thats the most upset,,,,

[rrthusker]

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.

The lack of consistency is appalling. How can a coach or a player know what the rule is if there is no consistency in the calls? Of course if you play for Nebraska it is 100 percent certain you will be ejected.

 

[Hoosker Du]

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.

The helmet contact is what makes his head snap back and turn sideways. From the looks of it, he made contact in front of the ear hole on the helmet. He pushes him with his hands as the helmets hit.

It wasn't near the hit Hunter took, but it was bad enough to be called for targeting, IMO.

I'm hoping the rugby taking starts taking effect soon. We're going to run out of players.

 

[bigboxes]

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.

Gifford made a good hit. The front of his helmet brushes the QB's as they come together. The contact is made first on the QB's shoulder. It's a bad call. In no way am I saying that you don't see it differently. You obviously do. I just feel that Gifford was not targeting the QB's head and it's a shame that he was ejected on such a subjective call.

 

[Hoosker Du]

Gifford made a good hit. The front of his helmet brushes the QB's as they come together. The contact is made first on the QB's shoulder. It's a bad call. In no way am I saying that you don't see it differently. You obviously do. I just feel that Gifford was not targeting the QB's head and it's a shame that he was ejected on such a subjective call.

Rarely do I feel that these kids intentionally hit guys with their helmets. They just want to make a good hard hit, and almost every time, the player being tackled moves, and cause the helmets to inadvertently clash. On this hit I think LG was just trying to aggressively push him out of bounds, but his push was so aggressive that their helmets hit.

I think they just need to start looking at intent more. 98% of the time no one is trying to hurt anyone. A player will go in low to make the tackle, and the other player will lower his head or will start going to the ground, and their helmets will hit. Most of the time, just crappy luck.

Edit - I'm just going by the letter of the rule. He didn't mean to hit his helmet, but he accidentally did, which means he will get booted.

 

[bigboxes]

Rarely do I feel that these kids intentionally hit guys with their helmets. They just want to make a good hard hit, and almost every time, the player being tackled moves, and cause the helmets to inadvertently clash. On this hit I think LG was just trying to aggressively push him out of bounds, but his push was so aggressive that their helmets hit.

I just don't think it was targeting. There should be a personal foul assessed without the targeting call that doesn't result in ejection whenever a player isn't leading with the helmet or there is an inadvertent brush. When you do everything right and then get ejected... I know I'd be frustrated. I keep thinking of that textbook hit by Gerry in the bowl game last year vs. UCLA. Sigh. It's football dammit!

 

[NikkiSixx]

I always thought if you took all those pads and helmets off of everyone, a lot of this stuff would just fix itself.

I think a majority of guys are looking to hit someone as hard as they can. Remember, at their age, they feel invincible.

 

[HuskerRick]

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.

This is where you are wrong, it's a foul when in question. I know for fact refs discuss these rules weekly after games, this to make sure refs get opinions out in the open to quell any doubt in the meaning or purpose of the rule. Do you really think a ref is thinking at that moment, oh, that's only a 5 yard penalty? Of course not! Your are told to sell your call whether it's right or if you were wrong, and yes, one can pick up the flag. But don't throw another flag which is picked up and expect to get any good games, in the future.
What I do know there's hard headed refs with an agenda out there and think they're bigger than the rules or the game and truly believe that they do no wrong, zero! They have their interpretation of the rule and will die before changing it.
Westercamp's facemask: The closest ref missed it/didn't see it, the 2nd ref throwing the flag was good because it was clearly a facemask penalty, but one stands to hear criticism of why didn't the ref on top of the play throw one? Or the 2nd ref was a lot further away, why is he throwing the flag? If the incident/event is bad enough, would you let it go unpunished? Specifically if this gives one team a huge advantage.
As far as the BIG Ten refs are concerned, they still have a bad taste in their mouths from the previous coach and staff. That does not go away over night, your rep is tarnished, until respect is earned or gained, you'll suffer through bad games and bad calls. Right or wrong.

 

[HuskerBlueDevil]

FWIW, and that's probably not much, a retired ACC football official that was sitting a couple of seats down from me at a watch site in Colorado Springs said that the call on Gifford looked correct to him.

 

[balsy]

FWIW, and that's probably not much, a retired ACC football official that was sitting a couple of seats down from me at a watch site in Colorado Springs said that the call on Gifford looked correct to him.

As targeting? Personal foul or defenseless player I could almost get around to agreeing with. But, targeting with an ejection....I can't get there.

 

[GBRhuskers]

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.

"Kick catch interference" is the new call, right? For some reason that's clicking with me, not sure if the ref said it in the Nebraska game or it was a different game over the weekend.

 

[NorthWillRiseAgain]

As targeting? Personal foul or defenseless player I could almost get around to agreeing with. But, targeting with an ejection....I can't get there.

The call looked correct based on the rules, or in general?
There's always going to be gray area on this that "looks correct", but based on what the rule was meant for, it doesn't protect anyone because it was inadvertent, his helmet only touched after the push caused Virgil's head to swing, then hit at a marginal rate.

It's like getting if you get in a small fender bender at a blind intersection, and they take your license because technically you are at fault, and someone "could" have gotten hurt. It doesn't fix anything because it's something that just happens. There's egregious and there's not..

 

[Hoosker Du]

"Kick catch interference" is the new call, right? For some reason that's clicking with me, not sure if the ref said it in the Nebraska game or it was a different game over the weekend.

I think you're right. I'm stuck in old-school mode. It's funny...coach Riley even used "halo" in his press conference this week. I didn't feel as out of touch when I heard that.

 

[PeliniTheCrutch]

Easy way to amend the targeting penalty that I believe would help some cases. If the offensive player changes helmet/pad level, the defensive player cannot be penalized/ejected.

 

[HuskerBlueDevil]

As targeting? Personal foul or defenseless player I could almost get around to agreeing with. But, targeting with an ejection....I can't get there.

The official said it was targeting according to the rules and while he said something about we don't have the best camera angle, from what he saw there was little or no doubt in his mind.

 

[gw2kpro]

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

despite what some say if I am a 4-5* WR recruit and saw that last night I'm not really interested .... I know that the offense will likely change in the coming years but if as a recruit I can go anywhere I would have a "show me, don't tell me" attitude.

I'm sure all those WR recruits are busily texting each other about how they are going to divvy up those 5 receptions they saw last night

Any recruit doing basic work should understand that our offense next year will have different personnel, and likely a different look, than the offense this year and last.

 

[kaz36]

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

despite what some say if I am a 4-5* WR recruit and saw that last night I'm not really interested .... I know that the offense will likely change in the coming years but if as a recruit I can go anywhere I would have a "show me, don't tell me" attitude.

I'm sure all those WR recruits are busily texting each other about how they are going to divvy up those 5 receptions they saw last night

It's not "run the ball" guy who they are worried about, it's Tommy they don't trust. There were some practices leading up to the first game that made Riley and Langsdorf decide to run the ball a majority of the time. He had some bad picks and reads in practices that made them shake their head and know they can't really trust him in the passing game. It doesn't mean they won't pass the ball in the future. They will have to to win some games. They just aren't going to let him loose. I think they learned their lesson with him last year. At least I hope so.

 

[sparky62]

Easy way to amend the targeting penalty that I believe would help some cases. If the offensive player changes helmet/pad level, the defensive player cannot be penalized/ejected.

That's too easy of a solution.

 

[sparky62]

It's not "run the ball" guy who they are worried about, it's Tommy they don't trust. There were some practices leading up to the first game that made Riley and Langsdorf decide to run the ball a majority of the time. He had some bad picks and reads in practices that made them shake their head and know they can't really trust him in the passing game. It doesn't mean they won't pass the ball in the future. They will have to to win some games. They just aren't going to let him loose. I think they learned their lesson with him last year. At least I hope so.

IIRC didn't he go 3-8 w/2 int's and a pick 6? That would make me shake my head.

 

[ridge22]

It's not "run the ball" guy who they are worried about, it's Tommy they don't trust. There were some practices leading up to the first game that made Riley and Langsdorf decide to run the ball a majority of the time. He had some bad picks and reads in practices that made them shake their head and know they can't really trust him in the passing game. It doesn't mean they won't pass the ball in the future. They will have to to win some games. They just aren't going to let him loose. I think they learned their lesson with him last year. At least I hope so.

If that is the case then Riley and Langsdorf need to find a way to either simplify the passing game for TA or have a better design in their run game, or just bench him and go with someone closer to who they want. I know after a couple of games last season that I would have like to gone with the BACK-UP COACH if that was an option.

I will say after last season and with what I saw vs Fresno that this offensive staff doesn't really know how to run the ball that well. If you don't have an offensive line that is overwhelming you need to be more creative in your run design than isos, off-tackle and jet sweep.

 

[meo1960]

Rarely do I feel that these kids intentionally hit guys with their helmets. They just want to make a good hard hit, and almost every time, the player being tackled moves, and cause the helmets to inadvertently clash. On this hit I think LG was just trying to aggressively push him out of bounds, but his push was so aggressive that their helmets hit.

I think they just need to start looking at intent more. 98% of the time no one is trying to hurt anyone. A player will go in low to make the tackle, and the other player will lower his head or will start going to the ground, and their helmets will hit. Most of the time, just crappy luck.

Edit - I'm just going by the letter of the rule. He didn't mean to hit his helmet, but he accidentally did, which means he will get booted.

So, you believe officials should judge "intent"?
You wouldn't happen to have this week's upcoming Winning Powerball numbers, would you?

Thanks, I thought not!

 

[TheBeav815]

Gifford hit was targeting, IMO. I don't like the ejection rule AT ALL, but I was 0% surprised the call stood. You can't blast a QB up high after he released the ball and expect not to be flagged, that's how the game is now. Get your pads down.

Thought they got it right on the Williams hit. Good, clean hit. I was a little surprised they flagged him for unsportsmanlike after. That one could have gone either way, I think he was just that jacked in the moment, I don't think he was trying to taunt really.

 

[TheBeav815]

It's not "run the ball" guy who they are worried about, it's Tommy they don't trust. There were some practices leading up to the first game that made Riley and Langsdorf decide to run the ball a majority of the time. He had some bad picks and reads in practices that made them shake their head and know they can't really trust him in the passing game. It doesn't mean they won't pass the ball in the future. They will have to to win some games. They just aren't going to let him loose. I think they learned their lesson with him last year. At least I hope so.

I like to believe they've carefully read my posts on the matter and finally realized I'm right.

 

[SnohomishRed]

It's not "run the ball" guy who they are worried about, it's Tommy they don't trust. There were some practices leading up to the first game that made Riley and Langsdorf decide to run the ball a majority of the time. He had some bad picks and reads in practices that made them shake their head and know they can't really trust him in the passing game. It doesn't mean they won't pass the ball in the future. They will have to to win some games. They just aren't going to let him loose. I think they learned their lesson with him last year. At least I hope so.

I think many people could have told them that after the first couple of games last year - I hope this was not some ahha moment in the practices leading up to the game - Yes we will need to throw to win some games which is the scary part it will feast or famine in those games. Very quickly if not already teams will just stack the box against us and put the game in TA's hands

 

[grayhairedfreak]

Great thread with lots of good discussion. Thanks guys.

I might be in the minority, but I'm giving Darlington a mulligan on the USC. Dude hasn't played in a real game for what, 3 years? He got in the endzone and was excited. Talk to him, tell him not to do it again or it's steps or gassers, and move on. It was a great spin, BTW.

 

[kaz36]

I think many people could have told them that after the first couple of games last year - I hope this was not some ahha moment in the practices leading up to the game - Yes we will need to throw to win some games which is the scary part it will feast or famine in those games. Very quickly if not already teams will just stack the box against us and put the game in TA's hands

I think they had less faith in the running game last year. JMO.

 

[TheBeav815]

Great thread with lots of good discussion. Thanks guys.

I might be in the minority, but I'm giving Darlington a mulligan on the USC. Dude hasn't played in a real game for what, 3 years? He got in the endzone and was excited. Talk to him, tell him not to do it again or it's steps or gassers, and move on. It was a great spin, BTW.

Agreed. I think a lot of years of frustration led up to that moment and it wouldn't be something that would be habit for him.

 

[TheBeav815]

I think they had less faith in the running game last year. JMO.

They basically said as much. Their quotes going into the season last year made it clear that they wanted to run, but they didn't have the horses. They have put a ton of developmental work into getting an o-line and 3 RBs brought along who can put that kind of performance together.

 

[jlb321]

It's not "run the ball" guy who they are worried about, it's Tommy they don't trust. There were some practices leading up to the first game that made Riley and Langsdorf decide to run the ball a majority of the time. He had some bad picks and reads in practices that made them shake their head and know they can't really trust him in the passing game. It doesn't mean they won't pass the ball in the future. They will have to to win some games. They just aren't going to let him loose. I think they learned their lesson with him last year. At least I hope so.

a lot of people are predicting a break out season for TA ...for the third straight season

who knows maybe they are playing possum with him ... but after the Iowa game I think the coaches finally figured out that, given the opportunity, TA will kill you and they are committed to not giving TA the opportunity

feel bad for Westy and the rest of the WRs ... might be the best group in the BIG and their talents are going to be severely dampened

 

[jeans15]

One game

 

[NikkiSixx]

I think many people could have told them that after the first couple of games last year - I hope this was not some ahha moment in the practices leading up to the game - Yes we will need to throw to win some games which is the scary part it will feast or famine in those games. Very quickly if not already teams will just stack the box against us and put the game in TA's hands

This is exactly what happened in 2014, and will happen again. The last staff let TA throw to the sideline and deep and never called anything over the middle. This staff had to do their own evaluation, but are playing him in a similar way this year. Teams will stack the box and dare us to pass deep. Tommy can do that, and we have the receivers to do that. That will be the formula for when the run game stops working.

 

[SnohomishRed]

I think they had less faith in the running game last year. JMO.

good point and I am sure you are right plus they were coming from a passing system hard to switch gears

 

[Hoosker Du]

So, you believe officials should judge "intent"?
You wouldn't happen to have this week's upcoming Winning Powerball numbers, would you?

Thanks, I thought not!

Uh...I think so. It's pretty easy to tell whether a player was trying to rip someone's head off, or if the helmet collision was a result of the offensive player's helmet changing elevation or moving laterally prior to the hit. If a player practiced good fundamental tackling during the tackle, but still made helmet to helmet contact, should they be booted? Nope. And this can be determined by watching the video. If it was just bad luck, a player shouldn't be kicked out.

 

[kaz36]

good point and I am sure you are right plus they were coming from a passing system hard to switch gears

To be honest, last year was a cluster f*** from a lot of different angles. From players to coaches to bad luck. You had players that wanted to buy in that were fragile mentally and all of the close/ freaky lossesdestroyed some of the faith and splintered this team. You had coaches who didn't trust in the running game so much that they thought they thought they could be QB whisperers to an erratic QB who showed some signs of promise. They also knew that their best playmakers were in the receiving core and wanted to try to get them the ball. They have been humbled this year and know what they have with Tommy. He has to be a tough qb to call plays for. He can go from 8-10 for 125 yards and 2 TD in one quarter to 3-15 for 40 yards and 2 INT's the very next quarter. You alo saw some of the issues that plagued this staff at OSU creep up at at times here. Just a bad year all around and time to move forward and win this year.