Umm....booth officials? - Printable Version

Umm....booth officials? - 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: Umm....booth officials? (/thread-18024.html)

Umm....booth officials? - vataha - 08-31-2019

Congrats to the team and coaches for an opening game win. I have to throw this out, emphasis of the replay officials to watch plays that may be egregious was an absolute farce regarding the forearm to the facemask of Costello as he was sliding. Hell yes that affected the outcome of the game...maybe further. I call BS on the replay officials. WTF?

RE: Umm....booth officials? - Spiny_Norman - 08-31-2019

Brock Huard from the Fox broadcast team went into the replay booth at halftime to ask about that play. The replay official said that the forearm to the head was incidental in his opinion. Neither Huard nor Joe Davis followed up to explain what that meant. Is there now a category of forcible contact to the head that is not targeting?

RE: Umm....booth officials? - martyup - 08-31-2019

That non-call goes against everything they have been saying about the purpose of the targeting rule being to protect players.  The fact that they did call it a late hit should have weighed towards making the correct targeting call.  Those booth officials should be reprimanded harshly by the NCAA.

RE: Umm....booth officials? - BostonCard - 08-31-2019

Quote:Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area

Seemed pretty flagarant to me.

BC

RE: Umm....booth officials? - martyup - 08-31-2019

If there was any question as to whether there was contact to the head, consider the fact that he knocked his friggin' helmet off of his head!

RE: Umm....booth officials? - washingtonismoney - 08-31-2019

Thought most of the calls against Stanford -- with the exception of the one that pulled back the successful screen play in the first half -- were fair, if frustrating to watch. But they missed a raft of calls against Northwestern.

RE: Umm....booth officials? - Goose - 08-31-2019

(08-31-2019, 07:07 PM)martyup Wrote: That non-call goes against everything they have been saying about the purpose of the targeting rule being to protect players.  The fact that they did call it a late hit should have weighed towards making the correct targeting call.  Those booth officials should be reprimanded harshly by the NCAA.

I agree. It is possible for the targeting call to be applied by the NCAA even after the game is over, I believe. If the new rules are to have any credibility at all, that should be done. It may be that the Northwestern player misjudged the situation and did not intend to commit targeting. That doesn't matter. He did, and should sit out next week. The replay booth officials should be suspended for failing to protect the players. The contact may not have been intentional (although it sure looked like it), but it certainly was more than "
incidental ".

RE: Umm....booth officials? - winflop - 09-01-2019

Looks like B1G refs are as bad as Pac-12 refs. Maybe worse. That was an unbelievably bad no-call. For some reason I thought the on-field officials could also call targeting but a booth review is required to confirm it. If so, I think that the on-field AND booth officials need to be suspended.

I really hope that either the B1G or NCAA can review the play after the game and suspend the NU player for Week 2. I did watch the replay of the game and Fitz was giving the player a serious talking-to on the sideline. Tells me that at least he knew it was bad.

I just hope KJ fully recovers, regardless of timeframe. Same for Little.

RE: Umm....booth officials? - Bruce Wang - 09-01-2019

(09-01-2019, 05:17 AM)winflop Wrote: Looks like B1G refs are as bad as Pac-12 refs. Maybe worse. That was an unbelievably bad no-call. For some reason I thought the on-field officials could also call targeting but a booth review is required to confirm it. If so, I think that the on-field AND booth officials need to be suspended.

I really hope that either the B1G or NCAA can review the play after the game and suspend the NU player for Week 2. I did watch the replay of the game and Fitz was giving the player a serious talking-to on the sideline. Tells me that at least he knew it was bad.

I just hope KJ fully recovers, regardless of timeframe. Same for Little.

It's the conference that can review these calls postgame.  <meta charset="utf-8"><a href="http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/more-stringent-targeting-rules-go-effect">http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/more-stringent-targeting-rules-go-effect</a> I highly doubt the B1G has the integrity to fix this.

RE: Umm....booth officials? - BostonCard - 09-01-2019

Even though it’s not the rule, I feel like a late hit to the head, intentional or not, should be cause for ejection.  A late hit is by definition avoidable, so the player who commits it should be responsible for any downstream contact to the head, whether incidental or not.  But I thought that was not incidental in any case. BC

RE: Umm....booth officials? - Mick - 09-01-2019

KJ was already in his slide and the Northwestern player, Earnest Brown IV clearly went headhunting.  I don't think there's any doubt.  He elbowed Costello with increasing velocity under his chin.  It's a travesty that he wasn't ejected. here's a real-time version:https://twitter.com/i/status/1167912417814147078 here's a slo-mo version:https://twitter.com/i/status/1167913156380741634 Sam Cooper of Yahoo didn't think much of it:

<a href="https://sports.yahoo.com/stanford-qb-drilled-in-head-by-forearm-targeting-not-called-223353449.html">https://sports.yahoo.com/stanford-qb-drilled-in-head-by-forearm-targeting-not-called-223353449.html</a>

 As far as I'm concerned, it was blatant and ridiculous that Brown wasn't ejected.  To me, there is fundamentally no such penalty if the officiating crew can't make this call. I don't think Northwestern is a dirty team, nor are they undisciplined.  Last year, their defense had the fewest penalties in college football, the D-Line had just three all of last year. 

<a href="https://northwestern.rivals.com/news/2019-season-preview-defensive-line">https://northwestern.rivals.com/news/2019-season-preview-defensive-line</a>

RE: Umm....booth officials? - CornFed - 09-01-2019

Both announcers made it clear that they felt the hit to the head was not incidental and the on-air rules "expert" also stated that he felt it was a targeting violation.

RE: Umm....booth officials? - terry - 09-01-2019

On the video, the hit really looks intentional. I don't see how that's not a cause for ejection. A late hit to the head when the QB is sliding should be an ejection every time, even if accidental IMO, but this was not an accident.

RE: Umm....booth officials? - fullmetal - 09-02-2019

I think Stanford could have been called for targeting later in the game as well. IIRC, two Stanford defenders tackled a NW receiver, and the second defender looked like he made helmet-to-faceguard contact to initiate the tackle. As with most of these plays, the TV broadcast angle is only one side of the story though...

RE: Umm....booth officials? - qwerty49 - 09-02-2019

If I can figure out how to post a JPG screen grab, I will. It clearly shows the forearm an inch from KJs face — all the while the ref is just a couple of feet away, with his back completely turned to the ball carrier.

(CI, this is the photo Steve P posted on FB)