[Bruce Wang]

Ultimately Mora is responsible.  He's on the record being OK with penalties because the lack thereof means his team isn't aggressive enough.  I don't think he put bounties on players.  He's not that stupid.  He probably challenged his team to man up and not play like the wusses that lost 8 in a row.  He created the climate that implicitly encouraged his players to injure Stanford. He knew what he was doing.

[Bruce Wang]

Ultimately Mora is responsible.  He's on the record being OK with penalties because the lack thereof means his team isn't aggressive enough.  I don't think he put bounties on players.  He's not that stupid.  He probably challenged his team to man up and not play like the wusses that lost 8 in a row.  He created the climate that implicitly encouraged his players to injure Stanford. He knew what he was doing.

[Snorlax94]

Here's another game, this time from 2014, where the same player was involved in a targeting controversy.

http://247sports.com/Bolt/Video-UCLA-saf...--32567078

[Snorlax94]

Here's another game, this time from 2014, where the same player was involved in a targeting controversy.

http://247sports.com/Bolt/Video-UCLA-saf...--32567078

[Snorlax94]

Here's another game, this time from 2014, where the same player was involved in a targeting controversy.

http://247sports.com/Bolt/Video-UCLA-saf...--32567078

[Snorlax94]

Here's another game, this time from 2014, where the same player was involved in a targeting controversy.

http://247sports.com/Bolt/Video-UCLA-saf...--32567078

[oldalum]

According to the LA Times, the league has "affirmed" the non-call but says the rule will be discussed further in the off-season.

[oldalum]

According to the LA Times, the league has "affirmed" the non-call but says the rule will be discussed further in the off-season.

[oldalum]

According to the LA Times, the league has "affirmed" the non-call but says the rule will be discussed further in the off-season.

[oldalum]

According to the LA Times, the league has "affirmed" the non-call but says the rule will be discussed further in the off-season.

[stupac2]

According to the LA Times, the league has "affirmed" the non-call but says the rule will be discussed further in the off-season.

If that isn't covered by the rule then the rule needs to change. Grotesquely irresponsible hit.

[stupac2]

According to the LA Times, the league has "affirmed" the non-call but says the rule will be discussed further in the off-season.

If that isn't covered by the rule then the rule needs to change. Grotesquely irresponsible hit.

[stupac2]

According to the LA Times, the league has "affirmed" the non-call but says the rule will be discussed further in the off-season.

If that isn't covered by the rule then the rule needs to change. Grotesquely irresponsible hit.

[stupac2]

According to the LA Times, the league has "affirmed" the non-call but says the rule will be discussed further in the off-season.

If that isn't covered by the rule then the rule needs to change. Grotesquely irresponsible hit.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

[quote author=oldalum link=topic=15760.msg173554#msg173554 date=1475028643]According to the LA Times, the league has "affirmed" the non-call but says the rule will be discussed further in the off-season.

If that isn't covered by the rule then the rule needs to change. Grotesquely irresponsible hit.
[/quote]

Yep, said as much in the game thread. If that isn't targeting then the rule shouldn't exist.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

[quote author=oldalum link=topic=15760.msg173554#msg173554 date=1475028643]According to the LA Times, the league has "affirmed" the non-call but says the rule will be discussed further in the off-season.

If that isn't covered by the rule then the rule needs to change. Grotesquely irresponsible hit.
[/quote]

Yep, said as much in the game thread. If that isn't targeting then the rule shouldn't exist.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

[quote author=oldalum link=topic=15760.msg173554#msg173554 date=1475028643]According to the LA Times, the league has "affirmed" the non-call but says the rule will be discussed further in the off-season.

If that isn't covered by the rule then the rule needs to change. Grotesquely irresponsible hit.
[/quote]

Yep, said as much in the game thread. If that isn't targeting then the rule shouldn't exist.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

[quote author=oldalum link=topic=15760.msg173554#msg173554 date=1475028643]According to the LA Times, the league has "affirmed" the non-call but says the rule will be discussed further in the off-season.

If that isn't covered by the rule then the rule needs to change. Grotesquely irresponsible hit.
[/quote]

Yep, said as much in the game thread. If that isn't targeting then the rule shouldn't exist.

[CTcard]

[quote author=oldalum link=topic=15760.msg173554#msg173554 date=1475028643]According to the LA Times, the league has "affirmed" the non-call but says the rule will be discussed further in the off-season.

If that isn't covered by the rule then the rule needs to change. Grotesquely irresponsible hit.
[/quote]

Unless hidden somewhere in the rulebook there is a definition of "crown" that explicitly states it only includes the absolute top point of the helmet and no more, then that hit was absolutely covered by the rule.

There is even less technical question about the hit on Schultz (a defenseless player by definition) and on Burns (the absolute top point of the helmet used), though those were overall less severe and less dangerous.

I can only conclude that the Pac-12 office is more concerned about protecting their referees than their players.

[CTcard]

[quote author=oldalum link=topic=15760.msg173554#msg173554 date=1475028643]According to the LA Times, the league has "affirmed" the non-call but says the rule will be discussed further in the off-season.

If that isn't covered by the rule then the rule needs to change. Grotesquely irresponsible hit.
[/quote]

Unless hidden somewhere in the rulebook there is a definition of "crown" that explicitly states it only includes the absolute top point of the helmet and no more, then that hit was absolutely covered by the rule.

There is even less technical question about the hit on Schultz (a defenseless player by definition) and on Burns (the absolute top point of the helmet used), though those were overall less severe and less dangerous.

I can only conclude that the Pac-12 office is more concerned about protecting their referees than their players.

[CTcard]

[quote author=oldalum link=topic=15760.msg173554#msg173554 date=1475028643]According to the LA Times, the league has "affirmed" the non-call but says the rule will be discussed further in the off-season.

If that isn't covered by the rule then the rule needs to change. Grotesquely irresponsible hit.
[/quote]

Unless hidden somewhere in the rulebook there is a definition of "crown" that explicitly states it only includes the absolute top point of the helmet and no more, then that hit was absolutely covered by the rule.

There is even less technical question about the hit on Schultz (a defenseless player by definition) and on Burns (the absolute top point of the helmet used), though those were overall less severe and less dangerous.

I can only conclude that the Pac-12 office is more concerned about protecting their referees than their players.

[CTcard]

[quote author=oldalum link=topic=15760.msg173554#msg173554 date=1475028643]According to the LA Times, the league has "affirmed" the non-call but says the rule will be discussed further in the off-season.

If that isn't covered by the rule then the rule needs to change. Grotesquely irresponsible hit.
[/quote]

Unless hidden somewhere in the rulebook there is a definition of "crown" that explicitly states it only includes the absolute top point of the helmet and no more, then that hit was absolutely covered by the rule.

There is even less technical question about the hit on Schultz (a defenseless player by definition) and on Burns (the absolute top point of the helmet used), though those were overall less severe and less dangerous.

I can only conclude that the Pac-12 office is more concerned about protecting their referees than their players.

[JJJ]

full statement from Pac12 (probably already posted elsewhere, but since this is also on topic):

their argument seems to be that Owusu was no longer defenseless and the front of the helmet (rather than the crown) was used. they will discuss changes in the offseason.

http://www.espn.com/espn/now?nowId=21-05...05729414-4

[JJJ]

full statement from Pac12 (probably already posted elsewhere, but since this is also on topic):

their argument seems to be that Owusu was no longer defenseless and the front of the helmet (rather than the crown) was used. they will discuss changes in the offseason.

http://www.espn.com/espn/now?nowId=21-05...05729414-4

[JJJ]

full statement from Pac12 (probably already posted elsewhere, but since this is also on topic):

their argument seems to be that Owusu was no longer defenseless and the front of the helmet (rather than the crown) was used. they will discuss changes in the offseason.

http://www.espn.com/espn/now?nowId=21-05...05729414-4

[JJJ]

full statement from Pac12 (probably already posted elsewhere, but since this is also on topic):

their argument seems to be that Owusu was no longer defenseless and the front of the helmet (rather than the crown) was used. they will discuss changes in the offseason.

http://www.espn.com/espn/now?nowId=21-05...05729414-4

[82 Card]

All along, I hoped my cynicism was wrong. Now I feel sick. These people really are as warped as I expected.

[82 Card]

All along, I hoped my cynicism was wrong. Now I feel sick. These people really are as warped as I expected.

[82 Card]

All along, I hoped my cynicism was wrong. Now I feel sick. These people really are as warped as I expected.

[82 Card]

All along, I hoped my cynicism was wrong. Now I feel sick. These people really are as warped as I expected.

[jacketree]

Geeze Louize.

I suppose they could modify the rule with an 'if a blow to the head of Player 1 delivered in any fashion by Player 2 directly causes Player 1 to lose consciousness, then the team of Player 2 shall be penalized 15 yards and Player 2 shall be disqualified' provision.

Crown of the helmet seems pretty obvious to me, but maybe those in the Pac12 hierarchy all need to go out to Burger King, get some paper crowns and just headbutt the shit out of each other until they reach some sort of consensus. 

[jacketree]

Geeze Louize.

I suppose they could modify the rule with an 'if a blow to the head of Player 1 delivered in any fashion by Player 2 directly causes Player 1 to lose consciousness, then the team of Player 2 shall be penalized 15 yards and Player 2 shall be disqualified' provision.

Crown of the helmet seems pretty obvious to me, but maybe those in the Pac12 hierarchy all need to go out to Burger King, get some paper crowns and just headbutt the shit out of each other until they reach some sort of consensus. 

[jacketree]

Geeze Louize.

I suppose they could modify the rule with an 'if a blow to the head of Player 1 delivered in any fashion by Player 2 directly causes Player 1 to lose consciousness, then the team of Player 2 shall be penalized 15 yards and Player 2 shall be disqualified' provision.

Crown of the helmet seems pretty obvious to me, but maybe those in the Pac12 hierarchy all need to go out to Burger King, get some paper crowns and just headbutt the shit out of each other until they reach some sort of consensus. 

[jacketree]

Geeze Louize.

I suppose they could modify the rule with an 'if a blow to the head of Player 1 delivered in any fashion by Player 2 directly causes Player 1 to lose consciousness, then the team of Player 2 shall be penalized 15 yards and Player 2 shall be disqualified' provision.

Crown of the helmet seems pretty obvious to me, but maybe those in the Pac12 hierarchy all need to go out to Burger King, get some paper crowns and just headbutt the shit out of each other until they reach some sort of consensus. 

[scorecard]

Really?  This is the story you're going with?  These Pac-12 refs are an absolute joke.  They would prefer to make the discussion about what constitutes the "top of the helmet" (at what point does the front of the helmet become the top of the helmet, at 45 degrees? 30 degrees?), instead of sending a clear message about player safety and health.  Goodman made NO effort to actually tackle.  He did not aim for the ball with his helmet.  He crouched and aimed upward with arms tucked into his body.  You cannot make any argument that he was doing anything other than aiming at Owusu's head.  There is only one reason to aim at another's player's head and that is to injure that player so he cannot return to the game. 

The release says, "Going forward, and in line with Coach David Shaw's concerns about this play, we expect additional discussion around the targeting rule during the offseason review process and will be an active participant in discussions to further reduce helmet to helmet contact."  These guys are idiots. They want to wait until the offseason to address this, another 9-10 games.  There was no remorse on Goodman's part as evidenced by the way he pranced after the hit.  By not penalizing Goodman, he continued to take shots at the heads of other Stanford players in the very same game.  Why wait?  Reduce helmet to helmet contact now.  Show some damn leadership.

Would there have been outrage if they had simply said we missed this call?  Even most UCLA fans agree that this should have been targeting.  The rule itself says "When in question it is a foul".  The Pac-12 refs are in question, and they are indeed foul.

[scorecard]

Really?  This is the story you're going with?  These Pac-12 refs are an absolute joke.  They would prefer to make the discussion about what constitutes the "top of the helmet" (at what point does the front of the helmet become the top of the helmet, at 45 degrees? 30 degrees?), instead of sending a clear message about player safety and health.  Goodman made NO effort to actually tackle.  He did not aim for the ball with his helmet.  He crouched and aimed upward with arms tucked into his body.  You cannot make any argument that he was doing anything other than aiming at Owusu's head.  There is only one reason to aim at another's player's head and that is to injure that player so he cannot return to the game. 

The release says, "Going forward, and in line with Coach David Shaw's concerns about this play, we expect additional discussion around the targeting rule during the offseason review process and will be an active participant in discussions to further reduce helmet to helmet contact."  These guys are idiots. They want to wait until the offseason to address this, another 9-10 games.  There was no remorse on Goodman's part as evidenced by the way he pranced after the hit.  By not penalizing Goodman, he continued to take shots at the heads of other Stanford players in the very same game.  Why wait?  Reduce helmet to helmet contact now.  Show some damn leadership.

Would there have been outrage if they had simply said we missed this call?  Even most UCLA fans agree that this should have been targeting.  The rule itself says "When in question it is a foul".  The Pac-12 refs are in question, and they are indeed foul.

[scorecard]

Really?  This is the story you're going with?  These Pac-12 refs are an absolute joke.  They would prefer to make the discussion about what constitutes the "top of the helmet" (at what point does the front of the helmet become the top of the helmet, at 45 degrees? 30 degrees?), instead of sending a clear message about player safety and health.  Goodman made NO effort to actually tackle.  He did not aim for the ball with his helmet.  He crouched and aimed upward with arms tucked into his body.  You cannot make any argument that he was doing anything other than aiming at Owusu's head.  There is only one reason to aim at another's player's head and that is to injure that player so he cannot return to the game. 

The release says, "Going forward, and in line with Coach David Shaw's concerns about this play, we expect additional discussion around the targeting rule during the offseason review process and will be an active participant in discussions to further reduce helmet to helmet contact."  These guys are idiots. They want to wait until the offseason to address this, another 9-10 games.  There was no remorse on Goodman's part as evidenced by the way he pranced after the hit.  By not penalizing Goodman, he continued to take shots at the heads of other Stanford players in the very same game.  Why wait?  Reduce helmet to helmet contact now.  Show some damn leadership.

Would there have been outrage if they had simply said we missed this call?  Even most UCLA fans agree that this should have been targeting.  The rule itself says "When in question it is a foul".  The Pac-12 refs are in question, and they are indeed foul.

[scorecard]

Really?  This is the story you're going with?  These Pac-12 refs are an absolute joke.  They would prefer to make the discussion about what constitutes the "top of the helmet" (at what point does the front of the helmet become the top of the helmet, at 45 degrees? 30 degrees?), instead of sending a clear message about player safety and health.  Goodman made NO effort to actually tackle.  He did not aim for the ball with his helmet.  He crouched and aimed upward with arms tucked into his body.  You cannot make any argument that he was doing anything other than aiming at Owusu's head.  There is only one reason to aim at another's player's head and that is to injure that player so he cannot return to the game. 

The release says, "Going forward, and in line with Coach David Shaw's concerns about this play, we expect additional discussion around the targeting rule during the offseason review process and will be an active participant in discussions to further reduce helmet to helmet contact."  These guys are idiots. They want to wait until the offseason to address this, another 9-10 games.  There was no remorse on Goodman's part as evidenced by the way he pranced after the hit.  By not penalizing Goodman, he continued to take shots at the heads of other Stanford players in the very same game.  Why wait?  Reduce helmet to helmet contact now.  Show some damn leadership.

Would there have been outrage if they had simply said we missed this call?  Even most UCLA fans agree that this should have been targeting.  The rule itself says "When in question it is a foul".  The Pac-12 refs are in question, and they are indeed foul.

[cardfan77]

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.

[cardfan77]

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.