Everyone of these officials need suspended

Donate To GopherHole
I have not had a major problem with the other targeting calls we have gotten so far this season but this one was a terrible call. It will be a real shame if there is no way for the BIG to go back and reverse the ejection allowing Rallis to play the full game next week because he got hosed on that call.

They definitely need to take a hard look at the rule and the way it is enforced in the off-season. I absolutely get what they are trying to accomplish with the rule but there is way too much inconsistency right now with the way it is being enforced.
 

This just in ------ the B1G has just called a targeting penalty on Winfield, Jr for the 1st game of the 2017 season.
 

Carlson 79 said:
I've seen some horrific officiating meted out to the Gophers over the years, but this crew today has to rank at or near the "top". Unbelievable bias, all game long. The lame-a$$ black linesman would ALWAYS give Purdue an extra foot or two on his spots, just trundle on out there and manage to replace the ball up field a bit for the Boilers. The OL for Purdue got away with takedown after takedown. And the targeting on Rallis? One of the worst miscarriages of justice, ever. Totally threw a wet blanket over what should have been a nice, come-from-behind win. Totally puts us on the ropes before we even set foot on the field at Lincoln next week. This crew should be fined, and suspended. Outrageous.
Click to expand...

How about the lame-a$$ WHITE referee who made the targeting call. I noticed you didn't mention the racial makeup of the other refs. Must be a Trump supporter.
 

Horrendous call. I don't even understand the rules anymore.
 

I'm still steamed about the call that they reversed last year against OSU, that hit against Leidner wasn't targeting but a shoulder to shoulder hit is?
 


dannygopher9100 said:
I'm still steamed about the call that they reversed last year against OSU, that hit against Leidner wasn't targeting but a shoulder to shoulder hit is?
Click to expand...

This one?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WyqwFV5ftI4?start=2910" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

What frosts me is that the White Hat gives a first down indiscriminately. At least 3 times it looked short of the first down, but he eyeballs it and moves the chains. Too close to do that imo
 

Alabama defender just drilled the LSU QB in the head when sliding and no call. No consistency.
 

Absolutely unreal. Not only did they call it poorly on the field, but also "confirmed" it upon replay. I really want to know which replay they were reviewing. No camera angles even showed head contact on TV reviews.
 



Fans need to storm the field on sh/t like this, it would have been a prefect opportunity ... Games almost over almost no chance for the opposing team to win.. I say the fans shoul have interrupted the game..
 

Carlson 79 said:
I've seen some horrific officiating meted out to the Gophers over the years, but this crew today has to rank at or near the "top". Unbelievable bias, all game long. The lame-a$$ black linesman would ALWAYS give Purdue an extra foot or two on his spots, just trundle on out there and manage to replace the ball up field a bit for the Boilers. The OL for Purdue got away with takedown after takedown. And the targeting on Rallis? One of the worst miscarriages of justice, ever. Totally threw a wet blanket over what should have been a nice, come-from-behind win. Totally puts us on the ropes before we even set foot on the field at Lincoln next week. This crew should be fined, and suspended. Outrageous.
Click to expand...

Pompous Elitist said:
Good rant but you forgot the missed PIs vs Carter and the bogus PI on Beebe, the botched bobble "catch" in the first quarter. Pretty amazing.
Click to expand...
This is all well and good. If we don't want to play the game that the refs let us play, then we do have to challenge the quality of the work of the referees with the B1G Conference and potentially the NCAA.

To challenge something to an athletic conference and it's governing organization, you need to have both you athletic department and school administration covering your back. Unfortunately, our athletic department and school administration are engaged in battles over territory and authority within the school. This means neither can cover your back for issues like this.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
 

Whole heartily agree. I am convinced that all officiating crews receive communications from the Big Ten office alerting the crews about the up coming games with particular teams involved. For Minnesota be alert to targeting. And of course our AD is new and hiding under his desk and has a coach who he didn't hire. So no support. And the gutless official had to call one with less than 2 minutes to play. I just watched the Penn State MLB meet the Iowa QB on a sneak helmet to helmet in the air. The QB got knocked back 2 yards. Absolutely helmet to helmet. No penalty. Ridiculous.
 

GophersInIowa said:
Alabama defender just drilled the LSU QB in the head when sliding and no call. No consistency.
Click to expand...

There's plenty of consistency. Its consistently flagged when its Minnesota, and consistently not when its Alabama or when Leidner is on the receiving end of the hit.
 



gopher7 said:
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Click to expand...



Honestly some of the targeting calls this year we earned.

Others were questionable.

That is bonkers..... were they replaying the play in their head up until the next play and then decided it was targeting?
 

Jack jones said:
Whole heartily agree. I am convinced that all officiating crews receive communications from the Big Ten office alerting the crews about the up coming games with particular teams involved. For Minnesota be alert to targeting. And of course our AD is new and hiding under his desk and has a coach who he didn't hire. So no support. And the gutless official had to call one with less than 2 minutes to play. I just watched the Penn State MLB meet the Iowa QB on a sneak helmet to helmet in the air. The QB got knocked back 2 yards. Absolutely helmet to helmet. No penalty. Ridiculous.
Click to expand...

A defenseless WR is completely different than a ball carrier going head first to get a first down and LB is trying to stop it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Yes the rule requires a defenseless player. I do believe spearing someone in the head *should* be a penalty and I'm not sure why it isn't. Those vids I posted above were clear examples of unnecessary headhunting. Or the Iowa players hit on Leidner. It's a judgment call but like pornography you know it when you see it. That doesn't fit the prose of the NCAA rule book.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Yes the rule requires a defenseless player.
Click to expand...

This is wrong.

Today's call was complete garbage, but there is already so much confusion about this rule, please stop adding to it.

"Targeting" as called on the field is actually two things:
1. Targeting (Rule 9-1-3) - launching, crouch/trust, hitting head (with arm, shoulder, helmet, etc.), and leading with the crown of the helmet (which is what I'm guessing the call was today), and a bunch of other unnamed stuff that a ref thinks is targeting on that particular day.
2. Hit to the head/neck area of a defenseless player (Rule 9-1-4) - fairly self explanatory, although the definition of a defenseless player is also commonly misunderstood.

Violations of either rule carry the exact same penalty. There is a process through which the conference can make an appeal to the "national coordinator of football officials" to have the suspension reversed.

Read about it here (page FR-88)
 

Didn't want to start a whole new thread for this, but remember when the gophers got called for leaping to block a punt early in the season? (Barber I think)
Did you see this play yesterday with no penalty? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIVb4cZetxk
 

I have never seen it called if there wasn't a defenseless player. Perhaps you have, but I haven't and there have been many obvious spearings. If article 3 were enforced (as written) in the same manner as article 4 football as we know it would cease to exist. Tacklers go high up around the head and neck all the time, unnecessary for making a tackle and they may bump helmets, etc but I've never seen a flag. Running backs lower their crowns into their opponents, is that necessary? Never a flag.
 

That targeting and the way it was called...... complete bull****
 

The Gophers get more of the targeting calls to go against them. Yet, that hit on Leidner in the Iowa game should have been called and the player ejected.

Seeing what others have posted from hits in the SEC games that were called great hits where really good cases of targeting.

There is no even enforcement between conferences and within conferences. tOSU will always be football royalty and they get the benefit of the doubt in most occasions. The NCAA can kiss Urban Meyer's royal arse because it smells good right now.

It is what it is. The Gophers will have whipping boy status until they join the upper tier club and start winning consistently and more often.
 


The thing people miss is that the official calling the foul gets one live look at it.

The philosophy is that when in doubt, it is targeting. Just like when it is in doubt, the pass is incomplete and not a catch and fumble.

The replay showed that Rallis lead with crown. The replay doesn't clearly show the helmet to helmet contact. Yes there was shoulder contact.

It's a judgement call that if not called, likely the game just moves on.

It's not as cut and dry as people think.

Are there stats out there? Do Gophers lead country in ejections? Does Big Ten lead country in ejections?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

CurveballJesus said:
So I just watched it back, and none of the officials were "conferring" before throwing the flag, as they had all gone back to their positions for the next play. That means that the official who threw the flag either

1. Was watching the replay (maybe not in the rulebook, but I would assume a huge no-no); or

2. Got buzzed from the booth. (which I think is in the rulebook that it cannot happen)

There has to be some sort of appeal process, especially after that dink came out and said they got the reversal on OSU's hit on Mitch last year wrong. (9 months too late)
Click to expand...

This may have been answered before. As a reminder, the B!G replay official can make the call. At the game, I couldn't believe it was ruled targeting-my opinion hasn't changed-the expletives have.

http://btn.com/2016/09/28/big-ten-responds-to-penn-state-michigan-targeting-ejection/

Prior to the 2016 season, the NCAA granted additional authority to Replay Officials when reviewing on-field targeting calls by changing the standard of review. As a result, the Replay Official now has the authority to re-officiate and review all aspects of the on-field targeting call and in the absence of specific indicators identified by NCAA targeting standards, the Replay Official can reverse the on-field call. Additionally, Replay Officials have the ability, and responsibility, to independently review potential targeting plays that are egregious and not seen, or called, on the field. Protecting the health and safety of our students will continue to be our highest priority.
 

Maxy, you're the rules expert here. What is your take on the defenseless player? Necessary for targeting? If not, why aren't these other hits called?
 

Ewert86PC said:
This is all well and good. If we don't want to play the game that the refs let us play, then we do have to challenge the quality of the work of the referees with the B1G Conference and potentially the NCAA.

To challenge something to an athletic conference and it's governing organization, you need to have both you athletic department and school administration covering your back. Unfortunately, our athletic department and school administration are engaged in battles over territory and authority within the school. This means neither can cover your back for issues like this.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Anyone in for a class action lawsuit?
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Maxy, you're the rules expert here. What is your take on the defenseless player? Necessary for targeting? If not, why aren't these other hits called?
Click to expand...

If it's a ball carrier they are not defenseless in my interpretation. They have to be defenseless to be targeted. I believe college and HS are different in that HS you can call helmet contact as a foul. College it has to meet targeting criteria.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

MaxyJR1 said:
If it's a ball carrier they are not defenseless in my interpretation. They have to be defenseless to be targeted. I believe college and HS are different in that HS you can call helmet contact as a foul. College it has to meet targeting criteria.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
They do not have to be defenseless to be targeted. You are incorrect
 


Targeting and Making Forcible Contact
With the Crown of the Helmet
ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 9-6) (A.R. 9-1-3-I)

Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player
ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)
Note 1: “Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball.

Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:
• Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area
• A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground
• Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
• Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet
Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14):
• A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
• A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to
receive a backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
• A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return.
• A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier..
• A player on the ground.
• A player obviously out of the play.
• A player who receives a blind-side block.
• A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose
forward progress has been stopped.
• A quarterback any time after a change of possession
• A ball carrier who has obviously given himself up and is sliding feet-first.

Tons of gray areas in the rule, but here is key: “Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom