30Duck No. 1 Share Posted Monday at 07:58 PM They couldn't get anything after the Oregon game, but try, try again worked for Ohio State. Arvell Reese targeting suspension vacated after Ohio State files Big Ten appeal WWW.ON3.COM . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
criticalduck No. 2 Share Posted Tuesday at 12:13 PM Funny how the B1G goes to the rescue for one of their "standard bearer" schools yet they let the crappy officiating continue for the west coast schools...especially the #1 team in their league. Wait, I mean the #1 team in OUR pond!! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
30Duck Author No. 3 Share Posted Tuesday at 01:15 PM The B1G definitely didn't want OSU undermanned, for the game @ Penn State, they can't do anything about the injuries to the OL, but a targeting call? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woundedknees No. 4 Share Posted Tuesday at 04:09 PM (edited) The precedent was set a week ago, when the rain of water bottles in the Texas end zone resulted in the on-field call being reversed in favor of Texas... https//www.protect-the-blue-blood-elite.ncaa.org Or should tha be .dis-org ? Edited Tuesday at 04:14 PM by woundedknees Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Joseph Moderator No. 5 Share Posted Tuesday at 08:29 PM Simply a bad call near the end of the game. Targeting should have been reversed and it wasn't a personal foul. tOSU D guy now has to sit out the 1st half at Penn State. Male Bovine Excrement. I get why Day went nuts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastBayDuckDad Moderator No. 6 Share Posted Wednesday at 01:16 PM Targeting.... Don't launch No helmet to helmet No crown of helmet Don't touch 'defenseless' player Forfeit 15 yds and at least a half of a game All in the interest of player safety, but it has gone way over the top with every hard football hit getting reviewed. Not sure then how to judge Noah's truck stuck on that poor, defenseless Illinois DB, as Illini fan has complained it should have been targeting. Pretty soon it'll all be powder puff flag football. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
30Duck Author No. 7 Share Posted Wednesday at 01:35 PM On 10/30/2024 at 6:16 AM, EastBayDuckDad said: Pretty soon it'll all be powder puff flag football. Today, there would be a flag on this one. For something. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastBayDuckDad Moderator No. 8 Share Posted Wednesday at 01:42 PM On 10/30/2024 at 6:35 AM, 30Duck said: Today, there would be a flag on this one. For something. I believe that is prosecutable as attempted murder in 38 states and the District of Columbia. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MicroBurst61 No. 9 Share Posted Wednesday at 03:33 PM On 10/30/2024 at 6:16 AM, EastBayDuckDad said: All in the interest of player safety, but it has gone way over the top with every hard football hit getting reviewed. Once the NFL owners lost the class action suit And strike demands from the players union, regarding CTE and head injuries it has (purposely) been a continued focus regarding the elimination of head injuries. Forcing the team owners to use some of all that sweet, sweet profit from use of players bodies (and minds) to...God forbid...take care of the men that are the basis of all that sweet, sweet profit. Primarily because of these dynamics, football at all levels, have severely scaled back the inherent "violence" associated with 250+ lbs, athletic human beings colliding with each other week in and week out, throughout their careers. Has it fundamentally changed the game? Absolutely. Does it make it less entertaining? Absolutely Not. But the "over emphasis" regarding penalizing, to the max, any hit above the shoulders, is hampering free flowing football play and needs to be addressed. I had read somewhere, sometime ago, that the need to have different levels of "targeting" would help in keeping players safe while maintaining the flow, and spirit of the game. If launching at another player, with head on head contact (ie: what we consider a classic example of targeting) then the current rule and penalty applies. However have a second level of "incidental" targeting for times like this tOSU/Neb call. Maybe along the lines of a 15 yd, personal foul penalty but with no ejections. Football is always going to be an evolving sport and I am glad that there are real world attempts at making it safer for it's participants. There just needs to be some balance and consistency in officiating these types of plays. Everyone in football "knows and coaches" current proper tackling techniques. There is no longer a reason to go "overboard" when officiating potential targeting calls. Let's hope for the sake of the quality of the game that this gets addressed at all levels of football. Until then though, GO DUCKS! 1 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
30Duck Author No. 10 Share Posted Wednesday at 04:43 PM On 10/30/2024 at 8:33 AM, MicroBurst61 said: However have a second level of "incidental" targeting for times like this tOSU/Neb call. Maybe along the lines of a 15 yd, personal foul penalty but with no ejections. Yes. In basketball there are flagrant 1 and flagrant 2 penalties, 2 being the worst. In football, there should be targeting 1 & targeting 2. Launching, head to head should qualify as 2, with ejection. Now, it doesn't need to be head to head, any contact in the head area constitutes targeting, but shoulder to head should be targeting 2, 15 yard penalty, no ejection. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drake Moderator No. 11 Share Posted 23 hours ago On 10/30/2024 at 6:16 AM, EastBayDuckDad said: Not sure then how to judge Noah's truck stuck on that poor, defenseless Illinois DB, as Illini fan has complained it should have been targeting. Natural reaction when a defender lowers his head and is aiming at the family jewels. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Marsh No. 12 Share Posted 23 hours ago On 10/30/2024 at 6:16 AM, EastBayDuckDad said: All in the interest of player safety, but it has gone way over the top with every hard football hit getting reviewed. The reality is that it isn't really about player safety but safety theater. There are some hits that are dangerous but aren't targeting. There are some targeting hits that are so minor and incidental that they should be a foul. The problem is always about the written rules and trying not to leave too much up to refs making a call on the field. They have to make enough of those as it is and they're not hitting them at a perfect rate already. If we want to take player safety seriously when a big hit happens with helmet to helmet contact both players need to be removed from the field and be checked out by a third party. Intent is something that should be evaluated. Lowering the helmet and launching is obviously bad form and should be targeting. A defender trying to get low to make a tackle on a shorter runner who makes a quick movement and there so happens to be helmet to helmet contact shouldn't be a foul. Though if the hit is hard enough the players should be looked at. Helmet sensors should be a part of every teams equipment to measure impacts. A third party should be in charge of watch those sensors and pulling players off the field if they trigger. I'm not saying a coach doesn't care about his players or the medical personnel don't care, they absolutely do, but you don't want there to be any questions about why a player wasn't pulled to be looked at. Football is a dangerous game and there is no way to take he danger out of it. But there are ways to insert safety into the game. Agree or not these are the sort of real steps needed to actually address safety. 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
