thats the most upset,,,,

[StrongArm517]

"your point about Langs is interesting ... I get the sense he (Langs) is fed up with all the "run the ball ... run the ball!!" constant barrage and said F it if they want to run the ball every down then fine"

I sure hope this is not the case! He can't be that immature and petty can he?

 

[bigboxes]

Almost....gotta be a little more negative and you'll have it nailed. Maybe throw his age in there to accentuate the negative and we'll give it another look!

Give me a break with the usual cop outs. This is why nothing is ever done about God awful officiating, because too many people just chalk up anyone complaining about it to people trying to shift blame. We won 43-10, I'm not trying to make any blame on the officiating because of the outcome of the game, I'm simply complaining about it, like I always do, because it was horrible. You can think what you want about the Luke Gifford call, you're wrong, it was a crap call plain and simple, basically on the level of the Nate Gerry call in the bowl game.

I didn't mention the overturned targeting call later in the game, because I was running down the 7 penalties for 80 yards that were called and disputing some (or most) of them. Because that penalty was overturned, it didn't count toward that total, and I didn't list it. I was completely shocked when they overturned it, not because it shouldn't have been overturned, but because I have so rarely seen targeting calls overturned, even when they clearly should have been (can only think of one other instance from a couple years ago).

The celebration stuff, I agree that the stuff just shouldn't be done, but in the end we're talking about 18-22 years olds, often who just made a big play, what do you expect? And you can't really define what will and won't get called, because it's so completely arbitrary. Take, for instance, what Suh did after his huge INT return to seal the win against Colorado in 2008. As soon as he crossed the goal line, he threw the ball as hard as he could against the wall behind the end zone. Much more emphatic and celebratory than anything either penalized player did last night, and there was no penalty called. In the end, I would probably not care that much about those two penalties, except based on what I saw the rest of the game, the refs were out to get us, and looking for crap to call. I think the call on Aaron Williams was a lot more BS than the one on Zack Darlington. I saw other players, on both sides of the ball, celebrate just as much if not more than he did, after a defensive play, and nothing was called. From my perspective, the douchebag that threw the flag was just piling on.

I'm also interested how you mention nothing at all about that kick catch interference call, because it was a perfect example of the officiating the entire game, pure crap. What really got me, was a later punt by Fresno State, and while the ball was hanging way up and the Fresno State players were gathering around Westerkamp, at least one of them very clearly bumped into him, the very DEFINITION of interference, and no flag was thrown. Westy was clearly pretty unhappy about it too, and let the zebra striped moron that was standing a few feet away know about it.

Looks like you could use a few likes. Boxes likes.

 

[redwine65]

Im ok with celebrating after a 3 and out OR a touchdown. the problem is when players act like they won the Super Bowl on second down, and on third down the other team gets a third down conversion.

and maybe, just maybe it might be more intimidating after a good hit, to act like thats the norm, and not like you just won the thriller in manilla

 

[Charlie Marlow]

I thought the targeting on Gifford was a fair call. I thought both excessive celebrations were warranted. I was kind of pissed at Utter. He's a captain and he needs to not continue hostilities from the previous play. That penalty could have really hurt us if we were playing a better team. I can see why some of that was frustrating to Riley. More self-discipline and less shooting ourselves in the foot.

 

[cubsker]

Amusing that he mentioned the "look at me" celebration penalties after what he termed almost every good play. Did Mike just realize he's coaching the Selfie Generation?

calvin jones' helmet says hi.

 

[HuskerRick]

Here's the thing about the penalties though. It was 7 penalties for 80 yards. Take off one and 15 yards for the total and complete BS targeting penalty on Luke Gifford. Take off another 15 yards and one penalty for the total and complete BS punt catch interference penalty. Right there you drop that to 5 and 50 which isn't excellent but is much better. Then you have the two celebration penalties. Clearly some here feel different, I think they were crap, I've seen players celebrate a heck of a lot more than either Darlington or Aaron Williams and not get called. Heck, I saw a Fresno State player stand practically in Tre Bryant's face after getting a pretty hard hit on him (after he had just run for an 11 yard gain, mind you) and flex his arms for a good long time, from my perspective easily as bad as anything the penalized Husker players did, and no penalty was called. Take out those two and another 20 yards (penalty on Aaron Williams was only 5 because it was half the distance) and now you're down to 3 penalties for 30 yards. Then you have the ticky tack facemask penalty (I don't think he really grabbed it long enough to warrant a flag, they got rid of the 5 yard facemask penalty to get rid of calls for minor or incidental grabbing, not to make all minor and incidental grabbing a 15 yard penalty), the unsportsmanlike on Utter which I never saw a replay to see what he did to warrant it (that penalty was only 10 yards because it was half the distance) and the illegal formation, which I need to go back and watch because I remember that being called on us a few times last year, and watching the replay and not for the life of me being able to figure out what was "illegal" about the formation.

Of course Riley is upset about the penalties, he's the head coach, that's what he's supposed to do. In the end, however, when you take into account the, sadly all too common, God awful officiating, I'm not all that worried about. Only so much you can do when you have clueless, bumbling fools on the field masquerading as the refs.

Doesn't matter how unintentional facemask is still a facemask, that said, they missed an earlier one by FS. Still think BIG10 refs are still very critical of the Huskers, this will hurt during any close game. They were the difference in last year's Illinois game.

 

[Hoosker Du]

Here's the thing about the penalties though. It was 7 penalties for 80 yards. Take off one and 15 yards for the total and complete BS targeting penalty on Luke Gifford. Take off another 15 yards and one penalty for the total and complete BS punt catch interference penalty. Right there you drop that to 5 and 50 which isn't excellent but is much better. Then you have the two celebration penalties. Clearly some here feel different, I think they were crap, I've seen players celebrate a heck of a lot more than either Darlington or Aaron Williams and not get called. Heck, I saw a Fresno State player stand practically in Tre Bryant's face after getting a pretty hard hit on him (after he had just run for an 11 yard gain, mind you) and flex his arms for a good long time, from my perspective easily as bad as anything the penalized Husker players did, and no penalty was called. Take out those two and another 20 yards (penalty on Aaron Williams was only 5 because it was half the distance) and now you're down to 3 penalties for 30 yards. Then you have the ticky tack facemask penalty (I don't think he really grabbed it long enough to warrant a flag, they got rid of the 5 yard facemask penalty to get rid of calls for minor or incidental grabbing, not to make all minor and incidental grabbing a 15 yard penalty), the unsportsmanlike on Utter which I never saw a replay to see what he did to warrant it (that penalty was only 10 yards because it was half the distance) and the illegal formation, which I need to go back and watch because I remember that being called on us a few times last year, and watching the replay and not for the life of me being able to figure out what was "illegal" about the formation.

Of course Riley is upset about the penalties, he's the head coach, that's what he's supposed to do. In the end, however, when you take into account the, sadly all too common, God awful officiating, I'm not all that worried about. Only so much you can do when you have clueless, bumbling fools on the field masquerading as the refs.

I definitely thought the Gifford targeting call was correct, as was the halo call. Don't remember the facemask call. We were pretty sloppy though.

 

[Hoosker Du]

Riley said they were completely daring us to pass the ball by stacking the box, so pretty decent running output given the circumstances. It would appear that we kept it about as vanilla as.possible.

 

[jedihusker]

Doesn't matter how unintentional facemask is still a facemask, that said, they missed an earlier one by FS. Still think BIG10 refs are still very critical of the Huskers, this will hurt during any close game. They were the difference in last year's Illinois game.

Actually, it does matter on a facemask. The rule used to be two-fold. There was the 5-yard facemask penalty, for essentially any time someone touched someone else's facemask; and then there was the 15-yard personal foul variety for when someone grabbed it and twisted or pulled or whatever. They got rid of the 5-yard variety a few years ago, and the intention was they were getting rid of the penalty for when someone just briefly and/or accidentally touches or grabs someones face mask.

Sadly, as is far too often the case, most refs I've watched are completely clueless on this rule (as they are, disturbingly so, on quite a few other rules) and instead have just made it so any touching of the facemask is a 15-yard penalty. This was not the intention of getting rid of the 5-yard facemask penalty, to make all touching 15-yards, the intention was pretty much the opposite, to make it so brief or accidental touching or grabbing of the facemask was no longer a penalty.

This is exactly how the rule reads in the NCAA rule book:
ARTICLE 8. a. No player shall continuously contact an opponent’s face, helmet (including the face mask) or neck with hand(s) or arm(s) (Exception: By or against the runner). [S26} b. No player shall grasp and then twist, turn or pull the face mask, chin strap or any helmet opening of an opponent. It is not a foul if the face mask, chin strap or helmet opening is not grasped and then twisted, turned or pulled. When in question, it is a foul.

As you can see, it requires either continuous contact, or requires for the player to grab, and then twist, turn or pull. On the play in question, from what I remember of the replay, Josh Kalu was grabbing the Fresno State WR to tackle him, and as he wrapped his arms around to tackle, his hand briefly caught on the facemask and then let go. He didn't grasp it and then start twisting, turning or pulling; he simply went to wrap up and accidentally got the facemask for a second. However, since the clueless zebra striped idiots were constantly looking for crap to call, the flag came out immediately. Compare that to later, when Jordan Westerkamp was being tackled and the guy nearly ripped his helmet off his head, and the ref standing right there (who may have even been the very same ref) just stood there, no flag thrown. It took Westy complaining, and then a ref behind the play throwing a flag to get it called. Even then, they had to discuss it for a while, probably trying to come up with some reasoning to pick up the flag.

 

[kaz36]

I definitely thought the Gifford targeting call was correct, as was the halo call. Don't remember the facemask call. We were pretty sloppy though.

There is no halo rule in football anymore.

 

[Hoosker Du]

There is no halo rule in football anymore.

I know, just used "halo" in lieu of "giving him the opportunity to catch it." Even though they don't call it a halo rule anymore, it's still giving them the room to make the catch, even if that room is just a few inches.

I thought the call was correct, but they missed one on Fresno for getting in the way of Westy catching a punt.

 

[jflores]

The Langs comment is pure BS. Langs himself said he didn't feel confident throwing the ball with the way it was going at 2/5.

Call it "learning", call it whatever you want, but when Langs went vanilla because the passing game just wasn't clicking, people will still gripe.

This wasn't quite the conditions of the Purdue game last year, but people still won't let die that he wasn't vanilla enough at times last year.

 

[jedihusker]

I definitely thought the Gifford targeting call was correct, as was the halo call. Don't remember the facemask call. We were pretty sloppy though.

No such thing as a "halo call" they got rid of the halo rule a few years ago. The call was wrong, plain and simple.

And no, the Gifford call was not "definitely correct". You certainly can hold whatever opinion you want, but in this case, your opinion is wrong. The entire targeting rule reads as follows:

Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet
ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 9-6) (A.R. 9-1-3-I)

Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player
ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)
Note 1: “Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:
• Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area
• A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground
• Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
• Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet

Here is the play in question, from an angle that basically shows everything you need to see:

Nothing there rises to the level of what is described as targeting. He doesn't contact with the crown of his helmet, so you can throw that one out. And the target of his contact was clearly his shoulder, not the head or neck, so you can basically throw out the second possibility. He doesn't launch, clearly still on his feet the entire time. None of what he does there matches anything listed above. It's kind of hard to tell from this angle, but their helmets also don't appear to ever touch, but even if they do, it would be incidental contact at best, not leading. Also, you can see the QB is still finishing his follow through of the throw, so that to me indicates the hit wasn't late, he had just thrown the ball, there is no way he was going to be able to peel off.

 

[bigboxes]

No such thing as a "halo call" they got rid of the halo rule a few years ago. The call was wrong, plain and simple.

And no, the Gifford call was not "definitely correct". You certainly can hold whatever opinion you want, but in this case, your opinion is wrong. The entire targeting rule reads as follows:


Here is the play in question, from an angle that basically shows everything you need to see:

Nothing there rises to the level of what is described as targeting. He doesn't contact with the crown of his helmet, so you can throw that one out. And the target of his contact was clearly his shoulder, not the head or neck, so you can basically throw out the second possibility. He doesn't launch, clearly still on his feet the entire time. None of what he does there matches anything listed above. It's kind of hard to tell from this angle, but their helmets also don't appear to ever touch, but even if they do, it would be incidental contact at best, not leading. Also, you can see the QB is still finishing his follow through of the throw, so that to me indicates the hit wasn't late, he had just thrown the ball, there is no way he was going to be able to peel off.

It was a good play. The refs should have overturned the call. The game has got to evolve away from this "zero tolerance" stance. Taking players out to the game and punishing them into the next is getting out of hand. Now, if they launched themselves or lowered their head I can totally understand that, but just driving through on a good hit should not be penalized. I'd like the refs to come back from review, "On further review... damn good hit!"

 

[jedihusker]

It was a good play. The refs should have overturned the call. The game has got to evolve away from this "zero tolerance" stance. Taking players out to the game and punishing them into the next is getting out of hand. Now, if they launched themselves or lowered their head I can totally understand that, but just driving through on a good hit should not be penalized. I'd like the refs to come back from review, "On further review... damn good hit!"

I agree. The thing I hate the most is the fact that review seems so useless. I was shocked when the targeting call later in the game was overturned, because prior to that, I had not seen one overturned in quite some time (and none that I had seen since the rule was changed to actually allow negating the penalty, and not just the ejection). I can sort of understand throwing the flag, it was a big hit, if the refs were going to get it right on review. Problem is, that seems to happen so little. The other thing is, the rules actually allow for a play to be reviewed and then for targeting to be called. I wish refs would more often err on the side of not throwing the flag, unless it was plainly obvious, and let the review booth go back and look and decide if a penalty is warranted.

 

[Hoosker Du]

No such thing as a "halo call" they got rid of the halo rule a few years ago. The call was wrong, plain and simple.

And no, the Gifford call was not "definitely correct". You certainly can hold whatever opinion you want, but in this case, your opinion is wrong. The entire targeting rule reads as follows:


Here is the play in question, from an angle that basically shows everything you need to see:

Nothing there rises to the level of what is described as targeting. He doesn't contact with the crown of his helmet, so you can throw that one out. And the target of his contact was clearly his shoulder, not the head or neck, so you can basically throw out the second possibility. He doesn't launch, clearly still on his feet the entire time. None of what he does there matches anything listed above. It's kind of hard to tell from this angle, but their helmets also don't appear to ever touch, but even if they do, it would be incidental contact at best, not leading. Also, you can see the QB is still finishing his follow through of the throw, so that to me indicates the hit wasn't late, he had just thrown the ball, there is no way he was going to be able to peel off.

I think we covered the halo term already. Even though there is no halo rule any longer, the 'halo,' so to speak, is that you can't touch the PR while he is making the catch.

Honestly, I can't believe you guys are looking at that video of Gifford and can't see that he is making helmet to helmet contact with him, which falls under the umbrella of that call, even if it's not written. If you slam helmets with another player, you're going to get it called on you. The call on Gerry against UCLA was clearly a poor call, but they got this one right.

Easy on calling someone blatantly wrong, especially when it's fairly evident that his helmet slammed into the FS player's helmet. Calling someone blatantly wrong when it's an opinion is probably not a good idea. I learned my lesson on that topic.

Check out Rule 9-1-4.

----------------------------------------------------

Targeting and Initiating Contact With the Crown of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3)

No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.

Targeting and Initiating Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player (Rule 9-1-4)

No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 2-27-14)

Note: Beginning in 2013, ejection from the game is a part of the penalty for violation of both Rule 9-1-3 and Rule 9-1-4.


KEY ELEMENTS

Target—to take aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with an apparent intent that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball.

Crown of the Helmet—the top portion of the helmet.

Contact to the head or neck area—not only with the helmet, but also with the forearm, fist, elbow, or shoulder—these can all lead to a foul.

Defenseless player—a player not in position to defend himself.

Examples (Rule 2-27-14):

• A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
• A receiver attempting to catch a pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
• A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return.
• A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick.
• A player on the ground.
• A player obviously out of the play.
• A player who receives a blind-side block.
• A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped.
• A quarterback any time after a change of possession.

KEY INDICATORS

Risk of a foul is high with one or more of these:

• Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make contact in the head or neck area
• A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with contact at the head or neck area—even though one or both feet are still on the ground
• Leading with helmet, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with contact at the head or neck area
• Lowering the head before attacking by initiating contact with the crown of the helmet

 

[jedihusker]

I think we covered the halo term already. Even though there is no halo rule any longer, the 'halo,' so to speak, is that you can't touch the PR while he is making the catch.

Honestly, I can't believe you guys are looking at that video of Gifford and can't see that he is making helmet to helmet contact with him, which falls under the umbrella of that call, even if it's not written. If you slam helmets with another player, you're going to get it called on you. The call on Gerry against UCLA was clearly a poor call, but they got this one right.

Easy on calling someone blatantly wrong, especially when it's fairly evident that his helmet slammed into the FS player's helmet. Calling someone blatantly wrong when it's an opinion is probably not a good idea. I learned my lesson on that topic.

Check out Rule 9-1-4.

----------------------------------------------------

Targeting and Initiating Contact With the Crown of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3)

No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.

Targeting and Initiating Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player (Rule 9-1-4)

No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 2-27-14)

Note: Beginning in 2013, ejection from the game is a part of the penalty for violation of both Rule 9-1-3 and Rule 9-1-4.


KEY ELEMENTS

Target—to take aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with an apparent intent that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball.

Crown of the Helmet—the top portion of the helmet.

Contact to the head or neck area—not only with the helmet, but also with the forearm, fist, elbow, or shoulder—these can all lead to a foul.

Defenseless player—a player not in position to defend himself.

Examples (Rule 2-27-14):

• A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
• A receiver attempting to catch a pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
• A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return.
• A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick.
• A player on the ground.
• A player obviously out of the play.
• A player who receives a blind-side block.
• A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped.
• A quarterback any time after a change of possession.

KEY INDICATORS

Risk of a foul is high with one or more of these:

• Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make contact in the head or neck area
• A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with contact at the head or neck area—even though one or both feet are still on the ground
• Leading with helmet, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with contact at the head or neck area
• Lowering the head before attacking by initiating contact with the crown of the helmet

Did you even read the majority of my post? First of all, on the halo thing, he didn't touch the returner while the ball was in the air, he hit him after he had already touched the ball. It was a bad call, plain and simple. The exact rule reads like this:

SECTION 4. Opportunity To Catch a Kick
Interference With Opportunity
ARTICLE 1. a. A player of the receiving team within the boundary lines attempting to catch a kick, and so located that he could have caught a free kick or a scrimmage kick that is beyond the neutral zone, must be given an unimpeded opportunity to catch the kick (A.R. 6-3-1-III, A.R. 6-4-1-V, VI and IX).
b. It is an interference foul if, before the receiver touches the ball, a Team A player enters the area defined by the width of the receiver’s shoulders and extending one yard in front of him. When in question it is a foul. (A.R. 6-4-1-X-XIII)

He did not hit him before he touched the ball, that I remember quite clearly. I can't find any video of the hit, but I don't remember it being so quick that he would have violated the second part of that rule. He may have been close enough to violate the old "halo" rule, and I wouldn't be surprised, based on what I've seen in the past, if the moron ref just thought that rule was still around.

Second of all, I posted the rule in my post, so I know how it reads. Their helmets don't touch or barely touch, other angles show that clearly. The QBs head jerks a little from the hit, but that doesn't prove their helmets touch. Also, helmets "touching" is not some sort of automatic targeting call. It requires to lead with the crown of the helmet (which he clearly does not do, and if you see that you are watching something else), or for you to initiate contact to the head or neck area. It is 100% clear watching the video, unless you are trying to see things to let the crap refs off the hook, that he initiates contact with his arms to his shoulder area. Nothing about that rises to the level of targeting. If you want to absolve terrible officiating, go ahead and do it, but the call was bad, plain and simple. How you can watch that clip I posted and see anything that matches what's listed in the targeting rule, I have no idea.

 

[SnohomishRed]

The Langs comment is pure BS. Langs himself said he didn't feel confident throwing the ball with the way it was going at 2/5.

Call it "learning", call it whatever you want, but when Langs went vanilla because the passing game just wasn't clicking, people will still gripe.

This wasn't quite the conditions of the Purdue game last year, but people still won't let die that he wasn't vanilla enough at times last year.

I took that the staff stuck with the running game as a great sign, sure we need to be more multiple against e the better defenses. What this did is send a message to the online that we are going to rely on them. If at first sign of trouble we move the pass then we will never have a strong running game.

Riley being upset is also a good sign, at OSU they would be congratulating themselves for winning by 33. Here that is not good enough if we are to win titles. I especially liked that he singled out special teams because they were a complete disaster

 

[Hoosker Du]

Did you even read the majority of my post? First of all, on the halo thing, he didn't touch the returner while the ball was in the air, he hit him after he had already touched the ball. It was a bad call, plain and simple.

Second of all, I posted the rule in my post, so I know how it reads. Their helmets don't touch or barely touch, other angles show that clearly. The QBs head jerks a little from the hit, but that doesn't prove their helmets touch. Also, helmets "touching" is not some sort of automatic targeting call. It requires to lead with the crown of the helmet (which he clearly does not do, and if you see that you are watching something else), or for you to initiate contact to the head or neck area. It is 100% clear watching the video, unless you are trying to see things to let the crap refs off the hook, that he initiates contact with his arms to his shoulder area. Nothing about that rises to the level of targeting. If you want to absolve terrible officiating, go ahead and do it, but the call was bad, plain and simple. How you can watch that clip I posted and see anything that matches what's listed in the targeting rule, I have no idea.

Wow, if you didn't see the helmets make contact in that video, then I can't help you. I also think you need to reread the targeting rule.

"ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder."

I saw contact by one of our players on the PR before the FS player caught the ball. They missed one that should have been called when their players got in the way of Westerkamp catching a punt.

 

[jedihusker]

Wow, if you didn't see the helmets make contact in that video, then I can't help you. I also think you need to reread the targeting rule.

I saw contact by one of our players on the PR before the FS player caught the ball. They missed one that should have been called when their players got in the way of Westerkamp catching a punt.

You do realize that the angle that is shown there makes things look different. If their helmets contact, why doesn't Luke Gifford's head move at all? You can watch as he pushes the QB away that his head went past him. Also, as I already stated about 3 times now, other angles of the play showed their helmets either didn't touch or barely touched. I don't have the other angles, because I only have what was shown on the BTN highlights which just has the the full play and than a close up that I showed up there.

I think you need to reread the targeting rule. There is NOTHING in there stating any and all contact of helmets is an automatic targeting penalty. It talks about INITIATING contact with the crown of the helmet, or INITIATING contact to the head and neck area. He CLEARLY INITIATES contact with his arms to his shoulder. Any contact of helmets comes AFTER the initial hit to his shoulder. I will say it again, there is NOTHING in that rule that says any contact of helmets is an automatic penalty. It says INITIATING contact is a penalty, meaning the first contact has to come either with the crown of the helmet (as in you lead with the top of your head) or to the head or neck area. It doesn't say any contact is a penalty. I will again reiterate, this was the best angle for showing a close up of the play, other angles shown during the game show little to no actual helmet contact, and if there was any, it was incidental at best and not initiated that way.

What about that video proves helmet contact anyway? The QBs head jerks, yes. Go watch any body get hit hard in the shoulder by a fast moving person, while essentially not moving, and I guarantee 100% of the time you will see their head jerk just like it does in the video. If there was any forceful contact of the helmets, you would see Luke Gifford's head move, or jerk one way, or some sign of impact. There is none, meaning if there was any touching, it was incidental and minor after the initial impact to the shoulder area.

 

[Truehuskerfan]

I saw contact by one of our players on the PR before the FS player caught the ball. They missed one that should have been called when their players got in the way of Westerkamp catching a punt.

I don't believe there was contact before the ball got there. That's why it's important to not use the term "halo" because that implies something totally different that was eliminated from the rule book several years ago. And yes-you are correct they missed one on them with Westerkamp, and that was much more obvious than the one they called on us.

 

[Truehuskerfan]

Husker fans have never seen a penalty against us they liked.

Right-and that's only a Husker fan issue is it? I mean you never hear other team's fans complain about bad calls, do you? Every other team's fans accept all of the calls in every game with grace. Darn us Husker fans for being so unwilling to accept every call in every game as legit like every other fan base does. What is wrong with us anyway?

 

[jlb321]

Right-and that's only a Husker fan issue is it? I mean you never hear other team's fans complain about bad calls, do you? Every other team's fans accept all of the calls in every game with grace. Darn us Husker fans for being so unwilling to accept every call in every game as legit like every other fan base does. What is wrong with us anyway?

+1 .. many would view that hit completely different if it was TA getting hit by say an Iowa or Wisconsin player

at the end of the day .. the guys with the most degree of objectivity who reviewed all the replays thought it was a penalty .. time to move on

 

[Hoosker Du]

Did you even read the majority of my post? First of all, on the halo thing, he didn't touch the returner while the ball was in the air, he hit him after he had already touched the ball. It was a bad call, plain and simple. The exact rule reads like this:

He did not hit him before he touched the ball, that I remember quite clearly. I can't find any video of the hit, but I don't remember it being so quick that he would have violated the second part of that rule. He may have been close enough to violate the old "halo" rule, and I wouldn't be surprised, based on what I've seen in the past, if the moron ref just thought that rule was still around.

Second of all, I posted the rule in my post, so I know how it reads. Their helmets

I don't believe there was contact before the ball got there. That's why it's important to not use the term "halo" because that implies something totally different that was eliminated from the rule book several years ago. And yes-you are correct they missed one on them with Westerkamp, and that was much more obvious than the one they called on us.

I used halo because there really isn't another good term for it, because you still can't touch them until they touch the ball. It's just that it isn't 2 yards now. Not sure what term they use in the rules book now.

 

[RedSea]

Lots of people saying we were "vanilla" in our offense. Of course, all the teams who blew out weak opponents this first week probably went "vanilla" too, so don't assume that our relative standing will improve when the toppings are added. Have to pick the right toppings.

 

[Truehuskerfan]

+1 .. many would view that hit completely different if it was TA getting hit by say an Iowa or Wisconsin player

at the end of the day .. the guys with the most degree of objectivity who reviewed all the replays thought it was a penalty .. time to move on

I do hope you realize my comment that you quoted was heavy on the sarcasm-in other words, the idea that Husker fans somehow are unique in complaining about bad calls is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. There has never been a team in sports that doesn't think bad calls go against them from time to time.

 

[Hoosker Du]

You do realize that the angle that is shown there makes things look different. If their helmets contact, why doesn't Luke Gifford's head move at all? You can watch as he pushes the QB away that his head went past him. Also, as I already stated about 3 times now, other angles of the play showed their helmets either didn't touch or barely touched. I don't have the other angles, because I only have what was shown on the BTN highlights which just has the the full play and than a close up that I showed up there.

I think you need to reread the targeting rule. There is NOTHING in there stating any and all contact of helmets is an automatic targeting penalty. It talks about INITIATING contact with the crown of the helmet, or INITIATING contact to the head and neck area. He CLEARLY INITIATES contact with his arms to his shoulder. Any contact of helmets comes AFTER the initial hit to his shoulder. I will say it again, there is NOTHING in that rule that says any contact of helmets is an automatic penalty. It says INITIATING contact is a penalty, meaning the first contact has to come either with the crown of the helmet (as in you lead with the top of your head) or to the head or neck area. It doesn't say any contact is a penalty. I will again reiterate, this was the best angle for showing a close up of the play, other angles shown during the game show little to no actual helmet contact, and if there was any, it was incidental at best and not initiated that way.

What about that video proves helmet contact anyway? The QBs head jerks, yes. Go watch any body get hit hard in the shoulder by a fast moving person, while essentially not moving, and I guarantee 100% of the time you will see their head jerk just like it does in the video. If there was any forceful contact of the helmets, you would see Luke Gifford's head move, or jerk one way, or some sign of impact. There is none, meaning if there was any touching, it was incidental and minor after the initial impact to the shoulder area.

The FS player's head snapped back, just like when you get hit in the head by another helmet. If his head doesn't make contact with anything, his head would have snapped toward Gifford.

I never said it's an automatic penalty if you make contact with the head, but making helmet to helmet contact is part of the rule.

IMO, he didn't launch, and he made contact with his hands, but the contact with the helmet was enough that it snapped the player's head back. They looked at it in slow-motion, and it's a judgement call, but I happen to agree with their assessment.

I think they need to further clarify what constitutes initiating contact, because Gifford did initiate contact with his hands, but I believe their interpretation of the rules is that if you make contact with the arms, but also then make helmet to helmet contact, they also consider that initiating contact. The wording should be clarified.

 

[bigboxes]

The FS player's head snapped back, just like when you get hit in the head by another helmet. If his head doesn't make contact with anything, his head would have snapped toward Gifford.

I never said it's an automatic penalty if you make contact with the head, but making helmet to helmet contact is part of the rule.

IMO, he didn't launch, and he made contact with his hands, but the contact with the helmet was enough that it snapped the player's head back. They looked at it in slow-motion, and it's a judgement call, but I happen to agree with their assessment.

I think they need to further clarify what constitutes initiating contact, because Gifford did initiate contact with his hands, but I believe their interpretation of the rules is that if you make contact with the arms, but also then make helmet to helmet contact, they also consider that initiating contact. The wording should be clarified.

It was the shoulder shot that made his head jerk, not Gifford's helmet. His helmet was not used to make the hit and his head was not lowered. He was just following through and even pulled up a little after making contact. Now, it may be that you and I are going to agree to disagree. I'm ok with that. I don't think it was conclusive that Gifford was targeting and think the call should have been reversed.

 

[Hoosker Du]

It was the shoulder shot that made his head jerk, not Gifford's helmet. His helmet was not used to make the hit and his head was not lowered. He was just following through and even pulled up a little after making contact. Now, it may be that you and I are going to agree to disagree. I'm ok with that. I don't think it was conclusive that Gifford was targeting and think the call should have been reversed.

Agreed. What I saw was his helmet making contact. I'll have to take another look at it.

 

[NikkiSixx]

"your point about Langs is interesting ... I get the sense he (Langs) is fed up with all the "run the ball ... run the ball!!" constant barrage and said F it if they want to run the ball every down then fine"

I sure hope this is not the case! He can't be that immature and petty can he?

DL definitely has a lot of knowledge, but does he have enough wisdom?

Shatel had this tip for DL as well:
http://www.omaha.com/huskers/blogs/...cle_6348acaa-714e-11e6-b755-77c2f6bec641.html

 

[kaz36]

It was the shoulder shot that made his head jerk, not Gifford's helmet. His helmet was not used to make the hit and his head was not lowered. He was just following through and even pulled up a little after making contact. Now, it may be that you and I are going to agree to disagree. I'm ok with that. I don't think it was conclusive that Gifford was targeting and think the call should have been reversed.

Exactly. If they would have called a personal foul on that play, I wouldn't have had an issue with it since they do what they can to protect the QB's. To me, I just didn't see it as targeting. Helmet to helmet contact contact happens all the time. Helmets are going to hit. It's just a matter of whether it was egregious(geez, did I seriously just say that) or not. Hell, I was shocked the second targeting penalty was overturned. There was a lot more helmet contact on that hit. I know they are erring on the side of safety, but common sense needs to come into play also.

 

[Hoosker Du]

Guys, take a look at this angle. Not only does this look like Gifford's helmet makes contact with their QB's helmet, but it caused his head to snap back and turn a little sideways.

You could almost say that Gifford's head lowering before the hit could be construed as launching, but I won't go as far as to say that he launched himself. But I can definitely see the officials calling him for targeting from this angle. And you're always going to be judged more severely with hits on QBs.

You need to scroll down a ways...

http://saturdaytradition.com/nebraska-football/__trashed-2/

 

[bigboxes]

Guys, take a look at this angle. Not only does this look like Gifford's helmet makes contact with their QB's helmet, but it caused his head to snap back and turn a little sideways.

You could almost say that Gifford's head lowering before the hit could be construed as launching, but I won't go as far as to say that he launched himself. But I can definitely see the officials calling him for targeting from this angle.

You need to scroll down a ways...

http://saturdaytradition.com/nebraska-football/__trashed-2/

Nope. I see the same thing. Not worthy of an ejection.

 

[rrthusker]

Nope. I see the same thing. Not worthy of an ejection.

This is the most subjective rule in college ball. Gifford gets ejected and yet the Longhorn that lays out Hunter of ND gets nothing, not even a flag.

 

[REGPrimus]

This is the most subjective rule in college ball. Gifford gets ejected and yet the Longhorn that lays out Hunter of ND gets nothing, not even a flag.

And Hunter had to be taken to the locker room. I thought it was a pretty vicious hit - but what do I know!!

 

[Hoosker Du]

Nope. I see the same thing. Not worthy of an ejection.

After seeing that video I'm now much more convinced that he should have been ejected. That angle is more damning than any I've seen. He clearly hits him with his helmet first and not his shoulder. If he would have hit him with his shoulder, the number on his back would have had to turn either toward our view or away from our view.

 

[scarletred]

This is the most subjective rule in college ball. Gifford gets ejected and yet the Longhorn that lays out Hunter of ND gets nothing, not even a flag.

You would have thought they would have had meetings and discuss more on how subjective this rule is during the off season.

One incident never looks like the other and they are so objective like in last nights game and the others threw out the weekend.

 

[rrthusker]

And Hunter had to be taken to the locker room. I thought it was a pretty vicious hit - but what do I know!!

I ref high school ball and to me it was the most egregious hit of the weekend. To make it worse, the replay official can overrule the no call on the field and yet nothing. What the hell was he looking at?

 

[Hoosker Du]

This is the most subjective rule in college ball. Gifford gets ejected and yet the Longhorn that lays out Hunter of ND gets nothing, not even a flag.

Honestly, they both deserved to be booted. The Hunter hit was worse, but both were helmet to helmet contact.

 

[kaz36]

Guys, take a look at this angle. Not only does this look like Gifford's helmet makes contact with their QB's helmet, but it caused his head to snap back and turn a little sideways.

You could almost say that Gifford's head lowering before the hit could be construed as launching, but I won't go as far as to say that he launched himself. But I can definitely see the officials calling him for targeting from this angle. And you're always going to be judged more severely with hits on QBs.

You need to scroll down a ways...

http://saturdaytradition.com/nebraska-football/__trashed-2/

I still see nothing conclusive in that video to prove targeting. I really don't see his head snapping back. It looks to me his head turns to the side at the time Gifford hit him in the shoulder pads with his hands. Initial contact was with his hands and to me, there may have been minimal helmet contact, but not enough to warrant an ejection. Like I said earlier. Helmet contact happens all the time. If they want to take that out, then you have to eliminate tackling and contact all together. With the heads up tackling taught today, it is hard not to have helmet contact. I believe that is part of the reason Nebraska is going to rugby style tackling.