(11-29-2014 07:49 PM)JMUPride Wrote:  I've came to the conclusion ZERO college refs know what the exact definition of targeting is

Yes. Some serious off-season discussion/review/revamping needs to happen to modify this rule.

(11-29-2014 07:49 PM)JMUPride Wrote:  I've came to the conclusion ZERO college refs know what the exact definition of targeting is

LU did great a break with the targeting no call near the goal line. With the JMU player who twice before had been ejected for targeting, he unfortunately is known for that so the refs are likely more inclined to call it than not when a close play occurs.

LU got away with 2 targeting calls on the last drive. If ours was targeting, those were too.

Hate this damn rule. It protects no one, seemingly.

(11-29-2014 10:13 PM)JMU2004 Wrote:  Hate this damn rule. It protects no one, seemingly.

You misunderstand who it's designed to protect. It's designed to protect the institutions from those who hate football and seek to destroy it through litigation and/or politics. The rule cannot, of course, protect the players, since the plays it penalizes will go on whether there is such a rule or not. Think of it as political correctness for football. It makes everybody feel good without actually doing Jack.

My interpretation of the rule from what has transpired this year is that you need to allow the receiver to catch the ball and gently bring him to the ground once he has fully completed the catch. Gone are the days of solid hits to break up a pass.

Seriously, let's just put red jerseys on the skilled Offensive players and play 2 hand touch on them. Football is a violent game and the cheap shots should be penalized and taken away. But this crap has gone too far.

If you want to eliminate long term effects of head trauma how about starting with elimination of tackle football until at least Middle School. I think it is crazy to send 6-10 year olds out there to bang heads.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(11-29-2014 10:52 PM)Madison 91 Forever Wrote:  

(11-29-2014 10:13 PM)JMU2004 Wrote:  Hate this damn rule. It protects no one, seemingly.

You misunderstand who it's designed to protect. It's designed to protect the institutions from those who hate football and seek to destroy it through litigation and/or politics. The rule cannot, of course, protect the players, since the plays it penalizes will go on whether there is such a rule or not. Think of it as political correctness for football. It makes everybody feel good without actually doing Jack.

The one where LU's safety "launched" into brown when he is tied up and broke his leg.... That was obvious as day. Same ref that ejected peak somehow missed that play from 10 yards away.

A few plays later, latney knocked out cold on a helmet to helmet. We get penalized on a bs holding call, but the umpire misses the helmet to helmet right in front of him.

Unbeleivable.

The game was called one way. We could have won regardless, but LU saw the fortunate side of FCS refs.

hey ill say it str8 up that ur guy getting tossed was a garbage call, from first hit yes it looked like helmet to helmet, then when they finished reviewing and actually showed the replay, from what I saw it was ALL shoulder pads, the way your supposed to do it. I think that your guys getting tossed for same thing couple weeks ago played more into that than what really happened on that play

Don't get me started. Plenty of bad calls to go around. Like that bull fumble on Woodrum in the 1st when his arm was obviously going forward. or the 2nd Marlowe int when #22 was laying on the LU receiver so he couldn't ge the ball.

(11-29-2014 11:07 PM)knucklehead Wrote:  Don't get me started. Plenty of bad calls to go around. Like that bull fumble on Woodrum in the 1st when his arm was obviously going forward. or the 2nd Marlowe int when #22 was laying on the LU receiver so he couldn't ge the ball.

sorry to disagree, on the first call ball was knocked from Woody's hand, before his forward motion clearly loose def fumble
s
the second INT was as awful as it gets, as the dB #22 def was holding the whole time in middle of field for a no call
And for LU #23 got away with a blatant push on the sidelines before the ball got there that they let go, so Ill agree the calls were BAD on both sides tonight

(11-29-2014 11:07 PM)knucklehead Wrote:  Don't get me started. Plenty of bad calls to go around. Like that bull fumble on Woodrum in the 1st when his arm was obviously going forward. or the 2nd Marlowe int when #22 was laying on the LU receiver so he couldn't ge the ball.

Seriously?!! Shouldn't you be off celebrating with some cake and ice cream? Congrats on the win but please go away!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(11-29-2014 11:06 PM)4bidn Wrote:  hey ill say it str8 up that ur guy getting tossed was a garbage call, from first hit yes it looked like helmet to helmet, then when they finished reviewing and actually showed the replay, from what I saw it was ALL shoulder pads, the way your supposed to do it. I think that your guys getting tossed for same thing couple weeks ago played more into that than what really happened on that play

That was a okay call , WR was defensless and our safety went high. Gotta be coached up to go low or mid level to knock ball out. And he has a history.

(11-29-2014 11:12 PM)84Breeze Wrote:  

(11-29-2014 11:07 PM)knucklehead Wrote:  Don't get me started. Plenty of bad calls to go around. Like that bull fumble on Woodrum in the 1st when his arm was obviously going forward. or the 2nd Marlowe int when #22 was laying on the LU receiver so he couldn't ge the ball.

Seriously?!! Shouldn't you be off celebrating with some cake and ice cream? Congrats on the win but please go away!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dude. We lost. Season over.

We can still show class. Please do so....

His post was not inflammatory in the least.

So this was mentioned in the in game thread, but no one commented, and I noticed it too. On the fake field goal, typically the ball is snapped to the holder, and he runs with it. On this particular play he received the snap while on his knee, and set the ball on the ground, then picked it up, stood up and ran. In college ball if you have possesion of the ball, and a knee is on the ground it is downed. What am I missing here?

(11-29-2014 11:14 PM)JMU2004 Wrote:  Dude. We lost. Season over.

We can still show class. Please do so....

His post was not inflammatory in the least.

Yep. My hat is off to them. They kicked our tails on our home turf, and have a rapidly improving and ambitious program. Thank God we get another shot at them next Fall.

(11-29-2014 11:23 PM)Madison 91 Forever Wrote:  

(11-29-2014 11:14 PM)JMU2004 Wrote:  Dude. We lost. Season over.

We can still show class. Please do so....

His post was not inflammatory in the least.

Yep. My hat is off to them. They kicked our tails on our home turf, and have a rapidly improving and ambitious program. Thank God we get another shot at them next Fall.

Dude... I was there and give them all the credit. They earned the win. But the plays he mentioned were legit turnovers. There were plenty of other bad calls all around but they did what it took to win the game. And had a nice crowd as well. Props!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(11-29-2014 11:28 PM)84Breeze Wrote:  

(11-29-2014 11:23 PM)Madison 91 Forever Wrote:  

(11-29-2014 11:14 PM)JMU2004 Wrote:  Dude. We lost. Season over.

We can still show class. Please do so....

His post was not inflammatory in the least.

Yep. My hat is off to them. They kicked our tails on our home turf, and have a rapidly improving and ambitious program. Thank God we get another shot at them next Fall.

Dude... I was there and give them all the credit. They earned the win. But the plays he mentioned were legit turnovers. There were plenty of other bad calls all around but they did what it took to win the game. And had a nice crowd as well. Props!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fine.

Your post was kinda *******. Just saying there isn't a need. They didn't act like db ODU fans.

Thanks for being gracious, didn't mean to be inflammatory. Really appreciated your PA announcer congratulating our team. class.

(11-29-2014 11:17 PM)Mad victory Wrote:  So this was mentioned in the in game thread, but no one commented, and I noticed it too. On the fake field goal, typically the ball is snapped to the holder, and he runs with it. On this particular play he received the snap while on his knee, and set the ball on the ground, then picked it up, stood up and ran. In college ball if you have possesion of the ball, and a knee is on the ground it is downed. What am I missing here?

if I am correct since his knee started on the ground he was ok but the fact that he didn't lift and put it back down made him legal to run with it.

The Peak targeting call was BS as far as I could tell, looked to me like he got him in the shoulder. Should've been two targeting calls on Liberty in the last drive, absolutely horrible to miss the Latney one. Refs were horrible. Regardless of that, though, we still had plenty of chances to win the game despite the refs.

We were playing with a lead and Liberty was putting everyone in the middle, make them pay and throw it deep. I know we tried a few times, but until they spread out their defense keep trying, don't just pound it up the middle anyway. The biggest thing to me though, FALL ON THE BALL! Don't try to scoop it up! Especially on the one yard line! It's one thing if it's at the 50 and you think you've got running room. It's on the one yard line, fall on it and let the offense punch it in, game over!

Frustrating to watch. Congrats to Liberty though. They hung around and came back when it looked like we could run away with it. Good showing by their fans too, and not a bunch of dbags like ODU, VCU, GMCC, etc.

Major problem with the targeting calls is that not only do the Refs not know what to call, the dopes who wrote the rule don't know either.

I seem to recall last year when they put the rule into place the NCAA told the officials to be very aggressive in calling it. It has gotten
completely out of control. In addition to being very unevenly applied game to game, and even play to play. The way the rule
is written and enforced you could probably call it on almost every play.

This rule needs some serious review and revision or else the game is going to become a joke.

Brian