AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
CU @ Air Force
- Thread starter whatthebuff
- Start date
I'm trying to recall the hit.
If you are asking for consistency in calls you are following the wrong sport.
If the hit is the one I am thinking of the tackler's head first hit the torso then slid up to the head, again something that they consistently don't call targeting.
We can argue details and exceptions and missed calls all we want and in many cases you would be right. Bottom line though is that the hit by a CU player that we don't like is a call that has been consistently made and will continue to be consistently made. They may not get it every time but it usually will be called.
If we don't want guys out of the game we need to coach them not to make that hit and the players have to not make that hit.
SerenityBuff
Well-Known Member
Mangham's having a pretty good career down at USF. Ran for 683 yards last season and 15 TDs. Already has 3 TDs this season in a short yardage role.
SerenityBuff
Well-Known Member
Are people really still arguing about something that would've made the final score 41-17 instead of 41-10? 
Sure, and the hit at game speed looked enough to the ref like it was a hit to the torso (upper back) and or shoulder pad, and that the player was leading with his face, not the crown of his helmet.
Close enough that it could go either way and if the player had been ejected it could be supported but it was not a clear crown of the helmet hit to an opposition players helmet like the CU hit was.
I'm not arguing that the rule as it is called has some gray areas and that in light of other hits it may seem arbitrary. No question though that the CU hit was one that is consistently called targeting and that nobody should be surprised with the ejection.
White_Rabbit
Well-Known Member
Exactly. CU needed a 30 pt. penalty for it to be relevant.Are people really still arguing about something that would've made the final score 41-17 instead of 41-10?
That looks like the contact IS the crown of the helmet. So, is there a photo from moments before showing that his head was up or down right before contact? Because moment of contact there will rock his head backwards. Apparently, that’s the issue, as you keep saying. Did he have his head down AND hit with the crown or up and hit with the facemask?
Crown is “We want everyone to understand the crown of the helmet starts from the area above the facemask to the dome.”
One of four factors: “lowering helmet to strike with crown”.
Also requires to be against a “defenseless player”: runner in the grasp who’s forward progress has been stopped.
(Woods was ejected without either of these “defenseless player” factors. That player was in the open field, maybe tripped up, but still moving forward for yardage.)
Has anyone see JR Ewing and bewalk together?
I haven’t kept saying anything about the back and forth head motion of the tackled player. You must have me confused with someone else. He’s head up and tackling. Saying a guy making incidental contact with the top of the helmet is the crown is up and the other player is leaning into is targeting is silly. The Woods penalty is a totally separate issue BTW.
Well. It’s a call that would have made the game 17-20 at the time. Fumbling on the goal line is an emotional kick in the nuts to a team with very little holding it together. So yea. Probably we still lose. But momentum in football is a big deal, and who knows how the game plays out from there. Taking it completely out of the context of when it happened is also…Are people really still arguing about something that would've made the final score 41-17 instead of 41-10?
SerenityBuff
Well-Known Member
Well. It’s a call that would have made the game 17-20 at the time. Fumbling on the goal line is an emotional kick in the nuts to a team with very little holding it together. So yea. Probably we still lose. But momentum in football is a big deal, and who knows how the game plays out from there. Taking it completely out of the context of when it happened is also…
I do. And so does anyone paying attention know how it turns out. We’re we going to magically going to develop a run defense? Was Dorrell still the coach?
There are three materisl elements that have to exist, pursuant to the rule, as cited:
1. Lowering the head.
2. Hitting with the crown of the helmet.
3. Hitting a “defenseless player.”
He is clearly hitting with the crown of the helmet: above the face mask (that’s how the NCAA wants the rule interpreted). I was asking if there is any shot showing how he approached, because that’s important. And my point was, Faunt. was even more “defenseless” (by the rule) than the guy Woods hit. It’s not completely different. The rules exist to set a standard. If the guy Woods hit is “defenseless” in this game than Faunt. should have been considered defenseless. Then, the only way it isn’t targeting is if the AF safety had his head up the whole time and didn’t lower it—because at contact he hit helmet to helmet with the “crown” as the rule defines it.
Both calls were big calls. Targets is defined by rules but—seemingly—applied pretty subjectively.
I’m out. I’m just done with this team. This is the level of crap that’s important when your team just sucks and sucks.
The head isn’t lowered.
He is not targeting with the crown; it’s incidental.
Unclear how an upright runner leaning into another player to create impact is defenseless.
You see it differently. I don’t think the call on the field is wrong. I haven’t seen any subsequent replays that say any different.
hawg1
Well-Known Member
You are using the old definition of crown.
Apparently so was the ref... I heard that the replay ref was looking for Elizabeth II in the Air Force players possession before calling it targeting. The ref couldnt find her.... because she is dead. Therefore, no targeting.
My kids were never down 40 points!! They played baseball, soccer and cross country.
I am nitpicking here... but wasn't there an interception by Air Force that hit the ground and then flipped 90 degrees... yet the refs called that ball control?
Yeah, in other news, there were only 182 defenders at the Alamo, not 183.
But being girthy Texans, many of them counted for two or three.
Really the only thing that surprised me about that game was when CU got boo'd at when coming out before kickoff. I didn't think that would be expected from AFA fans.
You shouldn’t underestimate the hatred of CU by fans of other front range schools. DU, UNC, Mines, etc. They all view CU as a hated rival.
I got nothing to dwell on other than the fact that the refs are as bad as CU is at football. The hit to Fontenot's head was not debateable under the current rules even if some people above try to negotiate the crown of the helmet. The defender left his feet, hit a defenseless player in the helmet with the front of his helmet.
This is what I am forced to write about because we are so bad that any attempt to have a positive outlook is immediately shut down.
He did not launch. He only left his feet after impact.
I'd have been pissed if jerseys were reversed and a CU defender got flagged for targeting in that situation.
BuffLuke80
Well-Known Member
Hell, let it go. It wouldn't have mattered. They beat our ass, period.
Last edited: