Now let me first say that NIU shot themselves in the foot with an inept offense to lose this game but that officiating did not help their cause! In 4 non-conference games NIU had less penalties then their opponents. Once they started MAC play the penalties were lopsided with the opponent with far less. The past 2 games both Miami and WMU averaged 2 penalties for 10 yards while NIu averaged 7 penalties. Not a single holding call on their offensive lines either, I find that very very hard to believe that both teams did not hold Sutton smith once that whole game. With that said, that targeting call was the biggest Busch league BS call I’ve seen in a while and changed the dynamic of the game. It should be reviewed and the refs should be held accountable, but we know they won’t be. Now Corcoran will miss half of the MAC championship......for what? A good hit that he wouldn’t be able to avoid anyways???? Absolute cr*p

(11-21-2018 10:08 AM)JoeNovak Wrote:  Now let me first say that NIU shot themselves in the foot with an inept offense to lose this game but that officiating did not help their cause! In 4 non-conference games NIU had less penalties then their opponents. Once they started MAC play the penalties were lopsided with the opponent with far less. The past 2 games both Miami and WMU averaged 2 penalties for 10 yards while NIu averaged 7 penalties. Not a single holding call on their offensive lines either, I find that very very hard to believe that both teams did not hold Sutton smith once that whole game. With that said, that targeting call was the biggest Busch league BS call I’ve seen in a while and changed the dynamic of the game. It should be reviewed and the refs should be held accountable, but we know they won’t be. Now Corcoran will miss half of the MAC championship......for what? A good hit that he wouldn’t be able to avoid anyways???? Absolute cr*p

Yea Corcoran and the team got screwed there.

(11-21-2018 10:12 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(11-21-2018 10:08 AM)JoeNovak Wrote:  Now let me first say that NIU shot themselves in the foot with an inept offense to lose this game but that officiating did not help their cause! In 4 non-conference games NIU had less penalties then their opponents. Once they started MAC play the penalties were lopsided with the opponent with far less. The past 2 games both Miami and WMU averaged 2 penalties for 10 yards while NIu averaged 7 penalties. Not a single holding call on their offensive lines either, I find that very very hard to believe that both teams did not hold Sutton smith once that whole game. With that said, that targeting call was the biggest Busch league BS call I’ve seen in a while and changed the dynamic of the game. It should be reviewed and the refs should be held accountable, but we know they won’t be. Now Corcoran will miss half of the MAC championship......for what? A good hit that he wouldn’t be able to avoid anyways???? Absolute cr*p

Yea Corcoran and the team got screwed there.

Plus it would have been 3rd and 30 or so but instead +15 and 1st and 10. The D looked deflated after that.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

(11-21-2018 10:38 AM)Teamduh Wrote:  

(11-21-2018 10:12 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(11-21-2018 10:08 AM)JoeNovak Wrote:  Now let me first say that NIU shot themselves in the foot with an inept offense to lose this game but that officiating did not help their cause! In 4 non-conference games NIU had less penalties then their opponents. Once they started MAC play the penalties were lopsided with the opponent with far less. The past 2 games both Miami and WMU averaged 2 penalties for 10 yards while NIu averaged 7 penalties. Not a single holding call on their offensive lines either, I find that very very hard to believe that both teams did not hold Sutton smith once that whole game. With that said, that targeting call was the biggest Busch league BS call I’ve seen in a while and changed the dynamic of the game. It should be reviewed and the refs should be held accountable, but we know they won’t be. Now Corcoran will miss half of the MAC championship......for what? A good hit that he wouldn’t be able to avoid anyways???? Absolute cr*p

Yea Corcoran and the team got screwed there.

Plus it would have been 3rd and 30 or so but instead +15 and 1st and 10. The D looked deflated after that.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I don’t care who you are that’s hard to recover from. One of your better players gets thrown out of the game too. Just terrible.

I think poor offensive playing and play calling was ultimately the reason for the loss, but that targeting call was bogus and I actually feel if that wasn’t called we probably would have won. We would have got the ball back with a few minutes in a tie game.

Complete crap for him to miss 1/2 the Macc his senior year

(11-21-2018 12:04 PM)JB04 Wrote:  I think poor offensive playing and play calling was ultimately the reason for the loss, but that targeting call was bogus and I actually feel if that wasn’t called we probably would have won. We would have got the ball back with a few minutes in a tie game.

Complete crap for him to miss 1/2 the Macc his senior year

Get the ball back with decent field position, plenty of time left, and you are not forced to pass every play, so they could run.

I support the targeting rule, even if the refs get it wrong now and then. Better that someone loses a game than hundreds of kids lose their minds later in life. I understand how the play looked like targeting in real time, but I've seen two targeting calls in two games (one was another team) that should have been overturned on review. It seems that the NCAA doesn't want to do this most times, for some reason.

Is there an appeals process (that occurs later in the week) that allows players to play the next game after the NCAA reviews the play and says, "Yeah, it wasn't targeting. You lost your player and got hosed 15 yards, but we'll reverse the suspension at least."?

(11-21-2018 12:27 PM)Huckin Fuskie Wrote:  I support the targeting rule, even if the refs get it wrong now and then. Better that someone loses a game than hundreds of kids lose their minds later in life. I understand how the play looked like targeting in real time, but I've seen two targeting calls in two games (one was another team) that should have been overturned on review. It seems that the NCAA doesn't want to do this most times, for some reason.

Is there an appeals process (that occurs later in the week) that allows players to play the next game after the NCAA reviews the play and says, "Yeah, it wasn't targeting. You lost your player and got hosed 15 yards, but we'll reverse the suspension at least."?

We just went through this when the MAC reversed the last NIU targeting call, but our player was still suspended. We all agreed that is really stupid, but that is the NCAA rule. So if the targeting call gets reversed it is the hollowest of victories!

I, too, support the targeting rule to protect defenseless players and their mental health later in life. If these sorts of rules aren't put in place and enforced the game probably doesn't have a bright future. But the Corcoran hit wasn't targeting, any more so than the hit by Wynne a few games ago that got thrown out by the league upon further review. Here's why I think this: "Targeting" implies intent. If you are "targeting" someone, you are aiming for their head with your helmet. It was clear that Corcoran wasn't intending to separate the QB's head from his shoulders. He went at the QB mid-body, and his tackling form looked perfect. It didn't look to me like the QB was trying to hit the ground or trying to avoid the hit, he looked like he was engaging. Childers hits the ground more often than not; Eleby mixed it up with the D a few times on his rare scrambles. My point: If there's no obvious intent on the part of the defensive player, then throw the flag, penalize him if you have to, give him a warning, call it "unintentional helmet contact" or something like that, but don't make it look like the kid was committing an evil act and for heaven's sake don't suspend him for a half. There is absolutely nothing that Corcoran did on that play that he will do differently the next time he's in a situation exactly like that one despite the penalty, the disqualification, and the 1/2 came suspension. It was a clean play! They have to review these rules in the offseason to get them right because as the rules are written it's just easiest for the officials to air on the side of "cheap shot," even if it the play isn't a cheap shot. Sorry for the rant.

(11-21-2018 12:46 PM)HW58 Wrote:  I, too, support the targeting rule to protect defenseless players and their mental health later in life. If these sorts of rules aren't put in place and enforced the game probably doesn't have a bright future. But the Corcoran hit wasn't targeting, any more so than the hit by Wynne a few games ago that got thrown out by the league upon further review. Here's why I think this: "Targeting" implies intent. If you are "targeting" someone, you are aiming for their head with your helmet. It was clear that Corcoran wasn't intending to separate the QB's head from his shoulders. He went at the QB mid-body, and his tackling form looked perfect. It didn't look to me like the QB was trying to hit the ground or trying to avoid the hit, he looked like he was engaging. Childers hits the ground more often than not; Eleby mixed it up with the D a few times on his rare scrambles. My point: If there's no obvious intent on the part of the defensive player, then throw the flag, penalize him if you have to, give him a warning, call it "unintentional helmet contact" or something like that, but don't make it look like the kid was committing an evil act and for heaven's sake don't suspend him for a half. There is absolutely nothing that Corcoran did on that play that he will do differently the next time he's in a situation exactly like that one despite the penalty, the disqualification, and the 1/2 came suspension. It was a clean play! They have to review these rules in the offseason to get them right because as the rules are written it's just easiest for the officials to air on the side of "cheap shot," even if it the play isn't a cheap shot. Sorry for the rant.

Good post, and not a rant. What you are talking about makes sense. Some might say how can you know the intent of the player? Easy; the intent is inferred from the conduct/act. Like when you see the defenseless receivers getting lit up with helmet to helmet contact or leading with the helmet, the intention is inferred from the act. As I saw it Corcoran had his back to the QB, turned around and the QB was right there and running toward him. As I said in the game thread and someone said today what is he suppose to do? He did want a good defender should do; put his head down and make a good strong tackle; it was clean and not a cheap shot. It looked to me that the top of his helmet hit the shoulder pad. There should not have been any penalty at all; let alone a targeting ejection. I still find it incredible the targeting call was confirmed on review. Being careful and protecting players is one thing, but this is football and a defender and team should not be penalized for a hard clean tackle. I would be surprised if the MAC does not reverse it, which is absolutely meaningless as the suspension for the first half of the MACC will stand!

(11-21-2018 12:27 PM)Huckin Fuskie Wrote:  I support the targeting rule, even if the refs get it wrong now and then. Better that someone loses a game than hundreds of kids lose their minds later in life. I understand how the play looked like targeting in real time, but I've seen two targeting calls in two games (one was another team) that should have been overturned on review. It seems that the NCAA doesn't want to do this most times, for some reason.

Is there an appeals process (that occurs later in the week) that allows players to play the next game after the NCAA reviews the play and says, "Yeah, it wasn't targeting. You lost your player and got hosed 15 yards, but we'll reverse the suspension at least."?

No. Earlier in the year Wynne #93 was ejected for targeting. Bad call but it was also confirmed. MAC admitted it should not have been targeting but the suspension had to stand because of the ncaa rule.

(11-21-2018 01:08 PM)NILAW Wrote:  

(11-21-2018 12:46 PM)HW58 Wrote:  I, too, support the targeting rule to protect defenseless players and their mental health later in life. If these sorts of rules aren't put in place and enforced the game probably doesn't have a bright future. But the Corcoran hit wasn't targeting, any more so than the hit by Wynne a few games ago that got thrown out by the league upon further review. Here's why I think this: "Targeting" implies intent. If you are "targeting" someone, you are aiming for their head with your helmet. It was clear that Corcoran wasn't intending to separate the QB's head from his shoulders. He went at the QB mid-body, and his tackling form looked perfect. It didn't look to me like the QB was trying to hit the ground or trying to avoid the hit, he looked like he was engaging. Childers hits the ground more often than not; Eleby mixed it up with the D a few times on his rare scrambles. My point: If there's no obvious intent on the part of the defensive player, then throw the flag, penalize him if you have to, give him a warning, call it "unintentional helmet contact" or something like that, but don't make it look like the kid was committing an evil act and for heaven's sake don't suspend him for a half. There is absolutely nothing that Corcoran did on that play that he will do differently the next time he's in a situation exactly like that one despite the penalty, the disqualification, and the 1/2 came suspension. It was a clean play! They have to review these rules in the offseason to get them right because as the rules are written it's just easiest for the officials to air on the side of "cheap shot," even if it the play isn't a cheap shot. Sorry for the rant.

Good post, and not a rant. What you are talking about makes sense. Some might say how can you know the intent of the player? Easy; the intent is inferred from the conduct/act. Like when you see the defenseless receivers getting lit up with helmet to helmet contact or leading with the helmet, the intention is inferred from the act. As I saw it Corcoran had his back to the QB, turned around and the QB was right there and running toward him. As I said in the game thread and someone said today what is he suppose to do? He did want a good defender should do; put his head down and make a good strong tackle; it was clean and not a cheap shot. It looked to me that the top of his helmet hit the shoulder pad. There should not have been any penalty at all; let alone a targeting ejection. I still find it incredible the targeting call was confirmed on review. Being careful and protecting players is one thing, but this is football and a defender and team should not be penalized for a hard clean tackle. I would be surprised if the MAC does not reverse it, which is absolutely meaningless as the suspension for the first half of the MACC will stand!

There’s the point—it was confirmed on review. To be clear, the refs make the call on the field, but the final determination is made in the booth by the replay official. The problem in Corcoran’s case is the letter of the law. Objectively, he led with the crown of his helmet. He 100% hit the shoulder of the quarterback, but led with the crown. The announcers wavered about three times while watching the replay and the graphic the showed with the rule clearly stated that he did meet one of the criterion for targeting.

At some point someone has to be given the latitude to understand the flow of the sport and be able to apply intent to some plays. In this case, the quarterback, in an awkward scramble turned back into the path of the tackler and the tackler in his effort did not make helmet to helmet or helmet to neck contact, even if it was via the crown of the helmet. It was clearly on the shoulder pad and the risk of injury was minimal.

It took the NFL about 10 years to sort of the “catch” rule and now that has been re-applied.

I think it’s a little above us to think that common sense would take over in any situation.

(11-21-2018 10:12 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(11-21-2018 10:08 AM)JoeNovak Wrote:  Now let me first say that NIU shot themselves in the foot with an inept offense to lose this game but that officiating did not help their cause! In 4 non-conference games NIU had less penalties then their opponents. Once they started MAC play the penalties were lopsided with the opponent with far less. The past 2 games both Miami and WMU averaged 2 penalties for 10 yards while NIu averaged 7 penalties. Not a single holding call on their offensive lines either, I find that very very hard to believe that both teams did not hold Sutton smith once that whole game. With that said, that targeting call was the biggest Busch league BS call I’ve seen in a while and changed the dynamic of the game. It should be reviewed and the refs should be held accountable, but we know they won’t be. Now Corcoran will miss half of the MAC championship......for what? A good hit that he wouldn’t be able to avoid anyways???? Absolute cr*p

Yea Corcoran and the team got screwed there.

It really didn’t make much of a difference. Childers would have just thrown the pick earlier. That’s all...