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!

Targeting and Ejection

Uncle Ken

Uncle Ken

Smoke Chedda tha Ass Getta
Club Member
I was at the game, and saw it live, and then 20 times on the jumbo.

Is there an element of targeting that I don't fully understand (likely)? Was that a reasonable personal foul and ejection?

I get that the receiver was vulnerable. But there was no leading with the helmet, and the receiver wasn't hit in the head region either.

What gives? Give me fair critical analysis that convinces me that was a good call.
 
Orr said:
I was at the game, and saw it live, and then 20 times on the jumbo.

Is there an element of targeting that I don't fully understand (likely)? Was that a reasonable personal foul and ejection?

I get that the receiver was vulnerable. But there was no leading with the helmet, and the receiver wasn't hit in the head region either.

What gives? Give me fair critical analysis that convinces me that was a good call.
Click to expand...
I don't think you're going to find one. Looked clean to me.
 
Tough call. You could hear the helmet pop at full speed. In replay it looked like he tried to aim for the receivers chest, but caught a little of his facemask too. I think it's a case where had the receiver gotten right back up he wouldn't have been ejected.

I felt for Laguda, it sure didn't look like anything intentionally malicious.
 
He grazed the facemask. By the exact letter of the rule, it was correct. It's bull**** and we wouldn't be called for it if we weren't Colorado.

He launched up (had to, receiver was in the air), led with the helmet, and made helmet to helmet contact.

Good newa, his dq was for the 2nd half only and he will be eligible against csu
 
I don't understand that call. If it is a penalty, then it's a bad rule. Because the next time a CU defensive back is in that situation, he'll be coached to destroy the WR's knees and avoid the penalty. How's that for player safety?
 
Buffnik said:
I don't understand that call. If it is a penalty, then it's a bad rule. Because the next time a CU defensive back is in that situation, he'll be coached to destroy the WR's knees and avoid the penalty. How's that for player safety?
Click to expand...
Agreed. They need to take into account where contact initiates (the chest in this case) and position of the receiver at time of launch. If a defender I'd air born, and the wr ducks or twists or whatever, how is that the defender's fault?
 
it was a good clean football play. the game has changed though, and the refs are always going to err on the side of protection. just a fact of life in today's college football.
 
Calling it was fine. I thought it was targeted at first. Then I saw the replays. It should have been overturned. Textbook hit. Bad call.
 
It's supposed to be dangerous over the middle. That's where it was yes? I was listening, didn't see it.
 
Shldr2Shldr said:
He grazed the facemask. By the exact letter of the rule, it was correct. It's bull**** and we wouldn't be called for it if we weren't Colorado.

He launched up (had to, receiver was in the air), led with the helmet, and made helmet to helmet contact.

Good newa, his dq was for the 2nd half only and he will be eligible against csu
Click to expand...
There was nothing about that hit that was a penalty. None. You can try and rationalize it, but that's not a penalty, it was a picture perfect hit.
 
Yeah and up to the hit the dude was wide open. Our guy had to sprint to get to him and it was nearly too late, but also timed perfectly.
 
'Tini said:
There was nothing about that hit that was a penalty. None. You can try and rationalize it, but that's not a penalty, it was a picture perfect hit.
Click to expand...

"No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. "

His helmet did make contact with the facemask of the receiver which would be considered the head or neck area. In any case, I think it's the last sentence of that rule that is key - when in question, it is a foul. You might disagree with the rule, but by this definition I think you can argue it's a penalty.
 
SINKRATZ said:
"No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. "

His helmet did make contact with the facemask of the receiver which would be considered the head or neck area. In any case, I think it's the last sentence of that rule that is key - when in question, it is a foul. You might disagree with the rule, but by this definition I think you can argue it's a penalty.
Click to expand...

You may be correct ... I still think it was a lousy call, especially after it was reviewed. But fortunately, other than losing Laguda for the game, it didn't effect the ultimate outcome due to the INT in the endzone.
 
I think someone said in another thread a while back - we're approaching flag football. If you can't make a legal tackle, what's the point? Yet some yahoo in a booth had the benefit of replay and ejected Laguda. A penalty would be bad enough, but an ejection? The PAC-12 guy said "I don't like anything about that call."
 
SINKRATZ said:
"No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. "

His helmet did make contact with the facemask of the receiver which would be considered the head or neck area. In any case, I think it's the last sentence of that rule that is key - when in question, it is a foul. You might disagree with the rule, but by this definition I think you can argue it's a penalty.
Click to expand...
He hit him in the chest with his shoulder. The WR was not defenseless. All this is is more flag happy bull**** by the refs. That was a textbook hit, if you want to call that a penalty then you might as well play flag football. Perfect hit and perfect timing.
 
Duff Man said:
The ejection part of the punishment is dumb.
Click to expand...

Sorry Duff, I can't agree with this. The suspension is about the only thing that can be affective as punishment for unpaid players.

I don't want the game to devolve into some lightweight version. It's a physical game and I enjoy big hits. However I agree that helmet to helmet contact has to be controlled for the safety and health of the players.
 
BehindEnemyLines said:
Sorry Duff, I can't agree with this. The suspension is about the only thing that can be affective as punishment for unpaid players.

I don't want the game to devolve into some lightweight version. It's a physical game and I enjoy big hits. However I agree that helmet to helmet contact has to be controlled for the safety and health of the players.
Click to expand...

Make it a spot foul. Ejection for a second infraction in one game.
 
If the guy has his head down and leads with it I don't mind the ejection. These guys aren't professionals getting paid and injuries should be avoided at all costs.

But our guy did NOT have his helmet down.
 
BehindEnemyLines said:
Sorry Duff, I can't agree with this. The suspension is about the only thing that can be affective as punishment for unpaid players.

I don't want the game to devolve into some lightweight version. It's a physical game and I enjoy big hits. However I agree that helmet to helmet contact has to be controlled for the safety and health of the players.
Click to expand...

Ejection is fine if hit is intentionally malicious. This was not an intentionally malicious hit, and the refs knew that from the replay.
 
SINKRATZ said:
"No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. "
Click to expand...
I haven't seen the play. If that is the way the rule is worded, it opens the call up to a lot of subjectivity. What is the "head or neck area" exactly"? The sternum, for instance, is only a couple of inches from the neck. They need to put a dashed line on the uniforms indicating the "head or neck area" for cryin' out loud.

Face it. This is all about concussions and I get that part of it. They figure it's better to err on the side of safety, I reckon.
 
I thought it was pretty weak, but that's football nowadays. I don't really like it, but I'm also sitting at home on the couch and not getting carted off the field.
 
buffedup said:
Ejection is fine if hit is intentionally malicious. This was not an intentionally malicious hit, and the refs knew that from the replay.
Click to expand...

Don't disagree. I saw the replay and it appeared that Laguda moved his head and upper body so that the helmet would hit the receivers shoulder. It really didn't look like he "targeted".

I feel bad for the kid. That was a good play and should have been a good memory from his playing days. Instead, it ended in idiocy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top