30Duck Moderator No. 1 Share Posted November 28, 2021 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Fischer Administrator No. 2 Share Posted November 28, 2021 Not often enough! But luck can come quickly! 1 Mr. FishDuck Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annie No. 3 Share Posted November 28, 2021 Was the beav defenseless? That's one factor. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
30Duck Author Moderator No. 4 Share Posted November 28, 2021 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck1984 No. 5 Share Posted November 28, 2021 It appeared to me that McKinley had eyes on the ball and expected an interception until he noticed the receiver coming, then he went into a defensive posture resulting in a bad collision. The receiver played the ball the entire time, as trained. Neither player avoided the collision. The refs made the right call if they saw two players collide while attempting a catch. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven A Moderator No. 6 Share Posted November 28, 2021 Can the Pac 12 still review it? I think in the past, the league office has reversed some targeting calls allowing the offending player to play the next week. Looked like targeting to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DurangoJim No. 7 Share Posted November 28, 2021 On 11/28/2021 at 11:49 AM, 30Duck said: I feel he and that second OSU player should be tossed for the whole next game. (Ripping the helmet off and the swipe in the back of the head). Both were egregious acts of anger and should not be tolerated. This was not targeting nor an emotional tackle, which is during the act of game play. This was a bar room brawl with intent to do harm after a play. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck1984 No. 8 Share Posted November 28, 2021 Do we really care if Beaver players are punished after the game? I wish them well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck82 No. 9 Share Posted November 28, 2021 Completely disagree with statement “if in doubt it’s a foul”. Watch the SEC…50/50 calls almost always (90% of the time) go to the higher ranked team. There is so much money on the line. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blowcheese No. 10 Share Posted November 28, 2021 On 11/28/2021 at 10:49 AM, Duck1984 said: It appeared to me that McKinley had eyes on the ball and expected an interception until he noticed the receiver coming, then he went into a defensive posture resulting in a bad collision. The receiver played the ball the entire time, as trained. Neither player avoided the collision. The refs made the right call if they saw two players collide while attempting a catch. The refs did make the right call. They called targeting because McKinley had every chance to not lead with his head but he did. That play is always ruled targeting and there was no hesitation, they threw the flag even Mario pointed Mckinley to the replay screen when he cried that he didnt mean to. The reasons for overturning the call were never explained, which is convenient. Its nice to see at least some duck fans admitting the obvious: it was targetting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
30Duck Author Moderator No. 11 Share Posted November 28, 2021 On 11/28/2021 at 2:08 PM, Blowcheese said: Its nice to see at least some duck fans admitting the obvious: it was targetting. We call it as we see it here, either way, respectfully. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck 1972 No. 12 Share Posted November 28, 2021 I don't believe the targeting foul is anything but smelly. I think intentionally launching should be the only factor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrJacksPlaidPants Moderator No. 13 Share Posted November 28, 2021 (edited) On 11/28/2021 at 5:08 PM, Blowcheese said: The refs did make the right call. They called targeting because McKinley had every chance to not lead with his head but he did. That play is always ruled targeting and there was no hesitation, they threw the flag even Mario pointed Mckinley to the replay screen when he cried that he didnt mean to. The reasons for overturning the call were never explained, which is convenient. Its nice to see at least some duck fans admitting the obvious: it was targetting. Not even close. That’s why the refs came back so quick with their decision. He hit the receiver in the shoulder. He didn’t use the crown of his helmet nor did he make forcible contact to the head or neck of a defenseless player. Watch the replay again. Edited November 28, 2021 by DrJacksPlaidPants 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wood Duck No. 14 Share Posted November 28, 2021 That didn't look like targeting to me. I understand trying to limit helmet to helmet contact, but it will never be eliminated entirely (unless you eliminate helmets) Looked to me like his facemask mostly hit shoulder pad. I sure didn't see him launch head first into the receiver. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
1Ducker1 No. 15 Share Posted November 28, 2021 On 11/28/2021 at 3:00 PM, DrJacksPlaidPants said: Not even close. That’s why the refs came back so quick with their decision. He hit the receiver in the shoulder. He didn’t use the crown of his helmet nor did he make forcible contact to the head or neck of a defenseless player. Watch the replay again. The shoulder was hit first if you watch in slow mo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nw777b No. 16 Share Posted November 28, 2021 On 11/28/2021 at 2:08 PM, Blowcheese said: The refs did make the right call. They called targeting because McKinley had every chance to not lead with his head but he did. That play is always ruled targeting and there was no hesitation, they threw the flag even Mario pointed Mckinley to the replay screen when he cried that he didnt mean to. The reasons for overturning the call were never explained, which is convenient. Its nice to see at least some duck fans admitting the obvious: it was targetting. It was targeting. You are incorrect about it always being called. I don't have a specific example, so that's weak sauce, but the calls on the field, after a review, and remotely by the Pac12 are horribly inconsistent. What is not in dispute is a haymaker thrown at a defenseless player from behind during a dead ball. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
30Duck Author Moderator No. 17 Share Posted November 28, 2021 On 11/28/2021 at 3:33 PM, nw777b said: he calls on the field, after a review, and remotely by the Pac12 are horribly inconsistent. I feel like the Targeting Rule is ill conceived from the start. The intent is player safety, and that's fine. But the penalty is too severe when it comes down to a judgment call. Intent should be the rule, and should not be open to interpretation on a legitimate infraction. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpecialK No. 18 Share Posted November 29, 2021 Or hurts us like at Stanford! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Fischer Administrator No. 19 Share Posted November 29, 2021 On 11/28/2021 at 6:11 PM, SpecialK said: Or hurts us like at Stanford! SpecialK...great to see you post as a new member. Share your thoughts often and WELCOME! Mr. FishDuck Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DuckHeart No. 20 Share Posted November 29, 2021 Never thought it was targeting. Didn't launch, not crown of helmet. Just watched it again. View from end zone camera showed it to be facemask to shoulder pad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Ducky No. 21 Share Posted November 29, 2021 I have no idea what Targeting, holding, pass interference, roughing the QB are any more. All of these are not called consistently. Drives me nuts. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blowcheese No. 22 Share Posted November 29, 2021 On 11/28/2021 at 6:42 PM, DuckHeart said: Never thought it was targeting. Didn't launch, not crown of helmet. Just watched it again. View from end zone camera showed it to be facemask to shoulder pad. facemask to shoulder pad? huh? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nw777b No. 23 Share Posted November 29, 2021 Receiver had time to brace for impact after not catching the ball. He was defenseless. Vernon had time to change posture and lower head after the ball whizzed by, as well. Contact was made above the shoulders. It doesn't even have to be the helmet, but it was. Both players heads were forcibly bounced to the point their bodies were thrown apart from each other. Vernon's feet were leaving the turf prior to impact. Looks like launching to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrJacksPlaidPants Moderator No. 24 Share Posted November 29, 2021 (edited) On 11/29/2021 at 1:08 PM, Blowcheese said: facemask to shoulder pad? huh? Yup. And his eyes were up, so no crown of the helmet. On your screen shot he was still a foot or so away from the WR. Edited November 29, 2021 by DrJacksPlaidPants 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
