(12-04-2017 12:07 PM)hwut1 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 08:39 AM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  And I know we go through this annually but don’t the Big Ten and MAC share a referee pool?

They did when John Payak was in charge of basketball officials for both conferences. But I do not think they do now, because I know the MAC has it's own try out camp. A few may still work both leagues but not many.

As far as I know, we still share the officials with the B10, at least for football. In June the Blade did a story where they interviewed the reported head of Big 10 and MAC officiating. I think Missouri Valley is in the pool too.

Don't know about basketball.

(12-04-2017 07:21 PM)northcoastRocket Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 12:07 PM)hwut1 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 08:39 AM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  And I know we go through this annually but don’t the Big Ten and MAC share a referee pool?

They did when John Payak was in charge of basketball officials for both conferences. But I do not think they do now, because I know the MAC has it's own try out camp. A few may still work both leagues but not many.

As far as I know, we still share the officials with the B10, at least for football. In June the Blade did a story where they interviewed the reported head of Big 10 and MAC officiating. I think Missouri Valley is in the pool too.

Don't know about basketball.

I think knowing they did both leagues would justify how bad they are

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJswJ75T_so
2 hour 19 minute mark is the penalty against Ola... can we get this reversed so he can play the 1st half of the bowl game?

Head first. We get a couple paralyzed tacklers and the endless discussions will go away. He was attempting a tackle. His hands or his shoulder should have been first.

I do presume our coaches teach them better but instincts have been built up from years of less steller, "old school" coaches. I think the announcers covered it well also.

Here's the targeting rule from the NCAA D1 Football Rule Book. I underlined and highlighted the relevant parts. Although the UA QB was not a defenseless player, and Ola did not make contact to the head, it doesn't matter. If you make forcible contact with the crown of your helmet to any player anywhere on their body, and you dipped your head in doing so (or one of several other things) it is targeting. And note the rule says, if there is a question, you have to err on the side of calling targeting.

Quote:Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet
ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 9-6) (A.R. 9-1-3-I)

Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player
ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)

Note 1: “Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:
• Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area
• A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground
• Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
• Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet

Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14):
• A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
• A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
• A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return.
• A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier..
• A player on the ground.
• A player obviously out of the play.
• A player who receives a blind-side block.
• A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped.
• A quarterback any time after a change of possession
• A ball carrier who has obviously given himself up and is sliding feet-first.

And, if you want an example of why the NCAA implemented this rule, watch the play from this week's Steelers Bengals game where Shazier made what looked like was going to be a textbook tackle ... except he dipped his head, made initial contact with the crown of his helmet and is now in the hospital, with a potentially serious back injury.

The NCAA is trying to reduce the number of serious injuries and concussions for both the ball carrier AND the tackler. Is it gonna eliminate all injuries - no. Is the punishment harsh - yep. Is it too harsh - I don't know. But I do know they have been trying to get players to stop lowering their heads for years now, and it hasn't worked yet. So, this is their latest attempt to do that.

Then every linemen to linemen block is targeting... Every rb who puts his head down is targeting. Every tackle a corner makes where he launches at the legs of a WR and makes first contact with the shoulder, but head was IN FRONT OF THE SHOULDER is targeting. No consistency. Kato got spun into Ola. Ola made contact where he did not assume Kato would be.

Just a bad call, no doubt he did not strike the runner in the helmet, when you stretch out, dive, lunge to make tackles it is hard to keep your head up. Such a great hard nosed play. A travesty goll darn it.

(12-07-2017 01:46 PM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  Then every linemen to linemen block is targeting... Every rb who puts his head down is targeting. Every tackle a corner makes where he launches at the legs of a WR and makes first contact with the shoulder, but head was IN FRONT OF THE SHOULDER is targeting. No consistency. Kato got spun into Ola. Ola made contact where he did not assume Kato would be.

I"ve said the same thing about RB's being human battering rams. I understand the NCAA is siding with safety. I get the call. Make it 15 yards. Call it unnessary roughness.

There should be a common sense clause, or two levels. Penalize the team 15 yards for the incidental targeting like the Ola call. If a kid flies into a pile, takes out a defenseless player, is looking to make the highlights, then toss him out for the rest of the game. In Ola's, both players, popped right up like nothing happened. It was a football play. Eliminate tossing them the following game. I fall on the side that no player is looking to intentionally hurt anyone.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

(12-03-2017 08:00 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  

(12-03-2017 07:53 PM)MotoRocket Wrote:  

(12-03-2017 02:08 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  

(12-03-2017 10:54 AM)MotoRocket Wrote:  Again, my point on the fumble calls is that the officials on the replay used the fact that they ball came out on the play and worked backward to conclude when it came out despite not having any evidence at the time the knee hit the ground that it was out. This pertains to the Seymour fumble vs. the Swanson fumble. If you cannot conclude the ball was out at the time the knee hit the ground, you cannot move forward and say it came out - so we will conclude it must have been out at some prior point even though we can't determine it from the video evidence. Of course there were fumbles on both plays - no one questions that. What is in question is what exactly did they see to determine the ball was out when the knee hit the ground. I can agree with it on the Swanson fumble - no way on the Seymour fumble. Once the knee hits the ground and you cannot see the ball loose, you can't project forward to say it came out and therefore we are going to conclude it was out even though we cannot see it was out of his hands when the knee hit. To me, that is plain and simple and the correct interpretation of the rule for replays. Conclusive evidence to overturn. It wasn't there.

The ball might not have been OUT before his knee was down, but it was starting to come out. Therefore, he did not have possession and it was a fumble. It was a good call and there was conclusive evidence that it was coming loose.

Starting to come out? That means it was not out and therefore the ball is dead once the knee hits. Even your own comment proves my point. The conclusive evidence was not there and continuing to say it was a fumble is pointless if it was not out when the knee touched. This is like arguing with the guy that kept saying TY Hilton could advance the ball while it was out of bounds because his foot was not on the ground out of bounds - and therefore it was correct to give him the first down. There are rules that exist - they need to be adhered to and not opinions given about the ball "coming out" Either it was out of his possession or it wasn't. If you have to replay it for 3 freaking minutes, it seems pretty obvious there is no conclusive evidence to over turn the call on the field.

You have your view of it and I have mine. You are not changing my opinion and the facts that exist - and I know I am not changing your opinion. So it is what it is.

This is incorrect. You need to have full control of the ball for you to be down. He did not have that. You can have your opinion, but your opinion is 100% incorrect.

The point is that you cannot tell from the replay if he had full possession of the ball or not. It was not conclusive evidence that the ball was out of his control at the time the knee hit the ground. It came out after the knee was on the ground. Until then, there was no evidence he had lost control of the ball. NONE. If there was, it would have been obvious to everyone on the replay. You cannot say - well, it must have been out of his control because he eventually lost the ball. That is not how the rule works for overturning the play called on the field. It is inconclusive. Suppose there was something blocking the view out completely after his knee touched the ground - could you then say it was obvious he lost control of the ball before the knee touched the ground from the replays available. If you say anything other than NO, then I'd like to see what you are looking at.

(12-08-2017 02:55 PM)MotoRocket Wrote:  The point is that you cannot tell from the replay if he had full possession of the ball or not. It was not conclusive evidence that the ball was out of his control at the time the knee hit the ground. It came out after the knee was on the ground. Until then, there was no evidence he had lost control of the ball. NONE. If there was, it would have been obvious to everyone on the replay. You cannot say - well, it must have been out of his control because he eventually lost the ball. That is not how the rule works for overturning the play called on the field. It is inconclusive. Suppose there was something blocking the view out completely after his knee touched the ground - could you then say it was obvious he lost control of the ball before the knee touched the ground from the replays available. If you say anything other than NO, then I'd like to see what you are looking at.

There was clear, conclusive, 100% evidence that both Swanson and Shafik did not have full possession of the ball. Period. End of story.

(12-08-2017 05:14 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  

(12-08-2017 02:55 PM)MotoRocket Wrote:  The point is that you cannot tell from the replay if he had full possession of the ball or not. It was not conclusive evidence that the ball was out of his control at the time the knee hit the ground. It came out after the knee was on the ground. Until then, there was no evidence he had lost control of the ball. NONE. If there was, it would have been obvious to everyone on the replay. You cannot say - well, it must have been out of his control because he eventually lost the ball. That is not how the rule works for overturning the play called on the field. It is inconclusive. Suppose there was something blocking the view out completely after his knee touched the ground - could you then say it was obvious he lost control of the ball before the knee touched the ground from the replays available. If you say anything other than NO, then I'd like to see what you are looking at.

There was clear, inconclusive, 100% evidence that both Swanson and Shafik did not have full possession of the ball. Period. End of story.

Nothing like "clear, inconclusive 100% evidence". That always settles things.

(12-08-2017 06:34 PM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  

(12-08-2017 05:14 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  

(12-08-2017 02:55 PM)MotoRocket Wrote:  The point is that you cannot tell from the replay if he had full possession of the ball or not. It was not conclusive evidence that the ball was out of his control at the time the knee hit the ground. It came out after the knee was on the ground. Until then, there was no evidence he had lost control of the ball. NONE. If there was, it would have been obvious to everyone on the replay. You cannot say - well, it must have been out of his control because he eventually lost the ball. That is not how the rule works for overturning the play called on the field. It is inconclusive. Suppose there was something blocking the view out completely after his knee touched the ground - could you then say it was obvious he lost control of the ball before the knee touched the ground from the replays available. If you say anything other than NO, then I'd like to see what you are looking at.

There was clear, inconclusive, 100% evidence that both Swanson and Shafik did not have full possession of the ball. Period. End of story.

Nothing like "clear, inconclusive 100% evidence". That always settles things.

Damn you!

(12-08-2017 06:54 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  

(12-08-2017 06:34 PM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  

(12-08-2017 05:14 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  

(12-08-2017 02:55 PM)MotoRocket Wrote:  The point is that you cannot tell from the replay if he had full possession of the ball or not. It was not conclusive evidence that the ball was out of his control at the time the knee hit the ground. It came out after the knee was on the ground. Until then, there was no evidence he had lost control of the ball. NONE. If there was, it would have been obvious to everyone on the replay. You cannot say - well, it must have been out of his control because he eventually lost the ball. That is not how the rule works for overturning the play called on the field. It is inconclusive. Suppose there was something blocking the view out completely after his knee touched the ground - could you then say it was obvious he lost control of the ball before the knee touched the ground from the replays available. If you say anything other than NO, then I'd like to see what you are looking at.

There was clear, inconclusive, 100% evidence that both Swanson and Shafik did not have full possession of the ball. Period. End of story.

Nothing like "clear, inconclusive 100% evidence". That always settles things.

Damn you!

(12-08-2017 07:42 PM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  

(12-08-2017 06:54 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  

(12-08-2017 06:34 PM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  

(12-08-2017 05:14 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  

(12-08-2017 02:55 PM)MotoRocket Wrote:  The point is that you cannot tell from the replay if he had full possession of the ball or not. It was not conclusive evidence that the ball was out of his control at the time the knee hit the ground. It came out after the knee was on the ground. Until then, there was no evidence he had lost control of the ball. NONE. If there was, it would have been obvious to everyone on the replay. You cannot say - well, it must have been out of his control because he eventually lost the ball. That is not how the rule works for overturning the play called on the field. It is inconclusive. Suppose there was something blocking the view out completely after his knee touched the ground - could you then say it was obvious he lost control of the ball before the knee touched the ground from the replays available. If you say anything other than NO, then I'd like to see what you are looking at.

There was clear, inconclusive, 100% evidence that both Swanson and Shafik did not have full possession of the ball. Period. End of story.

Nothing like "clear, inconclusive 100% evidence". That always settles things.

Damn you!