"It was a high hit, (and) we don't teach that," Perry said. "So that's on me.

Donate To GopherHole
S

Some Day...Is Coming!

Some Day...Maybe?
Joined
Sep 13, 2011
Messages
1,572
Reaction score
0
Points
36
"It was a high hit, (and) we don't teach that," Perry said. "So that's on me.

I extended my arms though, so it wasn't all head. I think that's what saved me."

This was the quote from the Ohio State linebacker who hit Leidner. I know, move on. I'm done with it after this, but I just wanted those that don't read the pioneer press to see this quote. It was just so blatantly obvious, and now their linebacker admits it was a "high hit", and to the head, because by virtue of saying "it wasn't all head" he is admitting it was head. Awful, gutless call by the replay booth. No need to lower the head and hit a DEFENSELESS player in the chin. FYI, the linebacker is 6'4". This is the exact crap that they need to get rid of. All you tough guys who disagree, let's put the pads on and you be the QB and I'll be the linebacker and we'll see how you feel when we're done. I guess it helped that Leidner is about as tough as you'll find.
 

Two games in row they pick up flags with huge consequences for our rodents.
 

It wasn't all head. That more than implies there was some contact to the head. Just frustrating.
 

It was the wrong call. It wasn't targeting, it was roughing the passer.
 

just watched again, it was definitely contact with the head. It is mind-boggling that they pick that up.
 


I totally believe the conference was to determine what to call it and decided to call it targeting so it would be reviewed and overturned. I'm still frustrated about this call because there have been plenty of times they call that against us. Plus it happened two weeks in a row on crucial plays.
 

I didn't think it was targeting or even worthy of roughing. He hit the QB in the chest. Not a big deal.
 

OK Oleboy, I'd like to know what the difference is between the hit below and the hit on Mitch. It was pretty clear to most of us. We can argue about whether the penalty should exist, or exist in its current state, but there are reasons they call these things, just like illegal formation, offside, false start.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/jSQ9t1gvM48" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

Why would Perry go high when he had a clean shot at the QB? Why not just hit him clean in the chest?

It's not really that arguable.
 



I don't like the rule as it is, but with the way the rule is, that absolutely should have been called targeting.
 

I've heard announcers say many times when in doubt, they'll call it targeting because protecting the defenseless player is priority #1. If true and in this case, it is impossible to justify picking up the flag. It had huge implications on the outcome of the game.
 

oleboy41 said:
I didn't think it was targeting or even worthy of roughing. He hit the QB in the chest. Not a big deal.
Click to expand...

Watch the video...it was targeting and should have resulted in a game disqualification as well as the 15 yards.
 





Some Day...Is Coming! said:
Wrong. And you're not even close.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

After seeing the video it was targeting. I was not wrong, prior to that my point was that the officials said that he was hit in the chest and slid up to the face mask, that's roughing the passer.
 

SJUgopher said:
After seeing the video it was targeting. I was not wrong, prior to that my point was that the officials said that he was hit in the chest and slid up to the face mask, that's roughing the passer.
Click to expand...

It was targeting, you said it wasn't, that constitutes being wrong. It's ok to admit it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

My entire childhood my dad claimed left and right while watching sports that "it's fixed" and I called him crazy. After watching these past few games and referees in general the last few years. Non-call on roughing the passer vs Michigan: brutal. Non-call on targeting vs tOSU: brutal. Non-call on the TD where tOSU clearly pushed off AND the ref is looking straight at the play from 15 ft away: brutal.

While "fixed" may be a strong word, it does seem like tOSU, Michigan, and bigger programs/teams always seem to get the close calls... Where on the scale of subconscious referee bias towards favorites to "fixed" this falls I do not know.
 

Hollinsanity said:
My entire childhood my dad claimed left and right while watching sports that "it's fixed" and I called him crazy. After watching these past few games and referees in general the last few years. Non-call on roughing the passer vs Michigan: brutal. Non-call on targeting vs tOSU: brutal. Non-call on the TD where tOSU clearly pushed off AND the ref is looking straight at the play from 15 ft away: brutal.

While "fixed" may be a strong word, it does seem like tOSU, Michigan, and bigger programs/teams always seem to get the close calls... Where on the scale of subconscious referee bias towards favorites to "fixed" this falls I do not know.
Click to expand...

There were a few PI call's not called against us as their guy was falling all over out WR while trying to catch the ball, but since he turned his head at one point to see the ball it wasn't a PI. I understand both players have an equal shot technically to catch the ball, but you can't be tackling the WR as he's trying to catch it and not throw a flag just because his head turned at one point to "see" the ball.
 

Hollinsanity said:
My entire childhood my dad claimed left and right while watching sports that "it's fixed" and I called him crazy. After watching these past few games and referees in general the last few years. Non-call on roughing the passer vs Michigan: brutal. Non-call on targeting vs tOSU: brutal. Non-call on the TD where tOSU clearly pushed off AND the ref is looking straight at the play from 15 ft away: brutal.

While "fixed" may be a strong word, it does seem like tOSU, Michigan, and bigger programs/teams always seem to get the close calls... Where on the scale of subconscious referee bias towards favorites to "fixed" this falls I do not know.
Click to expand...

Yep. Its called The Buckeye Treatment and its been going on for years. It isn't a level playing field when a team like Minnesota is playing Ohio State.
 

It wasn't a cheap shot but it was an illegal hit. Hits like that do just happen, I'm sure it wasn't intentional. Anyone who has played the game understands that, but in 2015 it is a penalty.

The most frustrating thing in the last two games was the official made the call on the field and then was overruled by either replay or another official.
 

MNfootballfan said:
It wasn't a cheap shot but it was an illegal hit. Hits like that do just happen, I'm sure it wasn't intentional. Anyone who has played the game understands that, but in 2015 it is a penalty.

The most frustrating thing in the last two games was the official made the call on the field and then was overruled by either replay or another official.
Click to expand...

The point is for the target to be changed or action to be changed. By picking up the flag, they in essence are saying the play is legal. When safety is the goal and doubt come in, it should be a foul.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

The semantics of what was called allowed the head referee to pick up the flag.

SJUgopher said:
It was the wrong call. It wasn't targeting, it was roughing the passer.
Click to expand...

Calling the wrong thing, allowed the head referee to get his way and overturn the call.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom