Can the Big Ten office overturn the targeting suspension?
- Thread starter NorthernHawkeye
- Start date
Lets hope so. What a terrible, terrible call. How someone could watch that on replay multiple times and conclude that Jones did anything wrong, I have no idea.
Don’t know if they have the authority or not but I am sure they won’t.
A
anon_i8nzeu2gbf0ba
Guest
It's the usual bull***t. Like I said in its own thread, #36 of Minnesota hit Easley helmet-to-helmet on the TD pass late in the first half, but there was no flag and no call from the booth. That was textbook targeting, and it was totally ignored.
Jones, on the other hand, hit the receiver just as he touched the ball with his shoulder in the receiver's chest. Like Phil Parker has said many times, I don't know how you're supposed to play football if that's an illegal hit. I know this: Bob Sanders would be proud, and it was a helluva legal hit. And on the next to last play of the damn game.... And Niemann got hurt on the LAST play of the Wisky game. Wow....
So now Iowa's lost 2 MLBs today. Nice....
Jones, on the other hand, hit the receiver just as he touched the ball with his shoulder in the receiver's chest. Like Phil Parker has said many times, I don't know how you're supposed to play football if that's an illegal hit. I know this: Bob Sanders would be proud, and it was a helluva legal hit. And on the next to last play of the damn game.... And Niemann got hurt on the LAST play of the Wisky game. Wow....
So now Iowa's lost 2 MLBs today. Nice....
Because he was “defenseless” does that make it targeting by definition, regardless of whether he hit him with his helmet or hit him in the head? Because he did neither of those things
It damn well better get overturned. Complete horse crap call. Officials should be the ones suspended. If you watch a replay that many times and conclude that that was targeting, you've got no business being a B1G official.
They won’t, even though they should. Ridiculous
Bullsit. That’s a football play with his shoulder. Let’s our flags on everyone.
I hope so.
I'm so sick of officiating when it comes to replay. How hard is it to look at the play over and over again and get it right?
If that was targeting, then no one can be tackled when attempting a catch.
I'm so sick of officiating when it comes to replay. How hard is it to look at the play over and over again and get it right?
If that was targeting, then no one can be tackled when attempting a catch.
Even the accouncers including Mason the Minnesota apologist thought it wasn’t. Horrible call. If jones is out I’d assume Welch is starting at MLB next week. Just assume with hockaday on crutches will probably be out. I thought jones came in and did a good job too.
same thing happened to OSU at PSU last week kid led with shoulder and hit below the head.....bad call
I was watching the game, but couldn’t hear it. I thought it would get overturned on review as it looked like shoulder to chest. What did the “rules expert” guy say?
Yep. Who is ready for two hand touch, so we can watch replay of whether the D got two hands on the QB before he released the ball? Boy that will be fun
Rules "expert" was worthless. Said... "Will be an interesting replay call". Basically didn't want to say that it shouldn't be a flag, cause didn't way to bash a bad call.
Jones was good on run support, but needs to improve against the pass.
He said the receiver was defenseless, but implied that it wasn't targeting.
Some of these replay officials for the network are like weathermen. Always hedging. It's always "a tough one to call" or like today "it will be interesting." No f'in poop hence the replay. Like a weatherman. Party sunny with a chance of rain. What the hell does that tell me?! Every day I need sunblock and an umbrella?
BTN announcers for the most part are atrocious - and pretty clueless when it comes to player knowledge on teams outside of Ohio State. You have one job.
KF said on postgame radio show that the Big 10 office will look at it. obviously if its upheld, Jones can't play 1st half of the next game
No player shall target and make forcible contact tothe 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:
What section here upheld the call?
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 thrustof 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
What section here upheld the call?
They need to come out and say what exactly he did wrong.
And if they try to call him "defenseless".....he didn't even have the ball in his hands when he got hit!
And if they try to call him "defenseless".....he didn't even have the ball in his hands when he got hit!
Not agreeing with the call, but the player doesn’t have to have the ball in hands to be considered defenseless. He certainly was defenseless. I don’t believe there’s a question about that.
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
Horse shit call. Jones did not duck his head until he was square and attacking the offensive player in the torso.
Defenseless or not. He didn’t break any other part of the rule.
I can see how they called it live but after the review....terrible
It appeared to me on replay that Jones lowered his helmet and leading to hit the receiver's shoulder with mostly his shoulder but also with a glancing blow from his helmet. If anything, it was the lowering of his head and his glancing blow from his helmet while the receiver being defenseless that was upheld as targeting. I think the helmet was not the primary part of the hit, there was no launch and no striking of the neck or head. Targeting should not have been called, should have been overturned. I hope the League Office can and does overturn.
Last edited:
The clause that says.... "It looked like a hard Hit and we called it targeting on the field.... So let's stick with that"
They had to keep the call for shockvalue reasons. I was texting someone saying can you believe the uproar when they reverse this and Minnesota actually gets the 15 yard penalty? Not gonna happen.
That was a crap call. What player in there right mind can make a subjective decision whether a player is defenseless or not. Just plain stupid.
Because he didn’t believe he did anything to warrant an ejection. And he’d be correct.
You’ve never been called for something so completely wrong, that all you could do was laugh?
I don’t know what replays they showed at the game, but on TV it looked like a a good shoulder to shoulder hit. Even if it was a penalty for defenseless player, that’s not an ejectionable penalty.
Similar threads
