Bowl Games Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
#26      
Deleted member 645583
Burrow: what a passer and smart! LSU is as advertised. I hate to say it, but I hope Buckeyes win versus Clemson and then beat LSU. And, of course, Illini beat Cal. Nice to hear Mr. Roundtree is improving.
 
#29      
Deleted member 645583
Yeah, I guess that was an incomplete pass; gotta have possession - as in football in your guts and holding on. But great play! I only hope these red-zone failures don't haunt an OSU. This is the only time I want the Buckeyes to beat an orange-and-blue team. What a catch just now by Mack! This is most definitely big-boy football. Let's all move to Columbus! Nah.
 
#30      
SouthFLILLINI
oleoleahy51 said:
Yeah, I guess that was an incomplete pass; gotta have possession - as in football in your guts and holding on. But great play! I only hope these red-zone failures don't haunt an OSU. This is the only time I want the Buckeyes to beat an orange-and-blue team. What a catch just now by Mack! This is most definitely big-boy football. Let's all move to Columbus! Nah.
Click to expand...

I'm kind of rooting for Clemson. Arrogant Buckeye fans drive me crazy.
 
#31      
Ramrod2010
I hate the targeting call, I get the reason for the call to exist but it can be such a game changer.
 
#32      
Twangers
Ramrod2010 said:
I hate the targeting call, I get the reason for the call to exist but it can be such a game changer.
Click to expand...

It’s a tough one. The idea is to really drive home the point but I’m not sure the ejection process has accomplished that.
 
#33      
Deleted member 645583
Was that targeting? I don't think so. Man, we know targeting when we see it.

Let us play collegiate flag-football instead.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
#35      
Ramrod2010
Twangers said:
It’s a tough one. The idea is to really drive home the point but I’m not sure the ejection process has accomplished that.
Click to expand...

Maybe not ejection, but suspension for the whole next game? I feel like there are too many times where the offensive player turns at the last second and more or less puts himself in position for helmet to helmet contact.
 
#36      
Twangers
Ramrod2010 said:
Maybe not ejection, but suspension for the whole next game? I feel like there are too many times where the offensive player turns at the last second and more or less puts himself in position for helmet to helmet contact.
Click to expand...

I definitely agree, on all points. Well said.

For note, I agree with the last sentence in theory only. It isn’t applicable to the play a few minutes ago. Lawrence himself didn’t do anything wrong there.
 
#37      
SouthFLILLINI
My problem with the targeting rule is that it's not applied evenly throughout the NCAA. Iowa player hitting Peters and others.
 
#38      
Jive Turkey
I think it’s applied evenly, sometimes they miss calls. It’s just a bad rule. So many time the offenseive player lowers his head and puts himself in the line of fire as the Clemson long hair did. Screw it. There’s boxing on Showtime. Let me know who wins the taffy pull.
 
#39      
Deleted member 645583
Twangers said:
Uh, that was clear as targeting can get.
Click to expand...
I disagree. It's just plain football. But for the sake of the players' health, call it targeting. There are headhunters, we know, and they should be ejected. Butkus, for example - even when he was at Illinois. Helmets clash - that's American football like it or not. Butkus wanted to kill on the field, gouge their eyes out, Ray N., too. Yikes! Scary!

That's why I switched to jarts in my teens.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
#40      
Twangers
oleoleahy51 said:
I disagree. It's just plain football. But for the sake of the players' health, call it targeting. There are headhunters, we know, and they should be ejected. Butkus, for example - even when he was at Illinois.
Click to expand...

You seem to be on some odd rant that doesn’t relate to what’s going on, so I’ll leave you to it because if you read the letter of the targeting rule the kid Wade essentially defined it on that play. He lead with the (crown of the) helmet and made forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless player. There’s nothing for you to disagree with, this is a black and white infraction of the rule.

That’s not plain football either, unless you appreciate poor technique.
 
#41      
thehass
Not an Ohio State fan but am a Big Ten fan. Watching the last 4 minutes of the first half against Clemson I thought Illini coaches were advising the Buckeyes. A game thoroughly dominated by Ohio State has now become a toss up due to poor decisions and execution. We do not have a patent apparently on WTF.
 
#43      
Twangers
SouthFLILLINI said:
My problem with the targeting rule is that it's not applied evenly throughout the NCAA. Iowa player hitting Peters and others.
Click to expand...

While true, is that a targeting issue or an officiating issue? I would say it’s the latter.

Take today’s CFP games for example. That PI on the Td drive against Ohio State looked like defensive holding to me (Still an obvious penalty) whereas the play in the first half of the OU-LSU game that had Lincoln Riley going crazy was clear and apparent interference. One gets called PI, the either drew no flag. I wouldn’t call that an issue with the rule, I would call that an issue with crews calling it consistently across the board.
 
#44      
SouthFLILLINI
Twangers said:
While true, is that a targeting issue or an officiating issue? I would say it’s the latter.

Take today’s CFP games for example. That PI on the Td drive against Ohio State looked like defensive holding to me (Still an obvious penalty) whereas the play in the first half of the OU-LSU game that had Lincoln Riley going crazy was clear and apparent interference. One gets called PI, the either drew no flag. I wouldn’t call that an issue with the rule, I would call that an issue with crews calling it consistently across the board.
Click to expand...
But targeting is also looked at upstairs and PI isn't. Since targeting is such a big penalty with an ejection, I would like it to be called fairly and evenly which it is not.
 
#45      
Twangers
oldschool51 said:
I am interested should it have been targeting on Iowa player against Peters
Click to expand...

100%.

The football game was decided at that point so I think the outrage over the call lasting this long is a little outlandish but yes, that was absolutely targeting per the letter of the rule. Interestingly enough, that type of play was one of the driving factors for the ejection and subsequent suspension enforcement. If Brandon Peters is concussed and misses time due to the fault of the defender, that defender should also miss time. Or so the argument went.
 
Last edited:
#46      
Twangers
SouthFLILLINI said:
But targeting is also looked at upstairs and PI isn't. Since targeting is such a big penalty with an ejection, I would like it to be called fairly and evenly which it is not.
Click to expand...

Hm, that’s a good point. You swayed me, agree.

Still want to point out that this conversation, while fantastic, is in theory. The play in this game was clear targeting, there’s no dispute.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back