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

SINKRATZ said:
Right, and upon review they determined it was targeting which calls for automatic ejection.
Click to expand...

As I stated much earlier in the thread they did, my post was only to say that options exist.

As I also stated by the letter of the rule they could call it because the defenders helmet contacted the offensive players face mask. In this case I think it is a bad rule but it is the rule and as long as head injuries are in the headlines they are unlikely to start calling things differently.
 
MtnBuff said:
and if another personal foul does not occur on the play, the targeting penalty is not to be enforced.

Officials have the option of going with the targeting which is a 15 yard penalty and an ejection, going with the 15 yard and no ejection, or to determine that no foul occurred and no penalty is assessed. I saw the second of these options more than once last season. Can't recall the penalty being completely overturned last year but it is an option.
Click to expand...
You might be remembering the '13 season, where the review only affected the ejection. In '13 the penalty stood no matter what, even if replay determined that no targeting had occurred. In '14 it was changed so that if the replay determined that no targeting occurred, the 15 yard penalty was reversed as well. I don't remember one instance in any game I watched last year where the replay officials determined that another PF penalty occurred instead of targeting. It was either upheld or completely waived off.

After watching the game on the replay today and seeing the various angles, the officials upheld Laguda's ejection because of the contact with the facemask. His technique was perfect, head-up, led with the shoulder, however his target zone was too high. Ironically if he would have lowered his head and hit shoulder to chest with his head to the side (more dangerous technique) he would have avoided the penalty. Although I don't like the penalty, I can't say that they made the wrong call, had it not been called in the first place would have been best, but the rule says to error on the side of calling it a foul. The rule has had its intended effect, to reduce the number and violence of hits on defenseless players, and encourage more wrap-up tackling. It is a coachable moment.
 
AeroBuff99 said:
You might be remembering the '13 season, where the review only affected the ejection. In '13 the penalty stood no matter what, even if replay determined that no targeting had occurred. In '14 it was changed so that if the replay determined that no targeting occurred, the 15 yard penalty was reversed as well. I don't remember one instance in any game I watched last year where the replay officials determined that another PF penalty occurred instead of targeting. It was either upheld or completely waived off.

After watching the game on the replay today and seeing the various angles, the officials upheld Laguda's ejection because of the contact with the facemask. His technique was perfect, head-up, led with the shoulder, however his target zone was too high. Ironically if he would have lowered his head and hit shoulder to chest with his head to the side (more dangerous technique) he would have avoided the penalty. Although I don't like the penalty, I can't say that they made the wrong call, had it not been called in the first place would have been best, but the rule says to error on the side of calling it a foul. The rule has had its intended effect, to reduce the number and violence of hits on defenseless players, and encourage more wrap-up tackling. It is a coachable moment.
Click to expand...

I do specifically recall calls where the ejection was reversed but the PF was called last season. As the article states there are now three options where before the PF stood regardless of the review on the ejection.

And we are all agreeing on the ejection happening due to the contact between Laguda's helmet and the face mask. Interestingly enough the way I saw it the only reason for the contact happening was that the hit was hard enough to snap the receivers head forward and into the helmet. Still as has been noted, with the focus on head injuries now they are going to make that call virtually every time
 
Laguda's job in this situation is to separate the player from the ball and prevent a TD, plain and simple. I hope that after the game HCMM and Leavitt told him not to hesitate doing the exact same thing next time he is in this position.

Now will someone who is better at this stuff please put Bone Thugs "Crossroads" behind this GIF already?! I could watch it forever.

laguda2_zpstdbrt1o4.gif


RIP #82
images
 
Last edited:
Hkylw21 said:
Laguda's job in this situation is to separate the player from the ball and prevent a TD, plain and simple. I hope that after the game HCMM and Leavitt told him not to hesitate doing the exact same thing next time he is in this position.

Now will someone who is better at this stuff please put Bone Thugs "Crossroads" behind this GIF already?! I could watch it forever.

laguda2_zpstdbrt1o4.gif


RIP #11
images
Click to expand...
I can't stop watching. That really is an epic hit.
 
Orr said:
I can't stop watching. That really is an epic hit.
Click to expand...

That loose ball symbolizes the exact moment when the will to win flowed out of UMASS. The entire bench needed a turkey sandwich and a nap from that moment forward.

Minutemen, indeed.
 
The guys on PAC12 networks called it a clean hit too. Let's see what the 'revamped' officiating at PAC12 does with their blown call.

It was worth it though...glad both guys are okay...but it really turned the tide in the game IMO.
 
Bufffan68 said:
The guys on PAC12 networks called it a clean hit too. Let's see what the 'revamped' officiating at PAC12 does with their blown call.

It was worth it though...glad both guys are okay...but it really turned the tide in the game IMO.
Click to expand...

Were they actually Pac 12 refs? Often in inter-conference games they are either from a neutral conference or are from the visitor's conference.
 
Hkylw21 said:
And by Pac-12 guys you mean Jeremy Bloom who was doing the color commentary. Not saying he was wrong, he wasn't, but certainly not an unbiased opinion.
Click to expand...
No, talking about the guys on the PAC12 version of SportCenter where they recap the entire day's action...it was Curtis Conway I think said it, but they all agreed.
 
Hkylw21 said:
And by Pac-12 guys you mean Jeremy Bloom who was doing the color commentary. Not saying he was wrong, he wasn't, but certainly not an unbiased opinion.
Click to expand...

Jeremy seems to be able to divorce his loyalty to CU from his role as a color guy on broadcasts. So while I agree that one could say that he's automatically biased towards CU, I don't think it effects his opinions ... kind of like when Kirk Herbstreit does tOSU games. Same with Chris Fowler.

EDIT: And does anyone here know what conference the refs were from? They usually announce it at or towards the beginning of the broadcast, but if they did I missed it. I looked it up on the game stats page of the AD site, but while they listed the refs by name, they didn't list the conference they were from.

EDIT 2: And does anyone know what conference the refs for the RMS are going to be from?
 
Last edited:
L Buff said:
Jeremy seems to be able to divorce his loyalty to CU from his role as a color guy on broadcasts. So while I agree that one could say that he's automatically biased towards CU, I don't think it effects his opinions ... kind of like when Kirk Herbstreit does tOSU games. Same with Chris Fowler.

EDIT: And does anyone here know what conference the refs were from? They usually announce it at or towards the beginning of the broadcast, but if they did I missed it. I looked it up on the game stats page of the AD site, but while they listed the refs by name, they didn't list the conference they were from.

EDIT 2: And does anyone know what conference the refs for the RMS are going to be from?
Click to expand...

Last year or year before the PAC12 and the MWC entered into an agreement in terms of sharing refs as well as supervision and training of refs.

In other words they will suck!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top