The unofficial online home for fans of the Western Michigan University Broncos. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

I'm fairly convinced this was missed last night. Thoughts?

I think the only ones that missed it were the officials. Based on the announcer's comments, they were sure the guy should have been booted. I think the Bronco players were shocked (and pissed) the penalty was overturned. Think a CMU LB had a targeting call early in last year's game too.

I was just watching the replay of game, and although I have always known that the MAC has had the absolute worst referees in football, they outdid themselves with incompetence and stupidity, both in the on the field and in the booth last night. Horrendous calls and non calls. The targeting was conspicuous, and the announcers were even shocked it was reversed. We got the screw job in the game, and still won the way we did. I hope in a close game they don't cost us a win.

(10-02-2016 08:15 PM)Broncos83 Wrote:  I think the only ones that missed it were the officials. Based on the announcer's comments, they were sure the guy should have been booted. I think the Bronco players were shocked (and pissed) the penalty was overturned. Think a CMU LB had a targeting call early in last year's game too.

Agreed. Jay Feely was incredibly certain that the offending player would be ejected and seemed quite surprised that the call was overturned.

Pair this with the targeting foul against McDowell from MSU and the rule gets murkier and murkier.

I don't understand this either. My son and I watched the replay video this morning and we both thought it was targeting. The MAC needs to address the issue this week. I can only hope the WMU athletic department is reaching out to MAC to find out why the call was overturned.

Notwithstanding the targeting calls, but did anyone else notice the chains getting moved before the ball was spotted on a CMU first down? Or even if it was remotely close?

Bottom line, there were several times that the spot of the ball should have been measured against the line to gain and it never happened because of that homer-ass chain gang they have and that ingratiating announcer.

Move those chains? How about L-O-L?

Yes...CMU was getting the calls....Fleck calls a TO to get the refs to review what should of been a pick, and they dont review it

(10-02-2016 09:27 PM)New School Bronco Wrote:  Yes...CMU was getting the calls....Fleck calls a TO to get the refs to review what should of been a pick, and they dont review it

Yeah that was a great freakin' catch too.

(10-02-2016 09:23 PM)wingsenforcer Wrote:  Notwithstanding the targeting calls, but did anyone else notice the chains getting moved before the ball was spotted on a CMU first down? Or even if it was remotely close?

Bottom line, there were several times that the spot of the ball should have been measured against the line to gain and it never happened because of that homer-ass chain gang they have and that ingratiating announcer.

Move those chains? How about L-O-L?

Yes, I noticed that too!

They could use the video of the hit on Thompson for referee training to show EXACTLY what targeting looks like. Truly. It was a textbook example but since the replay official refused to uphold the on field call, it can't even be used for training now. Screwy. Only in the MAC.

I don't think it was intentional, but based on the rule as shown on TV during the game, it appeared to me to be the current textbook definition of targeting.

Intentional or not, the worst part IMO was the CMU player standing over Thompson after the hit. That alone should've disqualified him if there was any doubt.

I think it was intentional to smash into him. Not necessarily hitting His head, but with his head it seemed so.

They claimed he hit him with his shoulder or hit his shoulder? I don't see what they were seeing.

(10-03-2016 12:31 AM)toddjnsn Wrote:  I think it was intentional to smash into him. Not necessarily hitting His head, but with his head it seemed so.

They claimed he hit him with his shoulder or hit his shoulder? I don't see what they were seeing.

Especially with the call on the field being targeting.

(10-02-2016 11:22 PM)texasbronco1 Wrote:  They could use the video of the hit on Thompson for referee training to show EXACTLY what targeting looks like. Truly. It was a textbook example but since the replay official refused to uphold the on field call, it can't even be used for training now. Screwy. Only in the MAC.

It can still be used as a training video. I have watched several referee training videos and they show examples of what is a penalty and ones that should not be a penalty. They also state in the videos if the refs at the game had got it right or wrong.

The rule is essentially what in the law we call "strict liability", meaning there need not be an intent to harm. In this case the video very clearly depicts that the crown of the CMU player's helmet colides forcefully into the head of Thompson. The fact that his shoulder pads also made some contact is immaterial. It is up to the defensive player to control that.

Maybe it's debatable whether all these targeting and other safety rules are good for football, but the fact is that they are here, and that was a conspicuous violation. When I saw it live while sitting in the stands I couldn't tell for sure, but after watching the replay it was as clear as any i have ever seen. The booth officials are incompetent; which is the standard for MAC officials.

Last I checked a player usually doesn't get "knocked out" due to a helmet to shoulder....that was a BS non call.

It was such an obvious targeting situation, when you go by the rule-book definition. Whether it was intentional or not, it was targeting. He led with his head and made head-to-head contact. He didn't even raise his arms in an attempt to tackle the body of the player. And then he stood over the obviously-injured Thompson like he was Muhammad Ali or something. That POS should have been thrown out of the game.

It was a bullcrap reversal. I had several friends (non-WMU fans) tell me how terrible the refs were, particularly with that call. And how about that interception that they took away from Tranquill?

I'm not sure who else noticed, but later in the game when Franklin bulldozed his way to another 10-yeard gain, he ran over Kearney (the offending player on the targeting call) in the process. Franklin then helped Kearney up after the play. That's how you play with class and dignity. You take the cheap shots and then take the high road. I'm really impressed with the maturity of this team. They didn't get mad, they just went out there and destroyed the chimps on the scoreboard.

For those who didn't see the video...

http://screengrabber.deadspin.com/wester...1787322656

The one thing I have learned about targeting is that I don't know what targeting is. There seems to be no real consistency in the calls. Little hits, such as UM vs MSU last year, get called and other blatant ones don't. Based on the previous targeting plays I have seen I thought for sure our guy would get ejected and then he wasn't. I think the NCAA does a really poor job explaining and enforcing this rule.

Fleck said in this week's Bronco Review that the head of officiating contacted him to indicate the hit on Carrington Thompson was indeed targeting.