Targeting.... - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Targeting.... (/thread-12717.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Targeting.... (/thread-12717.html)
Re: Targeting.... - cardfan77 - 09-28-2016
This is disgusting..... simply disgusting. Why wait until the end of the season to review the rulebook? Are they seriously willing to risk players safety/life? Since game officials will not penalize player, I hope Goodman and other players are not encouraged to deliver dirty hits.
Our new president Marc Tessier-Lavigne should get involve in this matter. After all, he is a neuroscientist.
Re: Targeting.... - FarmBoy - 09-28-2016
Can the Pac12 change the rules outside of the NCAA? Would Pac12 refs use non-NCAA rules in non conference games?
Re: Targeting.... - FarmBoy - 09-28-2016
Can the Pac12 change the rules outside of the NCAA? Would Pac12 refs use non-NCAA rules in non conference games?
Re: Targeting.... - OutsiderFan - 09-28-2016
So, the Pac-12 has just put out an official statement declaring to all players and coaches that it is perfectly OK to hit ball carriers in the head in the open field with your helmet in an effort to knock them unconscious in hopes they fumble the ball. Got it.
The league office should be INUNDATED with complaints about not only this affirmation of the rules, but also the absurdity of saying they will review in the offseason, whilst they are knowingly putting players at risk by not addressing the issue now.
Re: Targeting.... - OutsiderFan - 09-28-2016
So, the Pac-12 has just put out an official statement declaring to all players and coaches that it is perfectly OK to hit ball carriers in the head in the open field with your helmet in an effort to knock them unconscious in hopes they fumble the ball. Got it.
The league office should be INUNDATED with complaints about not only this affirmation of the rules, but also the absurdity of saying they will review in the offseason, whilst they are knowingly putting players at risk by not addressing the issue now.
Re: Targeting.... - Hank 91 - 09-28-2016
I tweeted about this during the game, but I'll repeat it again here. At Pac-12 Media Day, the first speaker on the second day was the VP of Officials. He said that the main point of emphasis for the officials this season would be uniform violations. They could've chosen consistent officiating or player safety, but instead they were worried about the height of players' socks and the length of their towels. They're so worried about the league's image that they don't realize what the image is. This is a poorly officiated league, and they aren't taking steps to change that. Now, if we were only talking about bad pass interference calls that change the outcomes of games, that would be bad enough, but they're talking about socks while players are being injured. Enough.
Re: Targeting.... - Hank 91 - 09-28-2016
I tweeted about this during the game, but I'll repeat it again here. At Pac-12 Media Day, the first speaker on the second day was the VP of Officials. He said that the main point of emphasis for the officials this season would be uniform violations. They could've chosen consistent officiating or player safety, but instead they were worried about the height of players' socks and the length of their towels. They're so worried about the league's image that they don't realize what the image is. This is a poorly officiated league, and they aren't taking steps to change that. Now, if we were only talking about bad pass interference calls that change the outcomes of games, that would be bad enough, but they're talking about socks while players are being injured. Enough.
Re: Targeting.... - jacketree - 09-28-2016
(09-28-2016, 03:58 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:Can the Pac12 change the rules outside of the NCAA? Would Pac12 refs use non-NCAA rules in non conference games?
No. The rules are the rules and Stanford never plays outside of the NCAA's sanction.
But the Pac12 can certainly discuss how rules are to be interpreted by their crews (on-field and in the replay booth), points of emphasis, and so forth.
Re: Targeting.... - jacketree - 09-28-2016
(09-28-2016, 03:58 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:Can the Pac12 change the rules outside of the NCAA? Would Pac12 refs use non-NCAA rules in non conference games?
No. The rules are the rules and Stanford never plays outside of the NCAA's sanction.
But the Pac12 can certainly discuss how rules are to be interpreted by their crews (on-field and in the replay booth), points of emphasis, and so forth.
Re: Targeting.... - Phogge - 09-28-2016
The Pac 12 czar is all about making the schools and himself rich. He is what is all wrong in college football. Look what he's done:
- Big Game in October.
- Anti-kid with the late starts
- Cost Toby and Mac the Voldemort
- Stanford in Australia next year. Not a bad place to play but how does it impact the season?
Re: Targeting.... - Phogge - 09-28-2016
The Pac 12 czar is all about making the schools and himself rich. He is what is all wrong in college football. Look what he's done:
- Big Game in October.
- Anti-kid with the late starts
- Cost Toby and Mac the Voldemort
- Stanford in Australia next year. Not a bad place to play but how does it impact the season?
Re: Targeting.... - thunder_chik - 09-28-2016
(09-27-2016, 09:46 PM)82 Card link Wrote:All along, I hoped my cynicism was wrong. Now I feel sick. These people really are as warped as I expected.Unfortunately, it looks as though it will take a major injury (paralysis?) and/or a few lawsuits to get their attention...
Re: Targeting.... - thunder_chik - 09-28-2016
(09-27-2016, 09:46 PM)82 Card link Wrote:All along, I hoped my cynicism was wrong. Now I feel sick. These people really are as warped as I expected.Unfortunately, it looks as though it will take a major injury (paralysis?) and/or a few lawsuits to get their attention...
Re: Targeting.... - BostonCard - 09-28-2016
And given how vaguely defined the "top" of the helmet is, it is something that could be interpreted broadly, especially since the clause, "when in doubt, it is considered targeting" invites a broad interpretatio.
BC
Re: Targeting.... - BostonCard - 09-28-2016
And given how vaguely defined the "top" of the helmet is, it is something that could be interpreted broadly, especially since the clause, "when in doubt, it is considered targeting" invites a broad interpretatio.
BC
Re: Targeting.... - French Rage - 09-28-2016
(09-28-2016, 03:01 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:And given how vaguely defined the "top" of the helmet is, it is something that could be interpreted broadly, especially since the clause, "when in doubt, it is considered targeting" invites a broad interpretatio.
BC
Plus I would think common sense would be used in the definition. It should be however close enough to the top allows the hitter to deliver a dangerous amount of force to the hittee. And that's definitely the case here. I understand that, say, grazing somehow with the side of your helmet might not deliver enough force, and that a hit with the facemask (of the hitter) might not deliver the ummph needed to endanger the hittee. But in this case it clearly did the type of damage that we are trying to protect against. Unless the exact tip-top point of the helmet has some crazy amount of super force I'm unaware of.
Re: Targeting.... - French Rage - 09-28-2016
(09-28-2016, 03:01 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:And given how vaguely defined the "top" of the helmet is, it is something that could be interpreted broadly, especially since the clause, "when in doubt, it is considered targeting" invites a broad interpretatio.
BC
Plus I would think common sense would be used in the definition. It should be however close enough to the top allows the hitter to deliver a dangerous amount of force to the hittee. And that's definitely the case here. I understand that, say, grazing somehow with the side of your helmet might not deliver enough force, and that a hit with the facemask (of the hitter) might not deliver the ummph needed to endanger the hittee. But in this case it clearly did the type of damage that we are trying to protect against. Unless the exact tip-top point of the helmet has some crazy amount of super force I'm unaware of.
Re: Targeting.... - ThePassionOfTheChryst - 09-28-2016
(09-28-2016, 01:02 PM)Phogge link Wrote:The Pac 12 czar is all about making the schools and himself rich.
To be fair, is that not his job? Player safety obviously needs to trump all, but as I understand it, he is employed at the pleasure of the university presidents.
Re: Targeting.... - ThePassionOfTheChryst - 09-28-2016
(09-28-2016, 01:02 PM)Phogge link Wrote:The Pac 12 czar is all about making the schools and himself rich.
To be fair, is that not his job? Player safety obviously needs to trump all, but as I understand it, he is employed at the pleasure of the university presidents.
Re: Targeting.... - ThePassionOfTheChryst - 09-28-2016
(09-28-2016, 01:02 PM)Phogge link Wrote:The Pac 12 czar is all about making the schools and himself rich.
To be fair, is that not his job? Player safety obviously needs to trump all, but as I understand it, he is employed at the pleasure of the university presidents.