(08-31-2014 07:00 PM)DetroitRocket Wrote:  Pinkel may be bringing his team here because his QB is from northwest Ohio.

I looked up their QB and he committed to Mizzou in July 2011 but I don't remember exactly when Mizzou was added to the Rocket schedule. It has been a while, but that may have been a factor----either way it is a nice game for the kid and his family and friends.

(08-31-2014 07:09 PM)emanoh Wrote:  If the ncaa doesn't want the QB to be a football player once they cross the line of scrimage, then the offense should get penalized 10 yards every time they don't slide.

I think the targeting rule applies to every player. I don't think this one is a protect the QB issue.

(08-31-2014 06:04 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  Just watched the ten replays of Whitaker's hit. No helmet to helmet. Didn't lead with his head. QB didn't slide. None of those were the issue. This was the issue:

Quote:No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul.

Whitacker's hit wasn't brutal or malicious. From what I could tell, the QB was probably more dazed by hitting his own head on the ground but Whitacker's hit was three for three on the guidelines.

Defenseless? No. He was diving head first for more yards.

(08-31-2014 08:16 PM)adunifon Wrote:  

(08-31-2014 06:04 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  Just watched the ten replays of Whitaker's hit. No helmet to helmet. Didn't lead with his head. QB didn't slide. None of those were the issue. This was the issue:

Quote:No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul.

Whitacker's hit wasn't brutal or malicious. From what I could tell, the QB was probably more dazed by hitting his own head on the ground but Whitacker's hit was three for three on the guidelines.

Defenseless? No. He was diving head first for more yards.

"Diving" is immaterial to the "defenseless" part. QB doesn't have to slide to be considered defenseless. Whitaker at no point attempted a tackle and in fact the QB was nearly at the ground before Whitaker made his move and was on the ground when Whitaker hit with his shoulder. It is what it is, don't shoot the messenger. The refs probably got it right.

Nobody knows what a tackle is anymore.

(08-31-2014 10:16 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(08-31-2014 08:16 PM)adunifon Wrote:  

(08-31-2014 06:04 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  Just watched the ten replays of Whitaker's hit. No helmet to helmet. Didn't lead with his head. QB didn't slide. None of those were the issue. This was the issue:

Quote:No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul.

Whitacker's hit wasn't brutal or malicious. From what I could tell, the QB was probably more dazed by hitting his own head on the ground but Whitacker's hit was three for three on the guidelines.

Defenseless? No. He was diving head first for more yards.

"Diving" is immaterial to the "defenseless" part. QB doesn't have to slide to be considered defenseless. Whitaker at no point attempted a tackle and in fact the QB was nearly at the ground before Whitaker made his move and was on the ground when Whitaker hit with his shoulder. It is what it is, don't shoot the messenger. The refs probably got it right.

his hit kept him from gaining another half yard. he used his shoulder instead of his head. he began his tackling motion before the runner hit the ground. he finished the play.

i was at a high school game the other night and on a return the tackler hits the guys about 3 yards inbounds but the returner is running hard and carries him into the sideline a little and they throw a 15 yard late hit flag.

(09-01-2014 12:34 AM)pono Wrote:  

(08-31-2014 10:16 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(08-31-2014 08:16 PM)adunifon Wrote:  

(08-31-2014 06:04 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  Just watched the ten replays of Whitaker's hit. No helmet to helmet. Didn't lead with his head. QB didn't slide. None of those were the issue. This was the issue:

Quote:No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul.

Whitacker's hit wasn't brutal or malicious. From what I could tell, the QB was probably more dazed by hitting his own head on the ground but Whitacker's hit was three for three on the guidelines.

Defenseless? No. He was diving head first for more yards.

"Diving" is immaterial to the "defenseless" part. QB doesn't have to slide to be considered defenseless. Whitaker at no point attempted a tackle and in fact the QB was nearly at the ground before Whitaker made his move and was on the ground when Whitaker hit with his shoulder. It is what it is, don't shoot the messenger. The refs probably got it right.

his hit kept him from gaining another half yard. he used his shoulder instead of his head. he began his tackling motion before the runner hit the ground. he finished the play.

i was at a high school game the other night and on a return the tackler hits the guys about 3 yards inbounds but the returner is running hard and carries him into the sideline a little and they throw a 15 yard late hit flag.

==========================

Can't hit with the shoulder either, according to the rule I quoted. Whitaker started his motion after the QB went to ground, even if having not yet hit the ground. I guess that's the "defenseless" part of it.

The rule is designed to protect both players but they modified it once. Maybe they'll modify it again. As far as my opinion matters, Whitaker was caught between a rock and a hard place but the refs got the rule correct.

The problem here IMO and as I've heard from others, is they way they're taught to "tackle." Hitting, bumpng, whatever with the shoulder or head is an assinine way to tackle anyhow. There's parts of the rule I like beyond the safety measure of it but until the coaches at all levels stop letting kids think that "hits" are tackles, then the rules will get stricter I'm betting.

What gets me is that an offensive player can make an "agressive" move to gain another half yard, but a defensive player can get tossed out for trying to stop said agressive move. Just like DB'S now they are practically forced to allow receivers to catch the ball. They breath heavy on them and it is a penalty.

(09-01-2014 12:21 AM)emanoh Wrote:  Nobody knows what a tackle is anymore.

Exactly. They all go for the big hit, not the tackle.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(08-31-2014 01:11 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  

(08-31-2014 12:35 PM)therockets046 Wrote:  There was also the review where the official said "the call on the field stands", then after a few seconds, got on the mic again and said "correction, the ball will be moved back to the 2 yard line" of course Kareem punched it in 1 play later to make it moot, but what was going on there, were they still reviewing the play when he announced it? 'Cause I thought when the play stands it means not enough evidence to change the call. He was totally confused.

I think he mistakenly said the ball was at the 1, when it was really on the 2. I didn't see them move the ball back.

Yes that is what happened. The refs on the field had it right - placed on the 2 yard line as originally called. The PA then said it "stands" and the ball was on the 1 yard line. He then corrected it to say on the 2 yard line. I think he screwed it up and not the officials on the field. If nothing else, it was irritating to listen to..

(09-01-2014 08:15 AM)emanoh Wrote:  What gets me is that an offensive player can make an "agressive" move to gain another half yard, but a defensive player can get tossed out for trying to stop said agressive move. Just like DB'S now they are practically forced to allow receivers to catch the ball. They breath heavy on them and it is a penalty.

Even the ESPN3 announcers thought that the call should be reversed. The QB was not speared by either defender. The ejection was a BS. If you slide head-first you deserve a visit to la-la land. One of the things QB's soon learn in the NFL is is that you don't slide leading with your damn head. College QB coaches should be teaching that. The flag should have been against the NH QB coach for' Excessive incompetence' or the QB for 'Bad acting'. If nothing else, I believe they could have assessed a penalty without the ejection. Another case of the NCAA playing with the rules and creating unintended consequences. Why can't they fix the rules that allow PAT attempts that don't go through the uprights to get counted as "good"?

The NCAA has become a whorehouse.

(09-01-2014 11:37 PM)Toledo Football 1st Wrote:  

(09-01-2014 08:15 AM)emanoh Wrote:  What gets me is that an offensive player can make an "agressive" move to gain another half yard, but a defensive player can get tossed out for trying to stop said agressive move. Just like DB'S now they are practically forced to allow receivers to catch the ball. They breath heavy on them and it is a penalty.

Even the ESPN3 announcers thought that the call should be reversed. The QB was not speared by either defender. The ejection was a BS. If you slide head-first you deserve a visit to la-la land. One of the things QB's soon learn in the NFL is is that you don't slide leading with your damn head. College QB coaches should be teaching that. The flag should have been against the NH QB coach for' Excessive incompetence' or the QB for 'Bad acting'. If nothing else, I believe they could have assessed a penalty without the ejection. Another case of the NCAA playing with the rules and creating unintended consequences. Why can't they fix the rules that allow PAT attempts that don't go through the uprights to get counted as "good"?

The NCAA has become a whorehouse.

My thoughts exactly. Any QB that dives headfirst needs to understand that the rules do not protect him from contact to the head. That will stop that from happening in the future...

Anyone else find the standings to be interesting?:


2014 MAC STANDINGS


Ohio 1-0 1-0
Akron 0-0 1-0
Buffalo 0-0 1-0
Bowling Green 0-0 0-1
Massachusetts 0-0 0-1
Miami (OH) 0-0 0-1
Kent State 0-1 0-1

Central Michigan 0-0 1-0
Northern Illinois 0-0 1-0
Ball State 0-0 1-0
Western Michigan 0-0 0-1
Eastern Michigan 0-0 1-0
Toledo 0-0 1-0


Why is Western being shown ahead of Toledo when they are 0-1. Ball State is ahead of WMU with a 1-0 record. Same with NIU and others. Show it biased one way or the other.

(09-01-2014 11:37 PM)Toledo Football 1st Wrote:  

(09-01-2014 08:15 AM)emanoh Wrote:  What gets me is that an offensive player can make an "agressive" move to gain another half yard, but a defensive player can get tossed out for trying to stop said agressive move. Just like DB'S now they are practically forced to allow receivers to catch the ball. They breath heavy on them and it is a penalty.

Even the ESPN3 announcers thought that the call should be reversed. The QB was not speared by either defender. The ejection was a BS. If you slide head-first you deserve a visit to la-la land.

No, actually they didn't. It was their first comment after the play but on re-play they concurred. Again, not the NFL rule. "Spearing" isn't required to target. Maybe the rule is BS but the call wasn't. Targeting is ejection so the ejection apparently wasn't either.

Since the player can come back apparently without repercussions for the any future games I guess there's no reason to but has the university asked for any review of the play or made comment on it?

UNH was sending the ball in every direction, and UNH players were making plays. That is tough to stop in the first game, but Toledo made adjustments and most importantly began to move the ball on offense. This was a nice win. Ely showed great poise and experience. He is far more accurate and made every throw he was asked to make. I didn't get to see Julian - I haven't heard any thoughts about his play. Any one have some?

Toledo threw to the tight end multiple times. I was happy to see that. An effective tight-end connection can kill a defense. Toledo held a quality offense to 31 yards on the ground. That is awesome especially since the UNH was completing about every pass. Wilcher was a bit of an unknown, but he is gonna do a great job this year. Toledo has gone away from being primarily a screen pass offense , and I believe that has a lot to do with Ely. The Wildcat was wildly effective at the goal line. Gotta love a Sr. laden offensive line.

I thought Murdock's presence in the game was a turning point. This is a talented team. Not enough can be said about the RB stable. They are young, but really good and will get better top to bottom .

Looking forward to Saturday!

The thought I had about Julian playing is that the Rockets may be planning on redshirting Woodside if they can. Would have 2 redshirt sophomores next year when Ely is a senior - then both would be juniors after he is gone - assuming they are in it for the long run.

(09-03-2014 07:50 PM)MotoRocket Wrote:  The thought I had about Julian playing is that the Rockets may be planning on redshirting Woodside if they can. Would have 2 redshirt sophomores next year when Ely is a senior - then both would be juniors after he is gone - assuming they are in it for the long run.

The assumption may be the big future issue.

I had that thought as well. On the other hand, Woodside has game experience, and this may simply have been Julian's chance. I was listening and it sounded like he threw some passes. His high school video looked very athletic with fluid motion and good touch on the ball. I wish I could have seen him Saturday.

There is always a reason.

(09-03-2014 10:54 PM)PTLROCK Wrote:  I had that thought as well. On the other hand, Woodside has game experience, and this may simply have been Julian's chance. I was listening and it sounded like he threw some passes. His high school video looked very athletic with fluid motion and good touch on the ball. I wish I could have seen him Saturday.

I watched the game on ESPN3. Julian looks like he's got "it".