Message Boards

%$^&&%$^^ SPAMMERs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ticked off Bump!

AND ANOTHER BUMP! (gonna keep it up till somebody agrees with me. Do we want monster hits to be part of the game or not. Should taunting be called for less than standing directly over a guy and doing a dance? oooh, did we hurt ur wittle feelings?????????)

Just wanna know if anyone else (dis)likes the direction the rulz are taking, cuz I happen to LOVE big hits. Without them I might as well watch the Big East or something...

Disagree on taunting-that really has no place during the game. Agree on the high hits. IMHO we will end up with more and more as WR's and TE's try and make them happen to get the free 15 yards.

Wait....uh...don't see it...sorry

I don't see it either. Everyone knows what the rules are. Coach the players not to break them. If the rules stink as much as you say everyone would be breaking them. But they aren't. Even USC doesn't break them very often. It happened this time, probably in the heat and emotion of a close game when the players got a bit amped up. But it's better to have these rules than more players in wheelchairs. Or did you miss the start of the Rutgers game this week?

The taunting rule is under-called, IMO. Play your position, make the play you're supposed to make, then re-join your team...simple as that. Anything you did that you think you should taunt the other team about was made possible by 10 other teammates on the field playing their postition as well....so that TD run, catch, throw doesn't happen without your other teammates playing hard.

As for the late hit play, yes, that was a penalty.....you say he couldn't stop, but if he would have made the tackle properly (head up hit him in the numbers wrap your arms and step through), then he would have seen the other player drop the ball and fall. You say only MJ and Sweetness can alter their trajectory at full speed....I say BS. Tailbacks don't go full speed and then cut? CB's and WR's don't go full speed then cut?

The play was called correctly. And so was the spot on the holding call. The hold took place downfield on the 12....10 yard penalty spots the ball on the 22.

You might say I am in partial agreement on the high hits but I'm not sure if that accurately portrays my position.

I watch a lot of football and every week I will see at least one or two instances of what look to be unfair calls to the defensive player given the circumstances. When I see those calls it makes me angry. But it is hard to separate whether it is a bad rule or bad judgement on the part of the officials. The good thing about the rule is that it is likely preventing a lot of dangerous hits that would otherwise occur. I don't think the rule will change so I am trying to get used to it just like the players. I hope officials are given enough leeway within the rule to at least have the opportunity to make a good judgement call as to whether a defensive player had the ability to avoid the illegal hit while playing normal football.

Taunting is not part of the game of football and I have no problem with officials penalizing players for it.

QUOTE(#7):

Originally posted 08:42 AM ET  11.02 by TZ man

You say only MJ and Sweetness can alter their trajectory at full speed....I say BS. Tailbacks don't go full speed and then cut? CB's and WR's don't go full speed then cut?

I think any athlete can alter their path and trajectory...but only to a degree. The degree of athleticism of the player in question will affect how much they can alter their path and trajectory.

I am not discussing the play that triggered the rant. Unfortunately for me, the game was not carried where I live and I have not tried to rewatch the play in question.

QUOTE(#3):

Originally posted 08:17 PM ET  11.01 by Armpit

Disagree on taunting-that really has no place during the game. Agree on the high hits. IMHO we will end up with more and more as WR's and TE's try and make them happen to get the free 15 yards.

Guess it's the nature of the 'taunt' to me. I admittedly went overboard on the "standing over a guy and doing a dance" bit, but I don't feel like many of the things called "taunting" are, and for the fact that an entire game can be won or lost simply from a refs interpretation?

The call in question, the players were seperated by a cpl yards of field. The infraction? After scoring Quise Lee looks back in the general direction of the defender, and not even the one guarding him, and high stepping while swinging his arms a little. No victory dance even. Possibly said something but no ref close enough to tell. To me this is simply the excitement of a Freshman making a big play in a BIG game.

see TD at about 1:24, 'taunting' best seen at 1:37 =>

QUOTE(#10):

Originally posted 11:04 AM ET  11.02 by UlTroyFanII

Guess it's the nature of the 'taunt' to me. I admittedly went overboard on the "standing over a guy and doing a dance" bit, but I don't feel like many of the things called "taunting" are, and for the fact that an entire game can be won or lost simply from a refs interpretation? The call in question, the players were seperated by a cpl yards of field. The infraction? After scoring Quise Lee looks back in the general direction of the defender, and not even the one guarding him, and high stepping while swinging his arms a little. No victory dance even. Possibly said something but no ref close enough to tell. To me this is simply the excitement of a Freshman making a big play in a BIG game.see TD at about 1:24, 'taunting' best seen at 1:37 =>

I don't agree with the penalty of taking a touchdown off the board if it occurs during the play. I think in those cases the penalty is excessive for a spur of the moment violation.

I mean, the only thing that can be seen as taunting is turning to look at the receiver? OMG, maybe he was making sure he wasn't about to get leveled? Maybe looking for Mom in the Stands, or that sweet young thing he wants to get close to?

A game SHOULD NOT swing on the interpretation of a players looks/high stepping/arm swings etc. unless they have psychic ability. Was it taunting? Probably, but in a VERY mild form, and there is nothing but the refs interpretation of a look to base it on.

I will still argue we are putting WAY to much authority in the hands of incompetants (at best, as demonstrated by PAC officials over and over). It's the authority to change the outcome of a game (when do 'taunting' pf's get called? after TD's mostly, and big plays in general).

What I am suggesting is that there should be REAL evidence it was a taunt and not just youthfull exuberance. Also, the penalty should be lessened from 15 to 10 yards and enforced on the extra point. If it is flagrant (intentionally getting in the face of an opponant, dancing over fallen opponant, etc) then yeah, leave as is. but if it's just turning your head to look at a guy?

QUOTE(#11):

Originally posted 11:14 AM ET  11.02 by JPax

I don't agree with the penalty of taking a touchdown off the board if it occurs during the play. I think in those cases the penalty is excessive for a spur of the moment violation.

In this case it was after the play, but it had the same overall affect. Kicking from the 15 gave Stanford such good field pos that it was a cpl of plays and in the End Zone. Entire drive negated cuz Lee turned his head in the direction of an opponent. A GAME CHANGER LEFT IN THE DUBIOUS INTERPRETATION OF A PAC REF....

Folks, pleeeeeeeeeeease don't misunderstand; this ISN'T about sour grapes over what I feel was a bad call against my team USC. I accept their loss and wish the Tree Peeps the best, I really do (now that that game is over I would like to see them win the BCS NC).

NO, it's about the direction I feel that CFB is taking: a totally PC direction. Maybe it's a response to all the scandalls, NCAA trying to misdirect or 'clean up' their tarnished image. But a stiffer interpretation of taunting by the NCAA is like the pot and kettle...

QUOTE(#7):

Originally posted 08:42 AM ET  11.02 by TZ man

The taunting rule is under-called, IMO. Play your position, make the play you're supposed to make, then re-join your team...simple as that. Anything you did that you think you should taunt the other team about was made possible by 10 other teammates on the field playing their postition as well....so that TD run, catch, throw doesn't happen without your other teammates playing hard.

Ok, I'm old skool as well, and agree to a point. In my day we handed the ball to the ref and went to the sidelines (less you were on the PAT team) for a few high 5's, NBD. It was cooler, and is cooler IMO, as I've expressed to my Gsons, to act like it's NBD, sumthin you do every day. NOT like it's the 1st time you've done it.

But as I've stated, too much room for interpretation here: looking at a guy? In my day we lined up across from a guy and told him dirty rotten things about his Mama or GF. What's the dif? I'm pretty sure they still do that too, and it's not called. Maybe we should put a mic on the players and monitor their words. Instead we interpret gestures. Isn't that a bit like the thought police? And way to PC for me.

I realize I'm in the minority, but thats my story and I'm stickin with it.

QUOTE(#6):

Originally posted 01:07 AM ET  11.02 by Orac

I don't see it either. Everyone knows what the rules are. Coach the players not to break them. If the rules stink as much as you say everyone would be breaking them. But they aren't. Even USC doesn't break them very often. It happened this time, probably in the heat and emotion of a close game when the players got a bit amped up. But it's better to have these rules than more players in wheelchairs. Or did you miss the start of the Rutgers game this week?

I know the safety implications, and for the most part agree. BUT: it should be called like a DE bearing down on a QB, and consideration should be given to the starting position of the target vs. the point at which he was hit. In other words intent and the ability to stop. We do it for QB's, we give BBall players continuation, it's basically the same. A judgement call based on momentum and physics.

In this case everyone agrees that TJ COULD NOT HAVE STOPPED, but still think it should be called? I argue that if that is called, THEN ALL HITS ON QB's AFTER THE BALL HAS LEFT THEIR HANDS, should also be a PF (that's pro'lly next IMO).

JMO

QUOTE(#7):

Originally posted 08:42 AM ET  11.02 by TZ man

As for the late hit play, yes, that was a penalty.....you say he couldn't stop, but if he would have made the tackle properly (head up hit him in the numbers

Ahh, the old form tackle I was taught. But let me ask this: if the player goes up and a little angled, aren't you "leading" with the helmet, since the 1st contact is made by the crown and not the mask? And, as on this play, TJ AIMED FOR THE NUMBERS, as you suggest he should, and he even got his helmet out of the way, as the rulz today say he should. So he did what he should, but it was still a PF. What chaged? The position of the hitee. And no, at that late point with the momentum he had, no way he changes trajectory.

Did you even see the hit BTW? It was a monster hit, what we expect from our safeties, but the receiver going to his knees at the last second changed it from a GREAT play to a PF.

IOW, by todays rules he did line up and prepare to make the hit 'properly'. If he had been any more 'proper', he would have aimed his facemask instead of turning it to the side. In that case when Owusu dropped it would have been helmet to helmet. Is that 'PROPER' tackle somehow better?

QUOTE(#6):

Originally posted 01:07 AM ET  11.02 by Orac

But it's better to have these rules than more players in wheelchairs. Or did you miss the start of the Rutgers game this week?

Yeah, I did miss it (not much into Rutgers). But I still maintain that the hit could NOT BE AVOIDED, like a hit on a QB can't be, and should be judged in the same way, using some sort of one or two step rule, and taking into account the relative target position (up at the start, just before contact, and on the knees when contact actually occurs).

IOW, could the player have avoided helmet to helmet. Yes safety is good (I did see the Jack 'the assassin' Tatum hit on Darrell Stingly, when it happened, was a cheap shot, but of the type that was taught at the time, punish peeps for going across the middle. BTW, wasn't helmet to helmet, was kinda forearms/chest to helmet.). But it's still football and stuffs gonna happen. Let clean hard hits, hits that can't be avoided in this game, be legal. enforcing this rule, as is, is knuetering the DB's in such a way as to make them useless.

If TJ aims lower and Owusu maintains his feet, TJ takes out his knees instead. Is it better to ruin a kids career than make him dizzy for a cpl? And isn't that the reason they made the chop block and crack back illegal, to protect the knees? We gonna protect the gut next, where only hits in the numbers are legal?

QUOTE(#8):

Originally posted 08:47 AM ET  11.02 by JPax

I hope officials are given enough leeway within the rule to at least have the opportunity to make a good judgement call as to whether a defensive player had the ability to avoid the illegal hit while playing normal football.

Kudo's Joe, that's all I'm saying. In the call in question tho, all the announcers made 2 contradictory (IMO) statements: That the call was correct, and that the hit was unavoidable in the normal course of football.

Because those two statements are both true as the rules are currently enforced, somethins gotta change.

QUOTE(#9):

Originally posted 08:52 AM ET  11.02 by JPax

I think any athlete can alter their path and trajectory...but only to a degree. The degree of athleticism of the player in question will affect how much they can alter their path and trajectory. I am not discussing the play that triggered the rant. Unfortunately for me, the game was not carried where I live and I have not tried to rewatch the play in question.

Here 'tis:

fight on!