Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
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/UCLA: more quotes and a few miscellaneous points

Justin M Guerriero

Club Member
Club Member
First of all, I wanted to share a few things I heard about the Bruins that amused me. Last week, UCLA's student newspaper, the Daily Bruin, sent a writer to Boulder to cover the game. His name was Matt and he shacked up with me for a night and naturally we chatted it up about the game and both teams.

The subject turned to UCLA quarterback Mike Fafaul. As I'm sure you all are well aware, starter Josh Rosen is out for the year. But from what Matt told me, head coach Jim Mora was in no way making information regarding Rosen's status clear to the Bruins' media members.

Apparently on two separate occasions, without even being prompted whatsoever, he revealed information on Rosen to the press. The first time he said roughly "Josh is in pretty rough shape right now." The second instance, it was "All I know is that Josh got surgery a few days ago."

Needless to say, Mora was beyond fuming when he got wind of Fafaul!

I also heard a rumor that in the locker room after the game at Folsom, a fight broke out in the Bruins' spaces and some walls were damaged. I have not heard anything to confirm this rumor, but I'd be interested to see if there's any truth to that.

Matt had said that Mora's hardass persona is starting to take its toll on the players, athletic department and fan base. I think the phrase "hot seat" is a fair one to associate Mora with.

But moving on, I want to talk now about the sloppiness of that game. I'm of the thinking that the refs were a bit liberal at times with those flags. The Jimmie Gilbert play was not a good call. N.J. Falo's roughing the passer call I guess was warranted. But Ryan Moeller's personal foul call was bad.

It went both ways. But still, these recent wins against Stanford and UCLA have not been clean and well-executed. Not going to fly against Washington State and Utah. This week at Arizona needs to be a major tune up.

The offensive line needs to buckle down, Sefo Liufau needs to be electric and the Buffs need to win big. A third sloppy game in a row heading into a home matchup against a ranked, potentially undefeated in conference play team would worry me.

"When you're getting up to the better teams here at the stretch, the kinds of mistakes we made [Thursday] are going to get us beat:" Phil Lindsay

On the penalties, in particular some personal foul calls, Bryce Bobo had this to say after the game: "It's always the second person who gets caught...and I think that's what happened with us. We have to work on not retaliating to getting hit or any late hit that happens." This is the type of game that starts a rivalry.

That may be the best part of this resurgence. I wonder what the future holds in terms of teams within the Pac-12 that we develop bitter rivalries with. I guess we'll find out.

Notes:

Obvious but important: Colorado has now forced a turnover in a nation-leading 22 straight games. Bama is right behind us with 20 straight.

CU held UCLA to 210 yards, the fourth time this year they've held an opponent to under 250 total yards; matches a season-high set by the '98 Buffaloes.

That game was the 35 start of Liufau's career, tying Darian Hagan's record that he set from 1989-1991.

Lindsay is the first tailback at CU to score 10 touchdowns in a season since Rodney Stewart did it in 2010.

UCLA's offense averaged 9.6 yards to go on third downs in the game.
 
Gilbert's hit was textbook targeting. QB was sliding defenseless, and JG lead with his head with a direct hit the the QB's head. I just don't know how anyone can see it different without black and gold glasses.
 
Didn't disagree with the penalties. Thought Falo's was a little weak, but that's how they usually call it these days. Might have been a couple times they could have called offsetting personal fouls, though.
 
Jeric said:
You can't overturn just the ejection, if that's what you're implying, it's either a penalty or it's not.
Click to expand...
Depends on what the call is. You can have a personal foul with targeting, or just a personal foul targeting call. In the 1st case, the personal foul can stand but the targeting portion can get overturned. This would be applicable for late hits, roughing the passer, etc. The second case would be for hits that otherwise would have been legal if not for the targeting violation. Those can be reviewed and the entire penalty overturned. That review and dropping the entire penalty was added in order to encourage flags on the close hits and allow the replay to determine if there was an actual violation because it is extremely difficult to tell on high speed collisions.
 
Gotta shore up the O-Line play. Utahans front 7 are brutal. They have a great secondary as well.
 
Gilbert's ejection was unfortunate. However, it was the correct call with the letter of the rule. Its going to get called every time.
 
Fox Sports replayed the game in its entirety this late afternoon, and I was able to observe it without the stress of not knowing how it turned out. My primary observation is: That Soccer Flop by the UCLA player which resulted in a crucial penalty against CU at the goal line was complete bull**** and needs to be made into a gif by someone with more internet skills than I possess. Please do so, Allbuffs people.
 
El Gringo said:
Gilbert's hit was textbook targeting. QB was sliding defenseless, and JG lead with his head with a direct hit the the QB's head. I just don't know how anyone can see it different without black and gold glasses.
Click to expand...

The way the rule is defined any touch to the head or neck area is targeting..but there are light touches that aren't called all the time. If you watch the hit in full speed, Gilbert was pulling the hit and he barely tapped the QB. He wasn't trying to hit with the head, Fafaul just slowed down quicker than Jimmie judged it. In slow motion it is textbook targeting, but slow motion doesn't give any sense of the force of the hit. You could go through any game and find four or five hits like that.
 
8Jah said:
The way the rule is defined any touch to the head or neck area is targeting..but there are light touches that aren't called all the time. If you watch the hit in full speed, Gilbert was pulling the hit and he barely tapped the QB. He wasn't trying to hit with the head, Fafaul just slowed down quicker than Jimmie judged it. In slow motion it is textbook targeting, but slow motion doesn't give any sense of the force of the hit. You could go through any game and find four or five hits like that.
Click to expand...
Watch again and tell me he "barely tapped the QB." And intent is irrelevant.
 
Buffnik said:
Didn't disagree with the penalties. Thought Falo's was a little weak, but that's how they usually call it these days. Might have been a couple times they could have called offsetting personal fouls, though.
Click to expand...
I get bothered by the inconsistency of calls game to game. I watched the Washington game and saw several cases of plays similar to the ones we got penalized for that didn't get penalized.
 
By the wording of the rule there was no question that Gilbert's flag was legitimate. In this era if your helmet makes direct contact with the helmet of the QB they are going to throw the flag wouldn't have mattered which teams were involved.

I think it was just an unfortunate circumstance because Jimmy was aiming his shoulder to contact the QB's torso and the QB ducked and curled into it but The rule is clear and consistently called.
 
MtnBuff said:
By the wording of the rule there was no question that Gilbert's flag was legitimate. In this era if your helmet makes direct contact with the helmet of the QB they are going to throw the flag wouldn't have mattered which teams were involved.

I think it was just an unfortunate circumstance because Jimmy was aiming his shoulder to contact the QB's torso and the QB ducked and curled into it but The rule is clear and consistently called.
Click to expand...

The flag was completely legit--they have to call that these days. The targeting call was extremely questionable, though.
 
I think the confusion is on the targeting rule itself. I don't think Gilbert intended to hit him in the helmet. Fafaul slid very late after Gilbert had committed to the tackle. Still targeting regardless of intent.

In general, I do not agree with the slide rule for QBs. If you run, you're a running back. Alas, them the rules, but I don't have to like em.
 
El Gringo said:
Watch again and tell me he "barely tapped the QB." And intent is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Realize that intent is irrelevant.

The actual rule says: "1-No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. 2-No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent..." There is also part of the rule that says if in doubt it is targeting. Nonetheless there is subjective judgement in deciding what is and isn't forcible. They are taught to look for queues like crouching and thrusting up, am opponent leaving his feet to attack. there are like four of them that I can't remember.

I see hits to the head and neck area that aren't called in every game....it is all such a matter of how a ref feels. Guess those aren't judged as forcible. Somehow, If a QB is sliding they seem to call it every time. ...As if he is the only vulnerable player.

I think the refs realized the game was getting chippy and were trying to establish control.
 
Guys, watch Fafaul's head snap back on that hit. It was NOT weak contact. Absolutely targeting. No question.
 
onealcd said:
Yeah if USC can't play offense.
Click to expand...

To me Darnold fixed a lot of problems with USC Oline because of his mobility in the pocket. No one has really gotten any sacs on him. I think we got only one - a Gillam sac. Cal got one. Arizona, ASU and Oregon zippo. Max Browne got sacked all the time.

Darnold's also dangerous when a play breaks down cause he sweeps out so quickly and then has time to plant and find an open man. Remember that fumbled snap he recovered and then sprinted way out to find an open man for the TD? With Takk and other UCLA pass rushers I don't think he can evade. Interesting to see how he responds with a lot of pressure he can't get out of with his feet.
 
Ringer said:
I hope UCLA does beat USC. Then CU could lose a game and still win the South, as long as they beat Utah.
Click to expand...

I think life would be easier if Washington beat USC. Then, we need USC to beat UCLA and Notre Dame. If we take care of business against Utah, USC would help our strength of schedule.
 
Creebuzz said:
I think the confusion is on the targeting rule itself. I don't think Gilbert intended to hit him in the helmet. Fafaul slid very late after Gilbert had committed to the tackle. Still targeting regardless of intent.

In general, I do not agree with the slide rule for QBs. If you run, you're a running back. Alas, them the rules, but I don't have to like em.
Click to expand...
Hmm. I think the word "targeting" implies intent. That's the problem I have with the rule. Players are getting ejected when they clearly did not intend to hit the runner in the head. Here is the NCAA wording:

"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."

Gilbert did not "target" the head. He should've gotten penalized but not ejected. But as I've thought about it, the rule is a good one if it makes players think and avoid those types of hits. But the human brain just can't react quickly enough to stop what the thought processes had set in motion when conditions change suddenly, like a QB going from running to a slide.
 
DBT said:
Hmm. I think the word "targeting" implies intent. That's the problem I have with the rule. Players are getting ejected when they clearly did not intend to hit the runner in the head. Here is the NCAA wording:

"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."

Gilbert did not "target" the head. He should've gotten penalized but not ejected. But as I've thought about it, the rule is a good one if it makes players think and avoid those types of hits. But the human brain just can't react quickly enough to stop what the thought processes had set in motion when conditions change suddenly, like a QB going from running to a slide.
Click to expand...
You forgot about part 1 of the rule which prohibits contact anywhere with the crown of the helmet. Jimmy lowered his head and made contact with the crown of the helmet. It was judged to be forcible contact, therefore it was a penalty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top