Targeting

[iahawks10]

It was the rule book definition of targeting. How it was reversed is baffling.

Defender led with the crown of his helmet to the facemask of a defenseless player.

That crew last night had some odd officiating when it came to reviews.

 

[iahawks10]

The hit on Stanley was the interception. I thought that was rather high too. Not complaining, but I think that is definitely a penalty in the NFL and I don’t think you could have argued a ton against a NCAA targeting call if it had been made.

Saw that too. Stanley’s head snaps back on that play.

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

Um, it wasn’t missed. It was called and upon review reversed.

And they got the reversal wrong just like the TD reveiw.......

 

[HaydenHawk8]

We will see in the film review. Every game is reviewed and the nations coordinator of officials put out training videos where they show highlights of missed calls or correct calls and they explain why/why not the call was made.

I think the one on Stanly will be a missed one. The one on the TE I think it will be supported as a good review and no call.

The missed TD for PSU will be the main topic. Do not get how you miss that? That was an obvious TD. Iowa got the benefit on a LOT of calls last night.

 

[H4wkfan4life]

Call from Big Ten office reminded the crew that PSU needs that guy next week against Michigan. Easy to wave off the flag at that point.

that's about the only thing I can come up with.....

 

[Nipigu]

And they got the reversal wrong just like the TD reveiw.......

Because you’re more knowledgeable and skilled than the professional official?

 

[denmar81]

Because you’re more knowledgeable and skilled than the professional official?

They’re not professional officials. It’s a part time gig and they do get things wrong. Which last nights game showed.

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

Because you’re more knowledgeable and skilled than the professional official?

Lol "professional"......

 

[grayhair81]

Because you’re more knowledgeable and skilled than the professional official?

You mean the guy who reffed college ball and was the head of officials for the Pac 10? He was the one that used the term text-book targeting.

 

[HaydenHawk8]

You mean the guy who reffed college ball and was the head of officials for the Pac 10? He was the one that used the term text-book targeting.

Is that the same PAC 10 that had issues with officials and replay officials botching replays??? That guy will call any high hit targeting after their disaster a few years ago.

 

[grayhair81]

Is that the same PAC 10 that had issues with officials and replay officials botching replays??? That guy will call any high hit targeting after their disaster a few years ago.

Yup. I am sure there are people on here that have better knowledge of the rules than he does. People see what they want to see. I agree the TD was a TD. I was stunned it was overturned just like I was the targeting being overturned.

 

[yessir321]

For gods sake the refs did everything they could to help Iowa and you all want more? Lol

 

[Nipigu]

Lol "professional"......

Yep, I was incorrect using the term professional, but I’ll give him deference over your call from the cheap seats.

 

[FormerPlayer07]

I think the reversed targeting call was bad, but how bout the no call on #54 when he drilled Stanley in the facemask as he was throwing the ball. They didn't flag it, they didn't review it, but I thought it was far worse then the hit on the TE. Both should have been penalized IMOP.

My thoughts exactly..

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

Yep, I was incorrect using the term professional, but I’ll give him deference over your call from the cheap seats.

Nah, I'm right. It was wrong to reverse the targeting call.

 

[Nipigu]

Nah, I'm right. It was wrong to reverse the targeting call.

Nope, you are wrong. It was right to reverse the targeting call.

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

Nope, you are wrong. It was right to reverse the targeting call.

No it wasn't. It was clear targeting. Deal with it.......

Also

Spoiler

Iowa > your team

#facts

 

[j0nnyhb_Prime]

I think the reversed targeting call was bad, but how bout the no call on #54 when he drilled Stanley in the facemask as he was throwing the ball. They didn't flag it, they didn't review it, but I thought it was far worse then the hit on the TE. Both should have been penalized IMOP.

funny I’m just watching the tape of the game and. Saw that play (the interception). That was classic helmet to face mask against a defenseless QB no less. How can they miss that one? I guess when PSU has a penalty on nearly every play in the second half the refs get tired of calling them? Terrible, Nate took a vicious hit

 

[papabeef]

Watch the replay, #18 hits his shoulder pad first. Then the helmets collide. I think it was a great no call and the replay official did a good job of over turning the call.

i did and no .

 

[lionlover]

Call from Big Ten office reminded the crew that PSU needs that guy next week against Michigan. Easy to wave off the flag at that point.

https://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/w-l-record-john-o'neill-referee

 

[fizzyskittles]

https://www.bannersociety.com/2017/9/2/20732365/targeting-penalty-rulebook-college-football


[URL]https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/29/sports/ncaafootball/rule-changes-targeting-overtime.html
[/URL]
https://www.bannersociety.com/2017/9/2/20732365/targeting-penalty-rulebook-college-football
For targeting, officials will have to confirm every element of the call for a player to be penalized. If any component of targeting, like a player aiming at an opponent with the intent of attacking, is absent, the call on the field will be overturned.

Crucially, a “targeting indicator” will still need to be plainly evident for any call to be confirmed. The rule book offers some examples:

Launch — a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of 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.

“We had too many marginal calls, too many ticky-tack fouls, too many on the margin, just on the edge that, boy, they could have passed on that,” said Bill Carollo, the Big Ten’s coordinator of football officials. “Well, we’re going to get rid of that. Now it’s going to be tougher for my officials, especially in replay. Either it is or it isn’t, and I think that’s important.”

• Unlock more free articles.

Create an account or log in


Carollo estimated that the rule change could result in a 10 percent reduction in targeting calls.

 

[Nipigu]

No it wasn't. It was clear targeting. Deal with it.......

Nope, just because your feelings say so doesn’t make you right.

Spoiler: Surprise

I’m an Iowa native and Alum.

 

[walleye hunter16]

For gods sake the refs did everything they could to help Iowa and you all want more? Lol

Full of crap!

 

[walleye hunter16]

https://www.bannersociety.com/2017/9/2/20732365/targeting-penalty-rulebook-college-football


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/29/sports/ncaafootball/rule-changes-targeting-overtime.html
https://www.bannersociety.com/2017/9/2/20732365/targeting-penalty-rulebook-college-football
For targeting, officials will have to confirm every element of the call for a player to be penalized. If any component of targeting, like a player aiming at an opponent with the intent of attacking, is absent, the call on the field will be overturned.

Crucially, a “targeting indicator” will still need to be plainly evident for any call to be confirmed. The rule book offers some examples:

Launch — a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of 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.

“We had too many marginal calls, too many ticky-tack fouls, too many on the margin, just on the edge that, boy, they could have passed on that,” said Bill Carollo, the Big Ten’s coordinator of football officials. “Well, we’re going to get rid of that. Now it’s going to be tougher for my officials, especially in replay. Either it is or it isn’t, and I think that’s important.”

• Unlock more free articles.

Create an account or log in


Carollo estimated that the rule change could result in a 10 percent reduction in targeting calls.

Lol, 10%. Clear and definite proof= 60% reduction. Possibly more.

 

[waltpsuscranton]

I think the reversed targeting call was bad, but how bout the no call on #54 when he drilled Stanley in the facemask as he was throwing the ball. They didn't flag it, they didn't review it, but I thought it was far worse then the hit on the TE. Both should have been penalized IMOP.

How about all the non holding calls against Windsor. He was being held all the time but was still destroying the Iowa line. And talk about BAD BAD BAD calls, what about the reversal of the TB. The 3 blind mice could see it was a TD

 

[fizzyskittles]

Lol, 10%. Clear and definite proof= 60% reduction. Possibly more.

I don't knwo what the actual numbers are now compared to others years in regards to reversals. Maybe it is 10% overall or they think it will be. Either way, they are looking at it differently and last year I'm sure the penalty would stand. This year I can see how they would reverse it.

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

Nope, just because your feelings say so doesn’t make you right.

Spoiler: Surprise

I’m an Iowa native and Alum.

Lol sounds like a salty poster has been following what I've been saying on other threads.

Also, forgive me for my methods of finding out where your allegiances lie. Hard to tell seeing as how confrontational you've been.


P.S.

Spoiler: Deal with it

Targeting was the right call, fellow Iowa alum......

 

[iowaathletes]

How about all the non holding calls against Windsor. He was being held all the time but was still destroying the Iowa line. And talk about BAD BAD BAD calls, what about the reversal of the TB. The 3 blind mice could see it was a TD

You guys got away with holding by your o line almost the whole game not to mention your db’s. Please don’t bring that up.

 

[scotthawk1964]

and how many divison 1 games have you ref'ed?

I'm guessing as many as you.

 

[Nipigu]

Lol sounds like a salty poster has been following what I've been saying on other threads.

Also, forgive me for my methods of finding out where your allegiances lie. Hard to tell seeing as how confrontational you've been.

P.S. Targeting was the right call...

Who can possibly debate your sound logic....my feelings say it was targeting.

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

Who can possibly debate your sound logic....my feelings say it was targeting.

See? How hard was that?

All you had to say was "they were wrong to reverse the targeting call", and you would've saved yourself so much wasted effort trying to one-up me, when that is never going to happen.

 

[Nipigu]

See? How hard was that?

You fit in with the other childish posters here schoolboy.

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

You fit in with the other childish posters here schoolboy.

Muwahahahaha, I do believe I've struck a nerve. The quick responses are the telltale sign.


Btw, this is your fault for being wrong. Next time don't say wrong things.....

 

[Nipigu]

Muwahahahaha, I do believe I've struck a nerve. The quick responses are the telltale sign.


Btw, this is your fault for being wrong. Next time don't say wrong things.....

Sweet Jesus.

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

Sweet Jesus.

Again, your fault for being so defensive about a call that worked in Penn State's favor.............Iowa fan.

 

[Nipigu]

Again, your fault for being so defensive about a call that worked in Penn State's favor.............Iowa fan.

Read my posts explaining my position. Your “is not” isn’t reasoning. But it’s an effort. Again, I’m flattered having a schoolboy fan following me.

Returning the topic back toward the fans though...there’s a growing segment of complete assholes in the seats and on forums. God help you if your kid is a student-athlete. Both fans, from Iowa or visiting, can be complete jackals.

Above is my post from the “Shoot me” thread you followed me to - to continue your “is not” logic. Where do you think I mentioned your type?

Your move, son.

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

Sigh......oh you'll get my response alright. Lol

I'm gonna make you wait though, because everything below is a clear sign of someone who takes themselves way too seriously, and is easily triggered. So I'll let that sink in for a bit while you stew over whether you can come up with a comeback that's better than the middle-aged, self-righteous equivalent of a teenager that just repeatedly calls someone "trash" online for their "clever insult".

Fun fact, the angry griping parent act never works on the internet. Nor does the "I'm gonna 'pretend' to play the adult on this message board" act.

"Huh huh well at least I AM an adult"

No....no you are not.

Read my posts explaining my position. Your “is not” isn’t reasoning. But it’s an effort. Again, I’m flattered having a schoolboy fan following me.



Above is my post from the “Shoot me” thread you followed me to - to continue your “is not” logic. Where do you think I mentioned your type?

Your move, son.

And, lol......I haven't even responded to your actual post yet.

Good luck, old man.

 

[Nipigu]

"Huh huh well at least I AM an adult"

No....no you are not.

I just burned 100 calories rolling my eyes.

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

I just burned 100 calories rolling my eyes.

Hey don't you roll your eyes at Team Four Star.

 

[waltpsuscranton]

You guys got away with holding by your o line almost the whole game not to mention your db’s. Please don’t bring that up.

Uh, no. If you recall correctly, PSU had two back to back holding calls after the blown TD call by O'Neill. And how many holding calls did Iowa have - 0. National talking heads were all complaining about how bad the refs were in the Iowa game