Good thing Bob Sanders was already gone when this all became a thing
Can the Big Ten office overturn the targeting suspension?
- Thread starter NorthernHawkeye
- Start date
I have confidence in the replay officials over the opinion of forum expert officials. They are actually trained to make the distinction; where as, forum expert officials have a tendency to not know what they are talking about and to wear black and gold tinted glasses too much.
A
anon_i8nzeu2gbf0ba
Guest
Then you're either one of them, or maybe the review official's mother. Anybody who thinks the review booth knows what the hell is going on has never watched college or NFL football. The booth blows calls every freakin' week, and this is simply the latest one.
Read the freakin' rule, watch the video, and then explain how Jones was targeting. It is impossible, no matter what color glasses you're wearing.
And you might also know that many posters on this site have been similarly outraged by equally egregious calls on games that didn't involve Iowa. Football fans want the game to be called fairly, no matter what teams are involved.
Finally, if you want to see a textbook example of targeting, look at Easley's TD catch near the end of the first half. Minnesota's #36 launches and hits Easley helmet-to-helmet. But not only was there no flag, there also was no review by the booth. Watch that and come back and tell me about how brilliant the booth officials are, you poser.
The challenge with this subjective call is that they are trained to throw the flag when the hit has the appearance of being vicious which automatically will send it to the booth. What can happen is the targeting can get removed, but they will keep the PF defenseless player penalty so the defensive player/team will come out on the short end. Additionally, they are trying to completely remove the "decleat hits" so the defensive player has lost the ability to seperate man and ball.
I think the call will be upheld by the B1G because he lowered his head even though the hit was from the shoulder and in the acceptable strike zone.
What is the point of the rules official if he says it can go either way? If you are the expert, make the call.
I think the call will be upheld by the B1G because he lowered his head even though the hit was from the shoulder and in the acceptable strike zone.
What is the point of the rules official if he says it can go either way? If you are the expert, make the call.
Trouble is the officials seem to be of the “It was a hard it, so it must be a penalty” mindset.
The thing about the officiating yesterday that bothered me the most was the constant BLATANT holding by Minnesota. With the official standing right there, no less.
The thing about the officiating yesterday that bothered me the most was the constant BLATANT holding by Minnesota. With the official standing right there, no less.
If Jones had actually been guilty of targeting - hitting the receiver in the head - the WR would certainly not have bounced right back up. When it happened live, I immediately thought he would get called for targeting, but after seeing the replay I changed my mind and thought the officials would overturn it. I should know better. Poor call no matter how you look at it.
That, and the fact that there were two or three plays where they could have called targeting on the gophs and didn't. The play with Jones was not targeting at all by definition and the rules analyst stated as such.
ISM was also whacked head to head on the series previous. You could hear it in the upper deck. No call.
I think the "lower the head" criteria is when you actually make contact with the head, not the shoulder. Looks like he used the shoulder, not the head, and should not have drawn a targeting penalty.
This crew essentially rewrote the rules such that attempting to tackle a receiver in the act of catching the ball in any manner is by definition targeting, which we all know is complete BS.
Yes the Hawk defenses of 2002-04 would have had this called a lot. Of course, they would have changed how they tackled likely. I still remember Pagel smacking the Wisconsin QB in 2002 (not sure who) over by the sideline. Helmet to helmet as the QB was trying to get out of bounds. Still was in-bounds, totally legal play then but today would have been a flag and ejection from the game.
KF said on the post game show that he thought the B10 would probably review the suspension this week (presumably because he'll be calling about it).
These replay officials have no clue how fast these things happen on the field.
Great reference. That guy was true definition of a head hunter. Remember had an old vhs of the nfl hardest hits that I got in the early 90s and he made his fair share of appearances. Wish still had that with way nfl now sure have erased or tried to rid themselves of as many videos like this they use to profit off of back in the day.
yah... thats not what I asked...
if you hit somebody with your shoulder on a play like that... how do you do it without lowering your head?
You don't, of course.
The only reason they can call it is when and if the helmet does hit the player. Even though he did not hit him in the neck or head with his helmet he did make contact on the shoulder with it, confusing the point enough, and giving the refs the opportunity to call it the way they did. As soon as the call of targeting is made, it seams that its all about justifying the call with an error toward safety.
The lesson is, the helmet cannot be involved in a hit like his.
glen mason has black and gold tinted glasses? Really? LMFAO nice try bud.....
from what I understand... the helmet is only half of the equation... if a defender hits a defenseless player with HIS helmet... its Targeting.
if a defender hits a defenseless player in the head... regardless of whether he uses his helmet shoulder or foot... any part of his body hits the head area of the defenseless player... its Targeting.
in the case of Amani Jones.. it appeared to me that Jones hit the defenseless player with his shoulder into the chest.
whether Jones lowered his head or not should be irrelevant since he never hit the player with his helmet.
listening to Kirk Ferentz in the Post Game.... he made it sound like this thing will be reviewed..... and can be overturned....
if this is true... I fully expect this to be overturned.
players make mistakes
coaches make mistakes
fans make mistakes
so also do officials make mistakes.
So you can't
Yes, this is a big problem. Has too much of an impact on games. You can't ***king tackle anymore. You do and you get ejected. What BS.
Oh contrer, Jones did strike a glancing blow to the receivers shoulder with his helmet. Agree with everything else you said. Regardless, I hope Ferentz can get Jones's suspension lifted.
I actually don't believe Jones' helmet was involved in that hit... what so ever.
when you look at the Live angle... Jones' helmet does not move... at all.
you can theorize that the helmet touched the jersey of the Minnesota player... but that shouldn't be an issue... the impact was clearly caused by the shoulder of Jones.
I still don't know if its possible they overturn this ruling or not.
but if it is, I am certain they will.
So when will a player on offense be called for this life threatening situation? I see lots of players on offense lower their heads and launch themselves forward. The QB for Minnesota did it trying to score a touchdown into a stationary Iowa player with the hope of being able to go through him to score.
That's why they review it. If, in there perception, the helmet wasn't involved, I have no earthly idea why they would call targeting, unless, it was called purely on hitting a defenseless receiver. Bad call anyway you look at it. I just hate the tendency we have been seeing lately it seems that refs assume the worst, call targeting and unless there is clear evidence that targeting did not occur, you remain guilty. Guilty until proven innocent.
yah... I can't figure out what they saw to justify the ejection... I do, however, like the rule... I think its a good rule... I just hate when they get it wrong.
it should be more black and white...and less gray.
I also hate that players are held accountable
coaches are held accountable
but officials are not held accountable
would be nice to get a response from the person who made that decision to eject Jones.
Normally, I'm in favor of the rule.
However, in this case, watch the receiver's helmet when Jones hits him. The receivers helmet slams FORWARD since the impact was on his chest. It's only the whiplash that causes his head to go backwards. That is the clear indicator of a clean hit in my view.
However, in this case, watch the receiver's helmet when Jones hits him. The receivers helmet slams FORWARD since the impact was on his chest. It's only the whiplash that causes his head to go backwards. That is the clear indicator of a clean hit in my view.
I suggest it may have been a penalty for unnecessary roughness (hitting defenseless player), but certainly not targeting.
My understanding is the B1G will review it and issue a judgement this week.
Officials are held accountable. Just not the instant justice many would like to see. Each official gets graded each game and some get fired or reprimanded at the end of the season.
Agreed. 15 yards for roughness...fine. But if that was targeting there were at least 3 other plays (IKM, ISM and Easley) that were clear helmet-to-helmet hits on IOWA players. They were all crystal clear on replay yesterday.
Let's hope IOWA's film guys clip those and send them in with the appeal.
There is a difference
yeah, if that doesn’t get overturned, what’s the point of the having the appeal? Pretty clear cut. If that’s an ejection, they are making their own rules as they go.
I think the B10 has enough cover here to keep the ejection. I should look again, but I do think AJ 'launched'/(left his feet to make forcible contact) himself. And he hit him in the chest, which is 'close' to the head, neck, & shoulders.
It was clean, but it was violent. They don't want to go overturning these types of calls. I'm not saying right or wrong...just saying that's how these things are being adjudicated these days...
When Stone got the interception at the end of the game, the MN receiver threw an elbow at his head. Should have been a 15 yarder, but wasn't.
I've yet to see the Big Ten make such a decision or even a statement regarding such a matter ever since the ejection penalty came into play.
Yeah, it's egregious that even after watching replays, they STILL eject him. Yet ignore legit targeting. WTF?
Exactly. If replays clearly show the call was BS (and they do) yet the conference rejects the appeal, or upholds the call on the field, then it makes a mockery of the appeal process. A gross abuse of power and bias.
I'm going to call up the NCAA and have them fire all the current replay officials and have them hire you and some other posters on here. You guys are absolutely spot on and brilliant.
Similar threads
