The officiating is better than it once was prior to digital video. The shenanigans that once were common would shock you younger folks.

(09-11-2016 03:38 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-10-2016 10:54 PM)f1do Wrote:  The announcers and the referee consultant on the broadcast all said Nacua's hit was not targeting and he should not have been ejected. The second one was less excusable. But whatever. Utah won the game by making the plays they needed to.

That announcer was an idiot. He basically was saying the targeting rule is dumb and needs to go away. Also that it's only in place to protect against law suits and has no place in football. He said the defender has no obligation to protect the offensive player. He's a F-ing moron. Guys brains getting turned to jelly and he says the defenders should be allowed to hit players in the head.

I never heard him say that. He said the onus to protect the offensive player is put completely on the defender which he thinks is wrong. The QB shouldn't be throwing high balls right over the middle putting his receivers in a position to get knocked into next week like that. If a defender is leading with the helmet or launching himself into the other player, sure--penalize them. Kick them out. But if he is just laying a hit on a guy leaping into the air across the middle of the field--who ducks into the contact, that shouldn't be targeting. The rule as written is poor. And it wasn't just the officials making a poor decision--those calls were reviewed in the booth and they still made the same "letter of the law as written" call.

(09-11-2016 10:10 PM)f1do Wrote:  

(09-11-2016 03:38 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-10-2016 10:54 PM)f1do Wrote:  The announcers and the referee consultant on the broadcast all said Nacua's hit was not targeting and he should not have been ejected. The second one was less excusable. But whatever. Utah won the game by making the plays they needed to.

That announcer was an idiot. He basically was saying the targeting rule is dumb and needs to go away. Also that it's only in place to protect against law suits and has no place in football. He said the defender has no obligation to protect the offensive player. He's a F-ing moron. Guys brains getting turned to jelly and he says the defenders should be allowed to hit players in the head.

I never heard him say that. He said the onus to protect the offensive player is put completely on the defender which he thinks is wrong. The QB shouldn't be throwing high balls right over the middle putting his receivers in a position to get knocked into next week like that. If a defender is leading with the helmet or launching himself into the other player, sure--penalize them. Kick them out. But if he is just laying a hit on a guy leaping into the air across the middle of the field--who ducks into the contact, that shouldn't be targeting. The rule as written is poor. And it wasn't just the officials making a poor decision--those calls were reviewed in the booth and they still made the same "letter of the law as written" call.

But it is and should be. By his logic, it's not a foul if the defender takes a WR's head off if the QB has a bad throw that sails on him on a crossing route. Thats stupid. These kids aren't being paid, so why shouldn't the emphasis be on safety? The very next play the BYU player (Who was right in the middle of the brawl with Memphis mind you) tried to take the WR's head off. He was upset about that one too. The guy is an idiot.

(09-12-2016 07:35 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-11-2016 10:10 PM)f1do Wrote:  

(09-11-2016 03:38 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-10-2016 10:54 PM)f1do Wrote:  The announcers and the referee consultant on the broadcast all said Nacua's hit was not targeting and he should not have been ejected. The second one was less excusable. But whatever. Utah won the game by making the plays they needed to.

That announcer was an idiot. He basically was saying the targeting rule is dumb and needs to go away. Also that it's only in place to protect against law suits and has no place in football. He said the defender has no obligation to protect the offensive player. He's a F-ing moron. Guys brains getting turned to jelly and he says the defenders should be allowed to hit players in the head.

I never heard him say that. He said the onus to protect the offensive player is put completely on the defender which he thinks is wrong. The QB shouldn't be throwing high balls right over the middle putting his receivers in a position to get knocked into next week like that. If a defender is leading with the helmet or launching himself into the other player, sure--penalize them. Kick them out. But if he is just laying a hit on a guy leaping into the air across the middle of the field--who ducks into the contact, that shouldn't be targeting. The rule as written is poor. And it wasn't just the officials making a poor decision--those calls were reviewed in the booth and they still made the same "letter of the law as written" call.

But it is and should be. By his logic, it's not a foul if the defender takes a WR's head off if the QB has a bad throw that sails on him on a crossing route. Thats stupid. These kids aren't being paid, so why shouldn't the emphasis be on safety? The very next play the BYU player (Who was right in the middle of the brawl with Memphis mind you) tried to take the WR's head off. He was upset about that one too. The guy is an idiot.

The announcer never insinuated what you are trying to imply he said. Utah WR lowered his head which made it look like the BYU player was targeting. The 2nd play was kinda questionable but I didn't think it was targeting. Nothing play was as bad as what happened to Cam Newton.

(09-12-2016 07:35 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-11-2016 10:10 PM)f1do Wrote:  

(09-11-2016 03:38 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-10-2016 10:54 PM)f1do Wrote:  The announcers and the referee consultant on the broadcast all said Nacua's hit was not targeting and he should not have been ejected. The second one was less excusable. But whatever. Utah won the game by making the plays they needed to.

That announcer was an idiot. He basically was saying the targeting rule is dumb and needs to go away. Also that it's only in place to protect against law suits and has no place in football. He said the defender has no obligation to protect the offensive player. He's a F-ing moron. Guys brains getting turned to jelly and he says the defenders should be allowed to hit players in the head.

I never heard him say that. He said the onus to protect the offensive player is put completely on the defender which he thinks is wrong. The QB shouldn't be throwing high balls right over the middle putting his receivers in a position to get knocked into next week like that. If a defender is leading with the helmet or launching himself into the other player, sure--penalize them. Kick them out. But if he is just laying a hit on a guy leaping into the air across the middle of the field--who ducks into the contact, that shouldn't be targeting. The rule as written is poor. And it wasn't just the officials making a poor decision--those calls were reviewed in the booth and they still made the same "letter of the law as written" call.

But it is and should be. By his logic, it's not a foul if the defender takes a WR's head off if the QB has a bad throw that sails on him on a crossing route. Thats stupid. These kids aren't being paid, so why shouldn't the emphasis be on safety? The very next play the BYU player (Who was right in the middle of the brawl with Memphis mind you) tried to take the WR's head off. He was upset about that one too. The guy is an idiot.

The guy who was in the fight with Memphis was Kai Nacua--the guy who was ejected for the first targeting call--not the second. But your misdirected outrage is noted. The second ejection was freshman Austin McChesney. Both fouls can be seen here: http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...-ejections