Well this settles the targeting/not targeting argument

Donate To GopherHole


Yeah the replay angle they had on the game still showed his head reacting first, but it wasn't clear. I have no clue what evidence they used to overturn. Well, I do but.
 

Looks like no contact made to the chest area. Still not a great chance we win if this goes our way, but man that is just bad.

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

Total bs call. That angle clearly shows the refs were 100% wrong in picking up the flag. But the big ten wants osu in the playoffs so we are not going to be given any calls. F-ing sucks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 


GO4INLALALAND said:
Total bs call. That angle clearly shows the refs were 100% wrong in picking up the flag. But the big ten wants osu in the playoffs so we are not going to be given any calls. F-ing sucks.
Click to expand...

+1
 

Section2 said:
Yeah the replay angle they had on the game still showed his head reacting first, but it wasn't clear. I have no clue what evidence they used to overturn. Well, I do but.
Click to expand...

+1. I thought it was interesting they only showed the most inconvenient camera angle about 7 times and no other angles.
 


No way they could of seen this angle, regardless that replay official should be done. In comp e tence. Wow does that make me angry. It's the same as Cochran last year! Why are they so stupid to allow this???


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 



Why am I surprised at all. Dang play changes the whole game and of course we are screwed because of it. If there is replay use it right and get the call right. Incredibly frustrating.
 

I just tweeted that thing everywhere!!! NCAA reviews all those plays and can suspend player even if flag picked up. Let's see what happens. Just talked to a good friend of mine who refs D2 football and that's what he said protocol is. Gophs can submit that to NCAA, and they better.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Is this a situation where the replay official must either uphold and say targeting or dismiss and say no foul? i.e. was there a middle ground where the official can say, not targeting but still a flag? Just curious.
 

badgergopher said:
Is this a situation where the replay official must either uphold and say targeting or dismiss and say no foul? i.e. was there a middle ground where the official can say, not targeting but still a flag? Just curious.
Click to expand...

Yes, if they call a late hit with targeting, they could review and retract the targeting call but still assess a late hit. If this flag was only for targeting and not a late hit, then when they retracted the targeting it's no longer a flag.
 



Catechol said:
Yes, if they call a late hit with targeting, they could review and retract the targeting call but still assess a late hit. If this flag was only for targeting and not a late hit, then when they retracted the targeting it's no longer a flag.
Click to expand...

So the answer in this case would be no since all they called on the field was targeting. It was all or nothing.
 

How can professional officials with replay technology possibly innocently be this incompetent? If the ACC suspended their officiating crew, someone should be sanctioned for this. In addition to being a huge play that was clearly called incorrectly, this one impacts player safety.
 

Wow.... I was listening in the car on my way home from out of town, I had the OSU feed on XM radio and they made this such a non-issue and were not surprised at all.... I wish I would have known better, would have kept me up a bit more during the ride given the extra adrenaline from rage!
 

So sickening. Why even play the games? Maybe B10 should start a "Non Helmet School Low Revenue Division"

It could have MN, IA, PU, NW, IU, Illini, Rutgers

B10 could have a presser announcing new alignment "We guarantee no more fixed games for these teams, although they won't be eligible for College Football Playoff."
 

The part I love is that the official on the field was about 10 feet away staring straight at it with no one in between them and threw the flag immediately. Yet, the replay official saw indisputable evidence (which it takes to reverse the call) that the hit was to the chest. Regardless of targeting, it's still fricken' illegal to hit someone with the crown of the helmet! Replay official suspended, linebacker suspended for first half of next game.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

badgergopher said:
Is this a situation where the replay official must either uphold and say targeting or dismiss and say no foul? i.e. was there a middle ground where the official can say, not targeting but still a flag? Just curious.
Click to expand...

No, can't. And the rule is absolutely stupid. Flag should stand as a personal foul. They need to change the damn rule! The chicken sh^} replay officials don't want to eject so they error on that side.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Some Day...Is Coming! said:
The part I love is that the official on the field was about 10 feet away staring straight at it with no one in between them and threw the flag immediately. Yet, the replay official saw indisputable evidence (which it takes to reverse the call) that the hit was to the chest. Regardless of targeting, it's still fricken' illegal to hit someone with the crown of the helmet! Replay official suspended, linebacker suspended for first half of next game.


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

Is indisputable evidence the standard for these targeting reviews? I know that is the standard for other replays.

The NHL does a pretty neat think with disciplinary hearings where the Director of Player safety narrates a multi-angle, slow-motion replay of the incident and explains what factors they considered and how they interpret parts of the video and what the ultimate decision is. I would love to see the Big Ten do something like that with this video. Transparency is nice.
 

when the officials were discussing the call - you could actually see the one official bullying/snarky laughing at the ref who made the call. 2 weeks in row of picked up flags.
 

After that play on saturday I never want to hear any BS about "protecting the players" ever again.
In the NFL you can brush your hand against a QB's facemask or helmet and it's 15 yards.
The rule for college should be the same, or eliminate it all together. Call it roughing or stop pretending you actually care about player safety.
 

bleedsmaroonandgold said:
Is indisputable evidence the standard for these targeting reviews? I know that is the standard for other replays.

The NHL does a pretty neat think with disciplinary hearings where the Director of Player safety narrates a multi-angle, slow-motion replay of the incident and explains what factors they considered and how they interpret parts of the video and what the ultimate decision is. I would love to see the Big Ten do something like that with this video. Transparency is nice.
Click to expand...

It sure as the heck should be if it isn't. Why have different standards for replay?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

I saw someone on twitter say the coaches are upset and submitted the video to the Big Ten but no one thinks they will do anything about it. Don't remember who posted it though.
 

Part of the problem is Mitch is too tough. He should have lay prone on the ground a while (like almost every other qb would). Instead he gets up and tries to stop the DB from scoring. Would have ben much harder to pick up the flag if there was a possibility of him being injured.
 

I guess we should just accept that it's good for the league if OSU goes undefeated and competes for a national title, and our role is just cannon fodder in that cause.
 

MNVCGUY said:
So the answer in this case would be no since all they called on the field was targeting. It was all or nothing.
Click to expand...

Except their explanation for overturning it was that there was no contact to the head or neck which is complete BS.
 

It seems that many Ohio St fans think it was still the correct call because the defender "clearly led with his arms". To me this clearly shows he didn't.

<img src="https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/xQAn4m-eid1-3XF8giVq6w4hZ0k=/360x240:3000x2000/709x473/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/47612225/GettyImages-496179838.0.jpg">
 

http://collegefootball.ap.org/article/targeting-penalties-remain-roughly-same-last-year

"What officials look for are what the rulebook calls targeting elements: crouching and hitting with an upward thrust; launching into a player to hit them in the head; contact above the shoulders on a defenseless player; leading with the crown of the helmet."

Lots of judgement in this call. At the end of the day I'm surprised it was taken away by replay. The whole intent of the rule is for players to lower their target.
 

That's just sickening to see that replay. Its laughable that they can say that they could overturn a call on the field and say that contact wasn't to the head or neck area. What a joke. Of course the Big Ten, the officials, and the replay officials will never have to answer for this, just as they won't have to answer for the flag that was picked up against Michigan.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom