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.....

At the game it looked like a textbook tackle that had a bit of helmet to helmet contact.

But he didn't lead with his helmet and didn't hit above the shoulders.

But bad calls are a part of the game along with no calls.

The Buffs found a way to win regardless and we learned more about the backups and next year's D.
 
Buffnik said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don't blame the refs, I blame how the rule is constructed. Make it a PF, then the replay crew decides if it is targeting or not.
 
SuperD said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah I couldn't believe they missed that hold, a ref was right there. Perhaps Gamboa didn't sell it enough.
 
Highlander said:
I don't blame the refs, I blame how the rule is constructed. Make it a PF, then the replay crew decides if it is targeting or not.
Click to expand...
The actual issue is the conflict of the rule as instructed to be called, and the mandate of reply. Targeting is instructed to be called whenever it appears to happen, i.e. when in doubt throw the flag. Replay on the other hand needs indisputable evidence to overturn a call, i.e. when in doubt the call on the field stands. So you have a situation where a mandatory replay is required where the standard of the call on the field and the standard of the replay review lead to an undesirable effect. One easy fix would be to institute a change to the rule that states the officials throw the flag, but replay has to conclusively determine if targeting happened, so if the replay was inconclusive, there would be no foul. You could still have a personal foul if warranted, but all targeting calls should made in the booth as the speed of the game makes it almost impossible for a human to correctly judge all of the elements that the rule entails.
 
Highlander said:
I don't blame the refs, I blame how the rule is constructed. Make it a PF, then the replay crew decides if it is targeting or not.
Click to expand...
This is exactly the issue. It was definitely a penalty worthy call on the field. But as the "ref master in LA" stated, he'd have reversed the ejection. That needs to be reviewed on slo-mo 9 times out of 10. In this case, Laguda was converging on the ball and the player with no obvious intent to lead with his head, or mame the opposing player. I'm a huge advocate for making the game safer and protecting defenseless players. But the guy was going to the ball and it was bang bang. There will be collisions in football and everyone understands that.
 
AeroBuff99 said:
The actual issue is the conflict of the rule as instructed to be called, and the mandate of reply. Targeting is instructed to be called whenever it appears to happen, i.e. when in doubt throw the flag. Replay on the other hand needs indisputable evidence to overturn a call, i.e. when in doubt the call on the field stands. So you have a situation where a mandatory replay is required where the standard of the call on the field and the standard of the replay review lead to an undesirable effect. One easy fix would be to institute a change to the rule that states the officials throw the flag, but replay has to conclusively determine if targeting happened, so if the replay was inconclusive, there would be no foul. You could still have a personal foul if warranted, but all targeting calls should made in the booth as the speed of the game makes it almost impossible for a human to correctly judge all of the elements that the rule entails.
Click to expand...

I don't thin the replay has to be indisputable to reverse it. It sounded like (on the telecast) that the replay booth had full authority to decide if in fact it was targeting or just a personal foul.
 
Rule needs to go away. Make it a 15 yard penalty, called on the field, and be done with it. The reviewers review in slo mo. The players don't play in slo mo.
 
buffaholic said:
I don't thin the replay has to be indisputable to reverse it. It sounded like (on the telecast) that the replay booth had full authority to decide if in fact it was targeting or just a personal foul.
Click to expand...
If you were referring to Mike Pereira's comments, he was giving his opinion on how he thought it should have worked and how he would call it in the booth. My take was that he was implying that the rule was bad and that the replay needed to confirm to result in disqualification, but that as written the rule didn't require that. He didn't argue against the decision of the booth, he was commenting on the result. There is no exemption in the replay rule covering targeting (12.3.5) that removes the fundamental assumption that the ruling on the field is correct (12.1.2). However replay can call a targeting if there is an egregious foul that is missed (12.3.5b). 9.1.3 and 9.1.4 the targeting rules have the line "When in question, it is a foul."
 
Hit was a bang bang play where the helmet was grazed. I hate that football is becoming a game where the refs and organizers are saying, "offensive players have the right away, if they are in a position to catch a touchdown pass, defensive back, you need to let them do so and move on to the next play."

Football is about imposing your will on somebody, physically and mentally. I'm from the age of football where the Steve Atwater's of the world, and the Ronnie Lott's of the world had WR's afraid to go over the middle of the field to catch a pass. I hate how soft the game has become, this targeting penalty and ejection for something that was not even close to being flagrant, a clear piece of evidence towards that.
 
I'm fine with a 15 yard penalty, but can't ****ing stand ejecting a player for a hit where two helmet hit each other. The intent of the rule is to keep players safe, but that assumes coaches are teaching or encouraging players to go helmet to helmet, or that players are consciously trying to injure each other in the split second they have to make the decision, and that's just simply not the case.
 
My problem is that I never felt that this rule has been applied against opposing teams in the same manner it was applied to us. If you are going to do an Official's version of a NUKE to one side you should certainly apply it fairly on the other side.
 
Was there for the game but just watched it on tv. Did anyone watch till the end where the camera was over all the students on the field and they were all singing it must suck to be a CSU Ram? lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top