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!

People who watched the game on TV.....

BUffphan said:
Was it targeting?
Click to expand...
If you watch a replay of the game you will hear that all the announcers and the guy back in LA all said they can see why the flag was thrown but thought the call would be over turned on review. So, even though we are all as homer as homer can get. No, that wasn't targeting in any way what so ever. Shoulder hits chest first and then a touch of the defenders helmet to the face mask as the defender is trying to pull off. It was so slight, the WR's didn't snap back or turn or anything.
 
I feel like if a player is called for targeting or unnecessary roughness then the player he hit should have to come out of the game for a while because if I was being too rough you must be injured
 
It was a perfect example of why it is a bull**** rule.

First off, Laguda led with his shoulder, not his head. His shoulder hit the receiver's chest first, and while there was helmet to helmet contact, it was secondary.

Second, the hit was not excessively late, nor did he leave his feet to launch himself into the receiver. It was not worthy of a 15 yard penalty in any case. But, it did look like a big hit, and refs, I believe, are conditioned to throw the flag at any big hit anymore.

Third, the fact that the onus is on the replay ref to find convincing proof that it wasn't targeting. Now, for us homers, it's easy, but for an unbiased observer, I could imagine that it was close. So they went with the call on the field, which is, imo, the wrong decision.

The fact that it's replayed is a good idea, but because the result of the rule is an ejection, there needs to be indisputable proof of targeting for the player to be ejected. It should be easy enough to see true targeting. If it's borderline, the player should remain in the game.
 
If you go by the strict interpretation of the rule, it could have been targeting. And since the it was called that way on the field, in order to err on the side of caution, the replay official(s) upheld it.

Sometime during one of the games I watched at least part of today, I actually saw a targeting call on the field get reversed by the reply booth. That's only the first or maybe second time I remember seeing that happen this season.

The rule, and its application, sucks, and needs to be addressed. I know I said this during last season, and was hopeful it would be ... yet another example of the NCAA not paying attention to the important issues.
 
There was no leading with the helmet. Shoulder went in first. Yes, the helmets then collided. Laguda was going a bit hard after a completion in the end zone had already been made but the momentum was toward the receiver's chest. I understand the call on the field when it's close so they can go to the replay, like Alfred said. The replay was their chance to slow it down and get it right. In my opinion they blew it.
 
It was the correct call, under letter of the rule. I believe it will be changed in the off-season, though. It was a perfect hit, just happened the helmets brushed each other. So stupid
 
After the targeting call I saw three times where Sefo was hit in the head with the opponents helmet after initial contact. The defensive players in those cases probably didn't intend it either...but they were never called for targeting.
 
Had it occurred mid field no it was not targeting, it would have been a tackle. But since it was immediately after a score making it an instantly dead ball it is deemed unnecessary.

Also the rule sets a double standard. If it is not upheld the official crew going to become liable for any future complications in the game or post game. Officials know to cover their ass.
 
I'm pretty sure that the rule only applies outside of the tackle box and so many yards downfield.
 
14er said:
I'm pretty sure that the rule only applies outside of the tackle box and so many yards downfield.
Click to expand...

Could be - I plead ignorance there. Still, the point stands. Guys do it 40 yards downfield.
 
That call was bs, he definitely led with his shoulder. Of course guys are gonna have contact with their helmets. He didn't use it as a weapon for sure. They wear helmets for a reason anyway. Yes the rule needs to be tweaked a bit.
 
Again, I go back to the definition of targeting. It means one is aiming at a target, thus implying intent. Unless Kreskin is officiating, how can the officials discern intent?
 
I rewatched the game on my DVR this morning I think the targeting was still a tough call that could potentially have been overturned. But that hold that sealed the edge to set up the run that led to their last touchdown seemed just as obvious on replay as it was when I saw it live.
 
DBT said:
Again, I go back to the definition of targeting. It means one is aiming at a target, thus implying intent. Unless Kreskin is officiating, how can the officials discern intent?
Click to expand...
What is a dude supposed to do chop his head off before he hits someone? It certainly wasn't targeting and they should discern it with ****ing common sense. He led with his shoulder and tried to do it by the rule imho.
 
I think the biggest issue is that Laguda hits people so hard. He didn't launch. He didn't lead with his head. But what the ref could see from his angle was the receiver getting rocked with a high hit. It's unfair to him because he's a big hitter. i.e., he's really good at something that's a foundation of the damn game and he gets penalized for it. With the way that rule gets interpreted, it takes away from the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top