Congratulations to the team.

That was a brutal 4th quarter.

(12-02-2017 04:08 PM)northcoastRocket Wrote:  By the letter of the rule, it was targeting. Lowered his head and made forcible contact with the crown of the helmet. That's targeting, according to the rule.

I don't think he meant to do it. Think he was trying to lead with the shoulder, but the player got spun into him, but regardless, he did hit him with the crown of the helmet. Certainly sucks he will miss half the bowl game.

Facemask to the center of his shoulder pads is not the crown. It was a terrible call.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

(12-02-2017 04:19 PM)emanoh Wrote:  

(12-02-2017 04:08 PM)northcoastRocket Wrote:  By the letter of the rule, it was targeting. Lowered his head and made forcible contact with the crown of the helmet. That's targeting, according to the rule.

I don't think he meant to do it. Think he was trying to lead with the shoulder, but the player got spun into him, but regardless, he did hit him with the crown of the helmet. Certainly sucks he will miss half the bowl game.

Facemask to the center of his shoulder pads is not the crown. It was a terrible call.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Plus the runner spun right into him. Sad.

(12-02-2017 04:24 PM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  

(12-02-2017 04:19 PM)emanoh Wrote:  

(12-02-2017 04:08 PM)northcoastRocket Wrote:  By the letter of the rule, it was targeting. Lowered his head and made forcible contact with the crown of the helmet. That's targeting, according to the rule.

I don't think he meant to do it. Think he was trying to lead with the shoulder, but the player got spun into him, but regardless, he did hit him with the crown of the helmet. Certainly sucks he will miss half the bowl game.

Facemask to the center of his shoulder pads is not the crown. It was a terrible call.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Plus the runner spun right into him. Sad.

Please tell me there is an appeals process?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

(12-02-2017 04:26 PM)emanoh Wrote:  

(12-02-2017 04:24 PM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  

(12-02-2017 04:19 PM)emanoh Wrote:  

(12-02-2017 04:08 PM)northcoastRocket Wrote:  By the letter of the rule, it was targeting. Lowered his head and made forcible contact with the crown of the helmet. That's targeting, according to the rule.

I don't think he meant to do it. Think he was trying to lead with the shoulder, but the player got spun into him, but regardless, he did hit him with the crown of the helmet. Certainly sucks he will miss half the bowl game.

Facemask to the center of his shoulder pads is not the crown. It was a terrible call.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Plus the runner spun right into him. Sad.

Please tell me there is an appeals process?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

If I was coach, I'd make him sit out the offensive half of the game.

(12-02-2017 04:19 PM)emanoh Wrote:  

(12-02-2017 04:08 PM)northcoastRocket Wrote:  By the letter of the rule, it was targeting. Lowered his head and made forcible contact with the crown of the helmet. That's targeting, according to the rule.

I don't think he meant to do it. Think he was trying to lead with the shoulder, but the player got spun into him, but regardless, he did hit him with the crown of the helmet. Certainly sucks he will miss half the bowl game.

Facemask to the center of his shoulder pads is not the crown. It was a terrible call.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Except it wasn't the facemask. Crown of the helmet smack against the shoulder of the player. Unfortunate, but that's the rule. They are trying to keep players from dropping their head, and he clearly dropped his head.

(12-02-2017 04:43 PM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  

(12-02-2017 04:26 PM)emanoh Wrote:  

(12-02-2017 04:24 PM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  

(12-02-2017 04:19 PM)emanoh Wrote:  

(12-02-2017 04:08 PM)northcoastRocket Wrote:  By the letter of the rule, it was targeting. Lowered his head and made forcible contact with the crown of the helmet. That's targeting, according to the rule.

I don't think he meant to do it. Think he was trying to lead with the shoulder, but the player got spun into him, but regardless, he did hit him with the crown of the helmet. Certainly sucks he will miss half the bowl game.

Facemask to the center of his shoulder pads is not the crown. It was a terrible call.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Plus the runner spun right into him. Sad.

Please tell me there is an appeals process?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

If I was coach, I'd make him sit out the offensive half of the game.

LOL

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

(12-02-2017 05:01 PM)northcoastRocket Wrote:  

(12-02-2017 04:19 PM)emanoh Wrote:  

(12-02-2017 04:08 PM)northcoastRocket Wrote:  By the letter of the rule, it was targeting. Lowered his head and made forcible contact with the crown of the helmet. That's targeting, according to the rule.

I don't think he meant to do it. Think he was trying to lead with the shoulder, but the player got spun into him, but regardless, he did hit him with the crown of the helmet. Certainly sucks he will miss half the bowl game.

Facemask to the center of his shoulder pads is not the crown. It was a terrible call.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Except it wasn't the facemask. Crown of the helmet smack against the shoulder of the player. Unfortunate, but that's the rule. They are trying to keep players from dropping their head, and he clearly dropped his head.

It is a bad rule then. Shouldn’t punish the kid for making a football play. He wasn’t defenseless, and there was no intent to injure.

(12-02-2017 05:01 PM)northcoastRocket Wrote:  

(12-02-2017 04:19 PM)emanoh Wrote:  

(12-02-2017 04:08 PM)northcoastRocket Wrote:  By the letter of the rule, it was targeting. Lowered his head and made forcible contact with the crown of the helmet. That's targeting, according to the rule.

I don't think he meant to do it. Think he was trying to lead with the shoulder, but the player got spun into him, but regardless, he did hit him with the crown of the helmet. Certainly sucks he will miss half the bowl game.

Facemask to the center of his shoulder pads is not the crown. It was a terrible call.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Except it wasn't the facemask. Crown of the helmet smack against the shoulder of the player. Unfortunate, but that's the rule. They are trying to keep players from dropping their head, and he clearly dropped his head.

So now you can't hit a kid's shoulder pads? The whole rule needs to be reviewed. Sort of like speeding. If posted limit is 65 and you are doing 66, you are technically speeding, but if you are keeping up with traffic, so you don't get run over your intent isn't to speed.

Our kid had no intention of spearing or injuring the opposing player. It was a bang, bang play. I looked at it throughout the replay and IMO it was a terrible call and penalized a kid for being a football player.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

(12-02-2017 05:07 PM)rockytop Wrote:  

(12-02-2017 05:01 PM)northcoastRocket Wrote:  

(12-02-2017 04:19 PM)emanoh Wrote:  

(12-02-2017 04:08 PM)northcoastRocket Wrote:  By the letter of the rule, it was targeting. Lowered his head and made forcible contact with the crown of the helmet. That's targeting, according to the rule.

I don't think he meant to do it. Think he was trying to lead with the shoulder, but the player got spun into him, but regardless, he did hit him with the crown of the helmet. Certainly sucks he will miss half the bowl game.

Facemask to the center of his shoulder pads is not the crown. It was a terrible call.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Except it wasn't the facemask. Crown of the helmet smack against the shoulder of the player. Unfortunate, but that's the rule. They are trying to keep players from dropping their head, and he clearly dropped his head.

It is a bad rule then. Shouldn’t punish the kid for making a football play. He wasn’t defenseless, and there was no intent to injure.

Agree 100%

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

(12-02-2017 05:07 PM)rockytop Wrote:  

(12-02-2017 05:01 PM)northcoastRocket Wrote:  

(12-02-2017 04:19 PM)emanoh Wrote:  

(12-02-2017 04:08 PM)northcoastRocket Wrote:  By the letter of the rule, it was targeting. Lowered his head and made forcible contact with the crown of the helmet. That's targeting, according to the rule.

I don't think he meant to do it. Think he was trying to lead with the shoulder, but the player got spun into him, but regardless, he did hit him with the crown of the helmet. Certainly sucks he will miss half the bowl game.

Facemask to the center of his shoulder pads is not the crown. It was a terrible call.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Except it wasn't the facemask. Crown of the helmet smack against the shoulder of the player. Unfortunate, but that's the rule. They are trying to keep players from dropping their head, and he clearly dropped his head.

It is a bad rule then. Shouldn’t punish the kid for making a football play. He wasn’t defenseless, and there was no intent to injure.

The rule is about reducing the incidence of head injury whether the hit is from intent to injure or not.

Great Game, Great Win MAC Champs!

what a tribute to the depth of this team and the consistency of it's senior leaders, woodside, swanson, weiss, nkansah, moore, woodley and mathis as well as all the backups who had to step up and take on a bigger role. this team is resilient, got pummeled with injuries and still won a title.

Couldn't follow the game live, and haven't been through the whole game thread. Chances are somebody mentioned this, but I just noticed the Rockets only committed four penalties. And apparently, based on some of the comments elsewhere on the board, the zebras were having a tough day. Haven't watched the game yet (which I recorded on my DVD) so can't comment on how the officials did. But four is much better than UT's average.

https://www.teamrankings.com/college-foo...s-per-game

(12-03-2017 08:43 AM)cnyrocketfan Wrote:  Couldn't follow the game live, and haven't been through the whole game thread. Chances are somebody mentioned this, but I just noticed the Rockets only committed four penalties. And apparently, based on some of the comments elsewhere on the board, the zebras were having a tough day. Haven't watched the game yet (which I recorded on my DVD) so can't comment on how the officials did. But four is much better than UT's average.

https://www.teamrankings.com/college-foo...s-per-game

They didn't seem to be in control and confusion over calls was rampant.

A little underwhelmed by the Blah's coverage in the Sunday paper.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Akron post game press conference:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuq9wzXs...e=youtu.be

Toledo post game press conference:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39PMimHfUcs

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

(12-03-2017 09:26 AM)emanoh Wrote:  A little underwhelmed by the Blah's coverage in the Sunday paper.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Blah been irrelevant for years