2024 non-GT games thread

[stinger78]

1. You can teach rugby-style tackling, but defenders are running full speed trying to make a stop. The reason defenders tackle high is because it’s a more natural motion
2. If tackles have to be below the waist (for example), ball carriers will lower their heads more and more to make that tougher and to draw penalties. It already looks like some ball carriers lead with their heads because the defender has to move their heads out of the way, it's a game of chicken where the rules favor the ball carrier. Until there’s an equivalent penalty for offense, this will be unfair

That’s where the official’s judgement comes in and it can be decided by review. Tackling high can be more natural, and can be done legally. The point is to get the ball carrier to the ground, not obliterate him. That end has proliferated with each advance in equipment, it seems.

If a ball carrier lowers his head to a tackler, then call offensive targeting. They desire to punish an opponent goes both ways.

 

[RamblinRed]

Just wanted to add that I have been watching the playoff games on the Skycast version. That is definitely what I will do going forward.
Get the QB's POV on every play, get the stadium noise - crowd, bands, PA announcer and instant stat updates.
But no commentators. What a great way to watch a game.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Are you suggesting the UVA AD influenced the on field officials in the GT uga game?

Not at all. I was simply stating that prior to the completion of the GT game, there was no guarantee that uga would be in the playoff. After the completion of the GT game, there was little to no doubt that uga would be in the CFP.

 

[forensicbuzz]

The purpose of the rule is to protect the players. Routinely having players knocked out due to hits to the helmet only to have targeting not called or flag waived off is criminal. We have the technology to review this in 3seconds.... hit to the head....10 yards. If it's launching and on purpose....15 yards and ejection.

As I said above, if it's not targeting, it's probably unnecessary roughness because he went high, with the initial contact being helmet-to-helmet. Either call would have probably changed the outcome of the game. Remember, ASU's kicking game was in shambles all season long, so there was nothing guaranteed.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I have understood your argument. You are basing it on the loose definition at the beginning of the rule. What I have been attempting to point out is that you are ignoring the strict definitions below that loose definition. The very next sentence after the one you keep quoting is "Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:". It then provides a list of things that it defines AS TARGETING. leading with the helmet and making forceful contact to the head or neck area is one of those things that is strictly defined AS TARGETING.

The gave a list of things that ARE TARGETING. The way I read the rule, the reason for the loose definition is because the things that could be targeting "are not limited to" the list of things that definitely ARE TARGETING. For example, if a defensive end were to do a flying drop kick to the head on the blind side of the QB most would agree that should be targeting. However, there is no strict definition that says leading with the feet is targeting. The officials could decide that the flying drop kick was beyond making a legal tackle. On the flip side, there is a list of strictly defined targeting. The officials cannot ignore that list and decide for themselves that the tackle "appeared" legal to them.

My take is that the 2nd option starts and ends with the forcible contact. If it is beyond that of making a legal tackle, move on to the next rule. If it is not forcible contact beyond that of making a legal tackle, it is not targeting, full stop (unless it is with the crown of the helmet). There might be another penalty like hands to the face or unnecessary roughness or something else, but it's not targeting.

 

[UgaBlows]

Would it influence the refs to call targeting if the player who gets hit was lying unconscious on the field afterwards?

 

[gtee91]

Would it influence the refs to call targeting if the player who gets hit was lying unconscious on the field afterwards?

Lane kiffen would have everyone flop then

 

[TooTall]

As I said above, if it's not targeting, it's probably unnecessary roughness because he went high, with the initial contact being helmet-to-helmet. Either call would have probably changed the outcome of the game. Remember, ASU's kicking game was in shambles all season long, so there was nothing guaranteed.

The fault with that argument is that you can't change a penalty call. To call it targeting and review it only to reverse it, means you cant change it to unnecessary roughness. The rules need a good review and it could take a year or 2 but our sport will be better for it.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Would it influence the refs to call targeting if the player who gets hit was lying unconscious on the field afterwards?

Apparently not given yesterday’s no call.

 

[Root4GT]

Would it influence the refs to call targeting if the player who gets hit was lying unconscious on the field afterwards?

Seems not

 

[kg01]

Just wanted to add that I have been watching the playoff games on the Skycast version. That is definitely what I will do going forward.
Get the QB's POV on every play, get the stadium noise - crowd, bands, PA announcer and instant stat updates.
But no commentators. What a great way to watch a game.

If I could figure a way to sync that with a radio broadcast I don't mind, that'd be great.

 

[forensicbuzz]

The fault with that argument is that you can't change a penalty call. To call it targeting and review it only to reverse it, means you cant change it to unnecessary roughness. The rules need a good review and it could take a year or 2 but our sport will be better for it.

When targeting first came out, they would call unnecessary roughness, to be reviewed for targeting. To me, that's the right call. If it's enough to be reviewed for targeting, it should at least be unnecessary roughness.

 

[RonJohn]

 

[FredJacket]

Conference champs are 0-4 so far in playoff with chance they'll be 0-5 after ND/UGA. In addition... favorites are unbeaten (7-0) so far with ND slight favorite entering this game. Who would have predicted all 5 conference champs would be underdogs in their 1st playoff games in the new format?

 

[stinger78]

Conference champs are 0-4 so far in playoff with chance they'll be 0-5 after ND/UGA. In addition... favorites are unbeaten (7-0) so far with ND slight favorite entering this game. Who would have predicted all 5 conference champs would be underdogs in their 1st playoff games in the new format?

How many times did at-large teams win the 4-team version?
It’s just hard to tell, but the 9-12 teams washed out, too. It leads me to believe that 8 teams is where it’s at with the top two from each conference representing and ND joining up. G5 needs their own CFP.

 

[UgaBlows]

Apparently not given yesterday’s no call.

Jeebus, what does it take?

 

[kg01]

When targeting first came out, they would call unnecessary roughness, to be reviewed for targeting. To me, that's the right call. If it's enough to be reviewed for targeting, it should at least be unnecessary roughness.

Yeah it seems like, in basketball, calling a personal foul either a flagrant foul or nothing. There should be something between 'targeting' and 'play on'.

Feels good to finally have something we agree on. Let's not keep this up.

 

[UgaBlows]

G5 needs their own CFP.

yes

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Conference champs are 0-4 so far in playoff with chance they'll be 0-5 after ND/UGA. In addition... favorites are unbeaten (7-0) so far with ND slight favorite entering this game. Who would have predicted all 5 conference champs would be underdogs in their 1st playoff games in the new format?

Imagine if the breaks had gone differently for Arizona State where we would be now.

 

[kg01]

Omfg skycast has changed my viewing life. Shout out @RamblinRed for the recommendation.

I think he hates me but I still appreciate the rec.