Pitt Postgame Discussion

Animal02

Banned
Messages
6,269
Location
Southeastern Michigan
Augusta_Jacket said:
I think the main reason for the no call was that, while there was helmet to helmet contact, it was the side of the defenders helmet that made contact. To me, it looked like a good, clean hit. Generally speaking, if you go helmet to helmet with the crown or facemask, you'll get called for targeting.
Click to expand...
The targeting rule is horrible. Saw a Purdue player get tossed for trying to make a play. Receiver dove to try and catch the low thrown ball, their helmets contact and the D player gets tossed. Needs to be launching at the "defenseless player" not just helmet contact.
 
Augusta_Jacket

Augusta_Jacket

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
8,121
Location
Augusta, Georgia
tech_wreck47 said:
I get that and I don't always agree with targeting calls. But targeting is for any part from the neck up, it doesn't matter if it's the side.
Click to expand...

I get where you're coming from, but as @MikeJackets1967 said, it is a subjective penalty. If the opposing player is defenseless, then the threshold is lower. If the opposing player is running the ball, as JJ was, then intent needs to be clear. In this case, it looks to be a good hit that unfortunately resulted in helmet to helmet contact.
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
Well in the end, Pat Narduzzi was just as flaccid as Kim Jung-Un. All bark, no bite.

giphy.gif
 
tech_wreck47

tech_wreck47

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,670
Augusta_Jacket said:
I get where you're coming from, but as @MikeJackets1967 said, it is a subjective penalty. If the opposing player is defenseless, then the threshold is lower. If the opposing player is running the ball, as JJ was, then intent needs to be clear. In this case, it looks to be a good hit that unfortunately resulted in helmet to helmet contact.
Click to expand...
Yea no argument here. The targeting call I can't stand is when a WR lowers his body to make a catch and the tackler makes a good hit that would have been low if it wasn't for the receiver. I saw one the first week of football where there was no way to not hit his helmet and if he didn't make the tackle it would have been an easy 6. It's like they want the defender to allow the WR to catch the ball and then wrestle him to the ground. If the WR or runner changes his pad level there should be no targeting imo.
 
tech_wreck47

tech_wreck47

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,670
Jerry the Jacket said:
Regarding Jay, that was the kind of hit that made Vad Lee not want to run our offense. He is like a wild horse, running free and untamed but a hit or two like that one will having him asking for a saddle and reins real quick.

Go Jackets!
Click to expand...
Doubt it, he was up smiling on the sideline right after the play. Big hits happen all the time. TM has been smashed multiple times this year.
 

Animal02

Banned
Messages
6,269
Location
Southeastern Michigan
tech_wreck47 said:
Yea no argument here. The targeting call I can't stand is when a WR lowers his body to make a catch and the tackler makes a good hit that would have been low if it wasn't for the receiver. I saw one the first week of football where there was no way to not hit his helmet and if he didn't make the tackle it would have been an easy 6. It's like they want the defender to allow the WR to catch the ball and then wrestle him to the ground. If the WR or runner changes his pad level there should be no targeting imo.
Click to expand...
Yep, top Purdue defender got tossed against Mich. for that exact same thing.
 

Animal02

Banned
Messages
6,269
Location
Southeastern Michigan
Jean-Baptiste Rochambeau said:
And you will never convince me that Purdue daring to keep pace with Michigan didn't factor into that call. One of the worst calls ever in Tallahassee Saturday got a Seminole sent off. I hate FSU but it was a pathetic enforcement of this bad rule.
Click to expand...
Needs to change to a player leaving his feet or hitting with the top of the helmet, i.e. no possibility of eye contact with the defender. The crap like what got Gotsis tossed is BS. as were the calls previously mentioned.
My other pet peeve is this chop block crap inside the tackle box. It could be called every play on someone. If two players are engaged from the front, there should be no call......it is NOT dangerous. Dangerous is High/Low with one in from and one from back or side, or outside the TB where players may be at speed. I would like to see how many injuries have been cause by a double team Hi?Low with both players in front........it is just more arbitrary BS.
 
CuseJacket

CuseJacket

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
19,625
CuseJacket said:
Cottrell had nothing but green grass between him and the end zone on the wheel route. So much so that I felt Jay missed an opportunity while watching Live. Difficult to see in this camera angle and also easy for me to say watching from my seat.
Click to expand...
CPJ confirmed my observation on tonight's radio show. Said it was a TD if Jones got the ball to Cottrell.
tech_wreck47 said:
I think he was looking his way and if he had another second he could have made the throw. Looks like the guy got in to fast for JJ to set and throw.
Click to expand...
It didn't look to me like Jones looked long at Cottrell's route if at all. I think he had the time to make the throw, though he may have gotten popped after the release by the defender turned loose in the backfield. Again, easy for me to say sitting in a chair.
 
AE 87

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,030
CuseJacket said:
CPJ confirmed my observation on tonight's radio show. Said it was a TD if Jones got the ball to Cottrell.

It didn't look to me like Jones looked long at Cottrell's route if at all. I think he had the time to make the throw, though he may have gotten popped after the release by the defender turned loose in the backfield. Again, easy for me to say sitting in a chair.
Click to expand...

First play in first game.
 
CuseJacket

CuseJacket

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
19,625
AE 87 said:
First play in first game.
Click to expand...
2nd play. CPJ wanted to dial one up on Narduzzi after he burned a timeout after first down.

Agree completely with the sentiment of your comment though. I don't hold it against Jay. He'll get comfortable as he gets more reps.
 
tech_wreck47

tech_wreck47

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,670
CuseJacket said:
CPJ confirmed my observation on tonight's radio show. Said it was a TD if Jones got the ball to Cottrell.

It didn't look to me like Jones looked long at Cottrell's route if at all. I think he had the time to make the throw, though he may have gotten popped after the release by the defender turned loose in the backfield. Again, easy for me to say sitting in a chair.
Click to expand...
Yea, I'm just going off that angle where you can't see contrell for long, so I could be very wrong. It just looked like he was looking the way getting ready to unload and then took off running Eva use of the guy who blitzed
 
deeeznutz

deeeznutz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,329
Sideways said:
Looks like targeting to me by #40. He is leading with this helmet and looks to be helmet to helmet. What was that about our cut blocks resulting in so many injuries?
Click to expand...

Eh, I'm fine with the no call since JJ was going to the ground and the defender likely wasn't aiming for the head but around the knees/hips.
On our "dangerous blocking tactics" we should keep a tally going of games where not a single defender was hurt by a questionable block. That way when a rival coach says something coach can just point to the board "it's been __ days since a player got injured" and tell them to shut the hell up. I'm kidding, but only just barely.
 
Top