CSNbbs

Here is an interesting video of Coach Herman at the LB after the loss to Memphis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVVzTJSNkZk#t=3.835375

(11-27-2016 11:09 PM)DallasTiger Wrote: [ -> ]Here is an interesting video of Coach Herman at the LB after the loss to Memphis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVVzTJSNkZk#t=3.835375

Herman's comments about the targeting that called is so stupid. Don't blame the refs. That was a clear case of targeting. Players are taught to not lead with the head. I've noticed the Tigers are much better this year in that regards which goes back to our staff teaching the guys the proper way to tackle.

I thought the refs were weak in that game, but weak toward both teams.
That targeting call was pretty blatant, tho. They got it right.

Wow. 6-0 against top-25 teams. I did not realize that.

Ask Herman about that PHANTOM DPI call that bailed Houston out right in front of him on his sideline.

Loser.

If there was a clinic on targeting that hit would be presented.

(11-28-2016 03:49 PM)AlonsoWDC Wrote: [ -> ]Ask Herman about that PHANTOM DPI call that bailed Houston out right in front of him on his sideline.

Loser.

Oh, he knows. But he's not gonna deny the call.. nobody would. IMO, he really didn't say anything in there was hyper-critical of the officiating. I could hear the guy's question, and he was baiting Tom to "t-off" on the refs, but Tom toned it down a notch and just said "it was a facemask, I don't think there are levels of severity of facemasks."

(11-28-2016 03:56 PM)tiger2000 Wrote: [ -> ]If there was a clinic on targeting that hit would be presented.

How would you prefer the defender tackle the receiver in that ergonomic situation? Because I will take the call, no doubt, but if the jerseys were reversed, that is the question I would be asking.

(11-28-2016 03:56 PM)tiger2000 Wrote: [ -> ]If there was a clinic on targeting that hit would be presented.

Ya, that was as easy and clear as it gets. That will be shown as training...

(11-28-2016 04:02 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-28-2016 03:56 PM)tiger2000 Wrote: [ -> ]If there was a clinic on targeting that hit would be presented.

How would you prefer the defender tackle the receiver in that ergonomic situation? Because I will take the call, no doubt, but if the jerseys were reversed, that is the question I would be asking.

Not with the crown of the helmet. The defender had his face mask looking at the ground and lead with the crown of his helmet. That is a clear and blatant targeting penalty. It did not matter whether he made contact with our guy's helmet or if he hit him right square in the chest. It would still have been clear targeting. Jerseys reversed and it is just as clear and easy of a call. Lower the head and lead with the crown of the helmet and you are going to get flagged, that has been made clear the last 4 or 5 years...

(11-28-2016 04:07 PM)Tygrys Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-28-2016 04:02 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-28-2016 03:56 PM)tiger2000 Wrote: [ -> ]If there was a clinic on targeting that hit would be presented.

How would you prefer the defender tackle the receiver in that ergonomic situation? Because I will take the call, no doubt, but if the jerseys were reversed, that is the question I would be asking.

Not with the crown of the helmet. The defender had his face mask looking at the ground and lead with the crown of his helmet. That is a clear and blatant targeting penalty. It did not matter whether he made contact with our guy's helmet or if he hit him right square in the chest. It would still have been clear targeting. Jerseys reversed and it is just as clear and easy of a call. Lower the head and lead with the crown of the helmet and you are going to get flagged, that has been made clear the last 4 or 5 years...

I did not know that the player used his crown. I only saw it live from the 20th row, but our guy's back was to us. All I know is, at 145lbs, that was the only way I could put a 225lb full back on his but when I was playing high school ball in the 80s.