All Activity

I was thinking take the points. And still believe that was the correct call to get 2 scores up. Worked out fine. Hindsight 20 / 20

ouch!! luckily no concussion.

Oh, Boo-Hoo!

Charles, you are on a roll! Thank you

As an Ol' Offensive lineman...I've got a new Man-Crush.

This guy has some outstanding analysis videos this last week...

For the young players--this could have been overwhelming...

We understand, Penn State fan...we've been there!

I am REALLY warming up to Alex Harkey, No. 71...

Damn....I wince seeing this again.

Yeah, you never truly know how the rest of the game would have played out if you could go back in time and change one of those decisions. The FG that was missed was by no means a gimme, but the 4th down yardage needed was much longer, I believe. I generally like Dan's aggressiveness. But the one I noted above felt like too much for me. PSU hadn't been able to do anything offensively at that point. The FG was a chip-shot, and would have made it a 2-score game. I was all about taking the points there. Good thing I'm not making the calls. And the thing we'll never know in the moment is how good they feel about a particular play in a particular situation that gives them the added confidence to go. That run by Davison was blocked perfectly and made it look easy.

You’d think intent would be the primary factor for a rule that has a word describing intent in its name.

What scares me the most is not the concussion risk, though it is more common with a blow to the head, but the risk of C-spine injury. Modern helmets are designed to absorb most of that concussive blow, but do not prevent the sudden flexion, extension or compression of the neck that can result in cord trauma. It was unnerving to see Lamar's head snap back from the impact knowing what was happening to the C-spine

Saw this on reddit and thought I should share:

When they start excusing it by saying, "well, that looked closer to hairline impact, rather than actual 'crown' of the helmet", methinks somebody is looking for a way to excuse...

Good sir, I concede your point as it further reinforces my premise that the Ducks have not rebuilt so much as reloaded. Dream on!

I believe that's what they sing after all of their top 10 losses, the Blues. 🤣

One other point. That's also irrelevant. I don't think the PSU player's action was malicious. He wanted to make a play and Limar was already low to the ground, he may have already been down. But intent has no say in the rule. There are some actions players take that it looks intentional and malicious and I do believe those should be punished more than incidental contact. The reality is that to make this rule really about player safety any helmet to helmet contact that takes place should result in all parties involved leaving the game to get checked out by a third party doctor/medical specialist to assess for concussion. Ejection from the game should only be enacted if the conduct appeared malicious which goes to intent which is always difficult to determine but somehow you just know it when you see it. I know players are no longer required to leave the stadium for targeting but are effectively suspended for 1 half of game play. I probably can write more on this topic and there is a lot more to get into but the rules are play right now are for show and frustrating.

If you ask me, it's targeting. There was helmet to helmet contact and the defender did seem to launch himself. Incidental contact is often something where the offensive player moves in a split second and there is no way for the defender to move. Also... The targeting rule is all about safety theatre not player safety. I wrote the article below a few years ago but I think it's still relevant to this. https://fishduck.com/2022/03/the-targeting-rule-is-not-about-player-safety/

Maybe they should try a Blue-Out?