11-21-2023, 09:47 AM
FB -- Big Game Thread
11-22-2023, 01:36 PM
https://stanford.rivals.com/news/tristan...n-big-game
I think this picture is very "interesting". There is no question Sinclair's helmet is in contact with Mendoza's chin/jaw. I would guess the question is whether that contact was initiated by Sinclair attempting to hit Mendoza with his helmet or whether Mendoza initiated it by leaning into Sinclair, which he clearly is. Does anybody know of a statement from the NCAA explaining why the call was overturned? That would clarify matters greatly. It appears to me Sinclair has his helmet in front of Mendoza and was just trying to make the tackle. Unfortunately, the targeting rule is often enforced based on appearances, not intentions. Some are "close" calls no matter what. This one was. Looking at it from the sunny side stands with no slo mo, it sure looked like targeting to me.
I think this picture is very "interesting". There is no question Sinclair's helmet is in contact with Mendoza's chin/jaw. I would guess the question is whether that contact was initiated by Sinclair attempting to hit Mendoza with his helmet or whether Mendoza initiated it by leaning into Sinclair, which he clearly is. Does anybody know of a statement from the NCAA explaining why the call was overturned? That would clarify matters greatly. It appears to me Sinclair has his helmet in front of Mendoza and was just trying to make the tackle. Unfortunately, the targeting rule is often enforced based on appearances, not intentions. Some are "close" calls no matter what. This one was. Looking at it from the sunny side stands with no slo mo, it sure looked like targeting to me.
https://stanford.rivals.com/news/tristan...n-big-game
I think this picture is very "interesting". There is no question Sinclair's helmet is in contact with Mendoza's chin/jaw. I would guess the question is whether that contact was initiated by Sinclair attempting to hit Mendoza with his helmet or whether Mendoza initiated it by leaning into Sinclair, which he clearly is. Does anybody know of a statement from the NCAA explaining why the call was overturned? That would clarify matters greatly. It appears to me Sinclair has his helmet in front of Mendoza and was just trying to make the tackle. Unfortunately, the targeting rule is often enforced based on appearances, not intentions. Some are "close" calls no matter what. This one was. Looking at it from the sunny side stands with no slo mo, it sure looked like targeting to me.
I think this picture is very "interesting". There is no question Sinclair's helmet is in contact with Mendoza's chin/jaw. I would guess the question is whether that contact was initiated by Sinclair attempting to hit Mendoza with his helmet or whether Mendoza initiated it by leaning into Sinclair, which he clearly is. Does anybody know of a statement from the NCAA explaining why the call was overturned? That would clarify matters greatly. It appears to me Sinclair has his helmet in front of Mendoza and was just trying to make the tackle. Unfortunately, the targeting rule is often enforced based on appearances, not intentions. Some are "close" calls no matter what. This one was. Looking at it from the sunny side stands with no slo mo, it sure looked like targeting to me.
11-22-2023, 02:10 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-22-2023, 02:11 PM by jacket3ree.)
We think we know targeting, but we don't know targeting. I didn't see the call against Sinclair, because I was watching the Tech-Cuse (not) Super (but still a) Bowl (in play because Tech ain't beating UGA). Tech's QB, Haynes King, was high-lowed with an obvious crown to helmet not called on the field. So, the booth initiated a targeting review. Announcers knew it was targeting, the crowd saw targeting on replay, the TV audience saw the reaction of the Syracuse player watching the obvious targeting on replay. He knew it was targeting. 'After further review, there is no targeting. The player is not ejected." W.T.F? It was a critical play and the correct call would have made Tech's win less stressful than it was. The announcers hounded the ACC replay center for an explanation. Which was: "There was forceable contact to the head and neck, but no indication of targeting." Orwellian. I guess the officials have done a good job when fans on Tech sites want addresses to burn their houses down while Syracuse fans are complaining about the Southern cooking they've gotten since joining the ACC. Even the Cuse fans knew it was targeting.
So to all those who just can't wait to be rid of Pac12 officials (and I believe we are now officially rid of Pac12 officials), the ACC says: "Hold my beer."
So to all those who just can't wait to be rid of Pac12 officials (and I believe we are now officially rid of Pac12 officials), the ACC says: "Hold my beer."
(This post was last modified: 11-22-2023, 02:11 PM by jacket3ree.)
We think we know targeting, but we don't know targeting. I didn't see the call against Sinclair, because I was watching the Tech-Cuse (not) Super (but still a) Bowl (in play because Tech ain't beating UGA). Tech's QB, Haynes King, was high-lowed with an obvious crown to helmet not called on the field. So, the booth initiated a targeting review. Announcers knew it was targeting, the crowd saw targeting on replay, the TV audience saw the reaction of the Syracuse player watching the obvious targeting on replay. He knew it was targeting. 'After further review, there is no targeting. The player is not ejected." W.T.F? It was a critical play and the correct call would have made Tech's win less stressful than it was. The announcers hounded the ACC replay center for an explanation. Which was: "There was forceable contact to the head and neck, but no indication of targeting." Orwellian. I guess the officials have done a good job when fans on Tech sites want addresses to burn their houses down while Syracuse fans are complaining about the Southern cooking they've gotten since joining the ACC. Even the Cuse fans knew it was targeting.
So to all those who just can't wait to be rid of Pac12 officials (and I believe we are now officially rid of Pac12 officials), the ACC says: "Hold my beer."
So to all those who just can't wait to be rid of Pac12 officials (and I believe we are now officially rid of Pac12 officials), the ACC says: "Hold my beer."
11-22-2023, 02:15 PM
(11-22-2023, 02:10 PM)jacket3ree Wrote: We think we know targeting, but we don't know targeting. I didn't see the call against Sinclair, because I was watching the Tech-Cuse (not) Super (but still a) Bowl (in play because Tech ain't beating UGA). Tech's QB, Haynes King, was high-lowed with an obvious crown to helmet not called on the field. So, the booth initiated a targeting review. Announcers knew it was targeting, the crowd saw targeting on replay, the TV audience saw the reaction of the Syracuse player watching the obvious targeting on replay. He knew it was targeting. 'After further review, there is no targeting. The player is not ejected." W.T.F? It was a critical play and the correct call would have made Tech's win less stressful than it was. The announcers hounded the ACC replay center for an explanation. Which was: "There was forceable contact to the head and neck, but no indication of targeting." Orwellian. I guess the officials have done a good job when fans on Tech sites want addresses to burn their houses down while Syracuse fans are complaining about the Southern cooking they've gotten since joining the ACC. Even the Cuse fans knew it was targeting.Maybe one could add NFL officials? This was a non-call in the game. Later, results in a 4 game suspension. How were those NFL-grade officials "counseled"?
So to all those who just can't wait to be rid of Pac12 officials (and I believe we are now officially rid of Pac12 officials), the ACC says: "Hold my beer."
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/broncos-s-k...17587.html
(11-22-2023, 02:10 PM)jacket3ree Wrote: We think we know targeting, but we don't know targeting. I didn't see the call against Sinclair, because I was watching the Tech-Cuse (not) Super (but still a) Bowl (in play because Tech ain't beating UGA). Tech's QB, Haynes King, was high-lowed with an obvious crown to helmet not called on the field. So, the booth initiated a targeting review. Announcers knew it was targeting, the crowd saw targeting on replay, the TV audience saw the reaction of the Syracuse player watching the obvious targeting on replay. He knew it was targeting. 'After further review, there is no targeting. The player is not ejected." W.T.F? It was a critical play and the correct call would have made Tech's win less stressful than it was. The announcers hounded the ACC replay center for an explanation. Which was: "There was forceable contact to the head and neck, but no indication of targeting." Orwellian. I guess the officials have done a good job when fans on Tech sites want addresses to burn their houses down while Syracuse fans are complaining about the Southern cooking they've gotten since joining the ACC. Even the Cuse fans knew it was targeting.Maybe one could add NFL officials? This was a non-call in the game. Later, results in a 4 game suspension. How were those NFL-grade officials "counseled"?
So to all those who just can't wait to be rid of Pac12 officials (and I believe we are now officially rid of Pac12 officials), the ACC says: "Hold my beer."
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/broncos-s-k...17587.html
11-22-2023, 04:01 PM
(11-22-2023, 02:15 PM)Goose Wrote:(11-22-2023, 02:10 PM)jacket3ree Wrote: We think we know targeting, but we don't know targeting. I didn't see the call against Sinclair, because I was watching the Tech-Cuse (not) Super (but still a) Bowl (in play because Tech ain't beating UGA). Tech's QB, Haynes King, was high-lowed with an obvious crown to helmet not called on the field. So, the booth initiated a targeting review. Announcers knew it was targeting, the crowd saw targeting on replay, the TV audience saw the reaction of the Syracuse player watching the obvious targeting on replay. He knew it was targeting. 'After further review, there is no targeting. The player is not ejected." W.T.F? It was a critical play and the correct call would have made Tech's win less stressful than it was. The announcers hounded the ACC replay center for an explanation. Which was: "There was forceable contact to the head and neck, but no indication of targeting." Orwellian. I guess the officials have done a good job when fans on Tech sites want addresses to burn their houses down while Syracuse fans are complaining about the Southern cooking they've gotten since joining the ACC. Even the Cuse fans knew it was targeting.Maybe one could add NFL officials? This was a non-call in the game. Later, results in a 4 game suspension. How were those NFL-grade officials "counseled"?
So to all those who just can't wait to be rid of Pac12 officials (and I believe we are now officially rid of Pac12 officials), the ACC says: "Hold my beer."
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/broncos-s-k...17587.html
I believe NFL zebras are still part-time. If I’m wrong, someone will let me know.
(11-22-2023, 02:15 PM)Goose Wrote:(11-22-2023, 02:10 PM)jacket3ree Wrote: We think we know targeting, but we don't know targeting. I didn't see the call against Sinclair, because I was watching the Tech-Cuse (not) Super (but still a) Bowl (in play because Tech ain't beating UGA). Tech's QB, Haynes King, was high-lowed with an obvious crown to helmet not called on the field. So, the booth initiated a targeting review. Announcers knew it was targeting, the crowd saw targeting on replay, the TV audience saw the reaction of the Syracuse player watching the obvious targeting on replay. He knew it was targeting. 'After further review, there is no targeting. The player is not ejected." W.T.F? It was a critical play and the correct call would have made Tech's win less stressful than it was. The announcers hounded the ACC replay center for an explanation. Which was: "There was forceable contact to the head and neck, but no indication of targeting." Orwellian. I guess the officials have done a good job when fans on Tech sites want addresses to burn their houses down while Syracuse fans are complaining about the Southern cooking they've gotten since joining the ACC. Even the Cuse fans knew it was targeting.Maybe one could add NFL officials? This was a non-call in the game. Later, results in a 4 game suspension. How were those NFL-grade officials "counseled"?
So to all those who just can't wait to be rid of Pac12 officials (and I believe we are now officially rid of Pac12 officials), the ACC says: "Hold my beer."
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/broncos-s-k...17587.html
I believe NFL zebras are still part-time. If I’m wrong, someone will let me know.
11-22-2023, 10:51 PM
(11-22-2023, 04:01 PM)TonyLima Wrote: I believe NFL zebras are still part-time. If I’m wrong, someone will let me know.
a while back, there was a 49ers coach who said that all NFL refs should be full-time, professional employees.
can't think of his name right now.
Cal delenda est
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »