SJB - Targeting Rule discussion

That's interesting! Either something is broken or about half the people online in the last few minutes all +1'd that post. I gave him another just to see if it was working. Weird.

 
Ha ha! +25 and counting. Best post evar in the history of HB!
default_laugh.png


 
Well if that's all it takes to get extra rep points............I've got some sh#t to set straight with knapp too.

Edit- haha, I plus 1'd it to help the count and it jumped from 25 to 27.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I guess my biggest problem with this rule is that ejection is the automatic default position. How about they automatically review targeting calls, hell maybe all personal fouls and unsportsmanlikes, and then decide whether or not to eject? I realize that doesn't cure the problem or assure a consistent review decision but it would be a start. I have no logical explanation for why the three calls I witnessed Saturday all came back with the wrong review decision imo. Maybe it is the newness and lack of guidance for enforcement.

Back when I reffed bball, they instituted a zero tolerance policy for coaches getting off the bench. First game I did qith my partner, a ninth grade game, the home coach (from our junior high, and my partners ex HS defensive backs coach) stood up right at the opening tip off and my partner whistled him for a technical. Literally only one second into the game. Maybe we've got sort of the same thing going on in CFB now......

 
This is an interesting little puzzle, and actually way more interesting than the conversation itself. A quick recap:

TTR posted his last post in this thread at 8:50pm, saying basically the same thing he's said throughout the thread. Fifteen minutes passed from TTR's post to Accountability's post at #163, during which time one other person posted - me.

I read Accountability's post just after he posted it because I wanted to put that edit in saying TTR and I should have a beer again, and TTR's post had maybe one +1 at that time.

Thirty-two minutes later, HuskerShark posts saying how surprised he was that TTR's post had +24. There were 62 people online from the time TTR posted until HuskerShark noticed it had gone up to 24. Which is not unusual for traffic on the site at that time of the evening.

After it was initially noticed, seven more people have been curious enough to push the button on that post to see if something was up with it, so we can discount from the anomaly every +1 from Shark first noticing it until now (we'll stick with 24-ish). That means that in excess of 20 people gave that post a +1 in just over half an hour. No other post in this thread has more than eight +1s, and one other has six.

TTR has seven other posts in this thread, again saying basically the same thing he's saying in this post - yet none of them have a single +1.

The likelihood that just under 1/3 of the people online at that time not only read that post, but also agreed with that post, and then hit the +1 button, in a matter of 32 minutes, is not high.

Let's just say that would be... unprecedented.

Don't know if it's a board glitch, or if there's some other explanation. But we can all appreciate the uniqueness of it. It's a bit of entertainment in an otherwise boring off week.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
whateveritis1224 said:
True to the Red.......Always said:
What don't you people get about this? Where are SJB's eyes when he makes the hit? HE IS STARING AT THE GROUND. Which means he was leading in for the hit with the crown of his helmet. In any fundamental tackling drill, I've never heard a coach tell you not to look at who you are tackling. Head up, wrap up, drive through with your shoulders. In many cases, you will jam your neck up pretty good when tackling like SJB did.

Like I said before, I don't like how football is being pussified either but this rule is in existence, and that hit was illegal in accordance with the rule. Period. We all like big hits, but anymore it seems the bigger the hit, the more it costs your team. Especially now with the ejection rules. So the simple fix is to stop f'ing tackling this way. I don't see them changing this rule.

/ thread.
Click to expand...
I don't think the majority of people have a problem with targeting being called. It's the fact that the ejection was upheld when worse and more egregious hits (even later in the day) haven't had the player disqualified.
Click to expand...
I still don't see how SJB targeted the players head when the ball came flying loose at contact. SJB obviously targeted the football. If the player's head was intentionally targeted, then SJB failed.

 
JJHusker1 said:
Don't get all butthurt. I think everyone realizes that the crown of SJB's helmet grazed the guys face mask. According to the rule, that is a penalty. We all realize he could've used better mechanics that would've placed him in an eyes up position and thereby possibly dodging the penalty and ejection.

The problems are obvious though-

1- There was no intent to target or injure and, in the case of that specific SJB, it should not have resulted in an ejection. If anyone wants to maintain that hit is what they should be enforcing and ridding the game of, then football is dead.

2- Also, most people realize that what happens/happened on other hits or in other games doesn't have anything to do with SJB. BUT, those other hits are relevant and should be considered. When other conferences, other games, other hits are not treated equally, the rule is creating unfair circumstances. You really can't have a sporting contest when players/teams/games/conferences are held to differing standards of enforcement. When/If that is the case, football is dead.

3- I think we all have a basic idea of what type of hits should not be allowed in the game. Launching with the intent to spear or contact with the crown of the helmet is what needs to be ejection worthy. Not incidental, glancing blows that are going to happen no matter how hard a guy tries to avoid it. A 15 yard penalty is stiff. An ejection could be a game deciding event.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. SJB's helmet barely grazed the opponent's facemask. By the way, I started a company that makes oversized facemasks that extend the about 4 inches lower than those used today. I have a meeting tomorrow with the Husker Athletic department to supply these to all offensive ball carriers. I am guaranteeing that the opposition will not have enough players to field a defense by the 3rd quarter of any game if this BS rule is enforced.

 
I made it forty just for the hell of it. I saw the number of +1s and was like wow, this must be the post to end all posting on the board. Turns out it was a TTR quality post that I would generally agree with, but it wasn't the chosen post. I then scroll down only to realize it isn't the case that that many people liked it that much.

 
Back
Top