count, but seems to be less than expected.
-
I thought there would be fewer targeting calls in HS since the penalty is so severe and there is no way to verify you got it right. No hard factual data but anecdotally it does seem there have been fewer targeting calls.
-
Good call by the replay official in both of them. The first one, the player led with a shoulder and met at the shoulder, and the second one may be roughing the passer, but absolutely not targeting.
-
A lack of consistency especially in the IR booth will contribute greatly to the confusion regarding the rule. I know A&M has to be confused after the explanation issued on the Everett DQ that was upheld in the Rice game.
-
Good call by the replay official in both of them. The first one, the player led with a shoulder and met at the shoulder,
Look at where his helmet goes, he hits him in the chin with his helmet.
-
If player safety is our goal, then too close gets you 15 and a shower.
If not, just look the other way. If you were ever on a field where a player died, maybe your thought process would be a touch less forgiving. Having the kids parents tell you it was not your fault is helpful but don't make it go away.
-
A lack of consistency especially in the IR booth will contribute greatly to the confusion regarding the rule. I know A&M has to be confused after the explanation issued on the Everett DQ that was upheld in the Rice game.
This. How was Everett ejected for a much cleaner and more clear cut hit with the shoulder to the shoulder and the first one against Evans gets reversed.
First off, he launched. both of his feet were off the ground when he made contact and he definitely pushed up. Second, while his shoulder made contact with Evans shoulder, his helmet also made contact with Evans helmet. (1:15 shows the start of the launch, 1:16 shows contact with the helmets).
As far as high school goes, I have only had one close call so far this year. What I mean by that, the player missed. All the elements were there (launch, leading with the elbow) he simply missed and didn't make contact.
-
So that play gets overturned, but this gets upheld:
(http://cdn.fansided.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/229/files/2013/10/raydrew.gif)
The problem isn't the rule. The problem is the absolute inconsistency in the process. You can't blame this on different coordinators, either.
-
Hard to understand why this one was upheld and even why was this called targeting instead of just roughing
-
(http://cdn.fansided.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/229/files/2013/10/raydrew.gif)
Targeting. Ejection. Confirmed by replay.
(http://cdn1.sbnation.com/assets/3417153/mizzouqb_medium.gif)
No foul.
I am thoroughly confused.
-
USA Today is now reporting that the Vanderbilt/Georgia targeting call is the worst call of the 2013 college football season.
-
USA Today is now reporting that the Vanderbilt/Georgia targeting call is the worst call of the 2013 college football season.
Yeah well everyone's an expert these days.
-
Yeah well everyone's an expert these days.
+1
-
Did anyone else notice that the R in the Vandy clip was already pulling his flag out before contact was even made. Rule #1: Do not anticipate a foul.
-
I think maybe he double clutched on the block prior to the RPS. Can't believe he'd be that quick on the RPS.
-
Did anyone else notice that the R in the Vandy clip was already pulling his flag out before contact was even made.
To do something like that is way out of character for him.
-
Others have speculated that the initial pulling of the flag was for a holding. I'm inclined to agree.
-
I caught my attention too - and I spent some time looking around for something else he could ahve seen before the action on the QB.
I couldn't find it, but hopefully that is why he was so quick.
-
Others have speculated that the initial pulling of the flag was for a holding. I'm inclined to agree.
It's still waaayyyy out of character for that particular official to pull a flag out only to tuck it back in.
-
This one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Sen08GFF3Y (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Sen08GFF3Y)
or this one: http://youtu.be/YB0HOSNw98M (http://youtu.be/YB0HOSNw98M)
The first one made the training tape:
Excellent call on the field. Should not have been overturned.
-
The play from the first link is on Rogers' video this week. He didn't like the reversal either. I agree, this one should have been upheld.
Maybe it's time to consider altering this rule so that any Targeting calls stand as penalties and the DQ aspect is only applied after a post-game review. Then the DQ'ed player would be required to sit the next athletic event they're scheduled to participate in. This would allow the call to be made without fear from the official of being incorrect and depriving the team of their player for the rest of the game.
-
Might want to send that one in cause I am pretty sure they are going to be looking for some fixes after the issues this year.
-
Wouldn't that just make the rule the same as last year?
-
Wouldn't that just make the rule the same as last year?
Yup and then the flagrant offenders that deserve to be ejected, won't be.
-
Another clear targeting tonight in the Baylor OU game reversed by replay. What in the hell are these guys looking at because it isn't the rule. Repeat after me: HEAD OR NECK AREA. Since there is very little neck area visible or open between the shoulder pads and helmet, the fact that the defender got a lot of shoulder pad does not mean it wasn't targeting.
I can't believe that the officials are largely getting it right on the field and replay is getting it wrong.