-
Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
- Thread starter Coleman Bazen
- Start date
As a Fair Weather.. .aka Buckeye Football fan, I'll see you all in a bit. Sorry, I just don't have time for other sports so much.
Upvote
0
“Ohio State should had stopped them though!” Easy to say that in hindsight but when you give Clemson a mulligan (should have been punting) and eject Ohio States 2nd best DB...,..kinda changes everything
Upvote
0
The football move is laughable. There are no football moves when you are running backwards.
Upvote
0
NFL veteran official.
Not sure I'll ever get over this. A bad call on the field, it happens. Replay though has all the time in the world to get it right.
Upvote
0
lowbuck
mark it zero
Trying to understand this because I see some conflicting info...
Can someone point to the rule where it allows the booth to initiate a targeting call? Everything I've read indicates the booth reviews all targeting flags on the field, but cannot initiate a call of targeting anymore than they can initiate a call for some other foul, like a false start or PI. Of course they can initiate reviews for things turnovers, spots, catches, etc, but not for unflagged penalties.
The rules make a clear distinction of defenseless player but in the rule book it makes it clear that a QB is defenseless when they are in the process of a pass, basically a blind hit, but not when the QB is avoiding the pressure, as he's essentially a runner at that point. So does that mean it should have been a personal foul with no ejection?
This shit has got so convoluted and subjective that I feel like replay should be limited to just things that can be objectively reviewed with video evidence like spot, forward vs backward pass, and out of bounds and fumble (it it was rules a catch on the field the catch cannot be reviewed) and can only be initiated by a coaches challenge. Leave targeting under review only when it is flagged on the field. But get rid of the booth initiated reviews and trying to legislate catches based on subjective review after the fact.
Can someone point to the rule where it allows the booth to initiate a targeting call? Everything I've read indicates the booth reviews all targeting flags on the field, but cannot initiate a call of targeting anymore than they can initiate a call for some other foul, like a false start or PI. Of course they can initiate reviews for things turnovers, spots, catches, etc, but not for unflagged penalties.
The rules make a clear distinction of defenseless player but in the rule book it makes it clear that a QB is defenseless when they are in the process of a pass, basically a blind hit, but not when the QB is avoiding the pressure, as he's essentially a runner at that point. So does that mean it should have been a personal foul with no ejection?
This shit has got so convoluted and subjective that I feel like replay should be limited to just things that can be objectively reviewed with video evidence like spot, forward vs backward pass, and out of bounds and fumble (it it was rules a catch on the field the catch cannot be reviewed) and can only be initiated by a coaches challenge. Leave targeting under review only when it is flagged on the field. But get rid of the booth initiated reviews and trying to legislate catches based on subjective review after the fact.
Upvote
0
I need someone to explain to me how in the world it's not targeting when a player lowers his head, leads with the crown of his helmet, and hits the QB in the head.
Upvote
0
What about when the QB lowers his head into it though? It’s a crap rule that nearly always gives a shit benefit of the doubt to the offensive player.
Upvote
0
Is that part of the rule? I don't think it is, but Klatt mentioned it in one of his tweets. BUT the idiot ref expert said that doesn't matter.
Upvote
0
osucollegebuck
Nathan Williams #43
I wonder if it would have been ruled a TD if the Clemson player would have been in the end zone? you know the answer because we have seen it before.
Upvote
0