Yes as someone who isn’t a child and understands the call was correct and confirmed on replay.
it’s not debatable
Pitt vs Duke Gamethread
- Thread starter DiehardPanther
- Start date
it’s not debatable
Dude even the folks in studio are saying what’s a guy supposed to do there you obviously never played DB because until we adopted powder puff rules that was a great play
It’s so debatable and anyone who thinks like you should watch tennis
The one guy did say that, but you will notice that all of them agreed that it was a penalty.
Look, we can all not like it, but in 2019, with the way the game is called today, that's going to get called a penalty 100% of the time. I don't like that the rule is the way that it is, but until they change the rule interpretation that's going to get called all the time.
Db Should aim For the waist to tackle. And wrap- just like everyone is taught how to form tackle since peewee.
ford didn’t go for a tackle - he went for a hit.
video officials confirmed targeting .
this was the least egregious call of the night
the missed face mask on Pickett is 100% worse
Because not only did he give himself up with a slide-dude grabbed him from behind by the face mask while sliding .
that can’t be a penalty. The offensive player lowered his head.
That can’t be an ejectable offense is football. Ford turns to hit the WR with his shoulder. The guy ducks his head. Wtf is he supposed to do?
according to souf and joe who I am thinking more and more are the same poster, not touch the receiver.
Actually, he didn’t go high- he went where he had to in order to make sure the receiver would not get a 1st down- It was because of the receiver’s last second tucking of his head (which Paris couldn’t even see) that made it even look like a play to review - Absurd. Clearly was not targeting.
If that play is looked at by a committee and still called targeting, then we might as well make college football touch and not tackle.
Targeting by definition should be about intent - there is no way anyone looks at that play and walks away saying “Paris was trying to hit the receiver in the helmet or lead with his helmet.
The only way that someone can think that's not a penalty in 2019 is if they don't know how the rule is being interpreted and they don't actually watch much college football.
You should really read the actual rule
Note the second to last bullet point
“
Targeting does not solely occur when players initiate helmet-to-helmet contact. It's defined as occurring when a player "takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball." Instances include, but are not limited to:
- Launch--a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area.
- A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground.
- Leading with helmet, shoulder forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area.
- Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of his helmet.”
that isn’t the argument. The argument is that it is a terrible rule the way it is currently written. I don’t know why you can’t admit that the rule, as is, is broken.
great job misinterpreting his post. I think everyone here knows it is by letter of the law a penalty. The discussion is that it is a terribly written rule.
when he says it can’t be a penalty, he doesn’t mean it isn’t a penalty, he means that it should not be a penalty in the first place...the rule should be changed.
Actually I have said numerous times, including the first post that I made about the hit right after it happened, that I don't like the way the rule is being interpreted.
What I don't understand is why people keep insisting that it shouldn't have been called a penalty when anyone who watches any significant amount of college football knows that hits like that get called targeting all the time.
I was actually just watching another game in which an identical play happened. They reversed the call, and the guy stayed in the game.
Last edited:
The receiver should have been called for leading with his head. That would have been the correct call.
Not seeing any bullet point that matches what Ford did.
• Launch- Nope
• A crouch followed by upward thrust - Nope
• leading with helmet or shoulder... to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck.
-Nope. not even that one.... While he was leading with his shoulder, it was not to attack at the neck or head.
• initiating forcable contact with the crown of the helmet... Nope... not even that one. If anything, the receiver should be deemed the initiator of the helmet contact by lowering his head as Paris was clearly coming in lower and would not have made contact with him that high if not for the last second choice the receiver made... which made it impossible for Paris to avoid.
Great! We won. That doesn't change the coaching deficiencies we've had with this program for the past 35+ years. And now we have a coach who can't ever do halftime adjustments or adjustments of any kind during a game because he is stubborn. Fortunately, we play in the weakest division of the ACC and we may win a few more games there, if he doesn't get in the way.
How many people were in attendance at Duke.
Mrs Buffett remarked it looks like one of the local hs games she works security at.
Mrs Buffett remarked it looks like one of the local hs games she works security at.
Wow...I go to sleep with 5-6 minutes left in the 3rd at 26-3 because I had to leave for the airport at 4am this morning and I wake up to a headline reading “Pitt rallies to bear Duke.”
I don’t know if I should happy or upset that I missed the last hour of the game.
I don’t know if I should happy or upset that I missed the last hour of the game.
Well, yes it is debatable. Players get hit in the head virtually every play. Lineman take head shots every snap. RB’s take head shots on 50% of carries. If you want to get picky it is debatable merely by the fact that it was reviewable. We have all seen targeting called on the field and reversed even when there was some contact to the head. And in this particular play, at least one view seemed to indicate that any contact to the head was incidental and the main force of the blow was shoulder to upper body, not head.
I also think that adding to my personal outrage over that call was the other more obvious wrong calls, and the huge disparity in penalties.
You can argue all day and night about the bad calls. It doesn't change the fact that there are deficiencies with this program and with coaching. We were ahead by 23 points last night and almost let a bad team beat us. We should have beaten them by at least 30 if we were better than mediocre. This coaching staff has a lot of work to do if they want a winning season.
Be happy, trust me. Watch the game-winning TD and strip sack to end the game and you’re good.
Targeting Should be to penalize a cheap shot or to protect a defenseless receiver. That play was neither.
The hit was made a yard short of the first down. You need to allow a defender to come with force in a situation like that, particularly when the offensive player does duck his head.
Officials need to use some judgement. See the interference call on Pitt with little interference taking place, with the ball short of the sticks and the receiver going out of bounds short of the sticks. That call was ridiculous.
Everything is debatable.
Terrible rule.
To much room for officials to interpret the situation and add in their personal bias for what they consider targeting.
No consistency of the call among officials.
I've watched games where the announcers and the on air booth official said leading with the shoulder is fine as long as its not a head shot. If the receiver or runner changes his level regardless of the outcome its not targeting.
Last edited:
The rule is any hit above the shoulders to a defenseless player
it’s just that simple
linemen and running backs aren’t defenseless .
The receiver in space is directly after a catch.
those announcers are wrong and didn’t read the actual rule
He wasn’t defenseless - he was a ball carrier trying to make yards, and he had enough presence of mind to duck and tuck. We disagree. But that’s ok - the team learns from it, and either way you and I are happy we won the game.
Look, I don’t agree with the call but it isn’t necessary to make up stuff.
He was in no way a runner, he didn’t take a single step before getting hit. His front foot was planted and his back foot was dragging across the grass. His momentum was carrying him forward, but he hadn’t taken a single step.
Second, you don’t need presence of mind to duck and cover, that’s your brain’s natural response. He had less than a tenth of a second between catching the ball and getting hit. He didn’t have the “presence of mind” to think “oh shit”, let alone make a conscious decision about anything.
on the flip side I can argue no one has presence of mind or reaction time to avoid someone’s head when THEY lower it into your shoulder a tenth of a second before you hit them.
No one is arguing that they can, but for years now it has been made clear that the onus is on the defender. It’s like rear-ending a car, you are expected to take precautions to make sure you can react to a sudden change in the car in front of you.
Not a tantrum at all and it’s extremely debatable no matter how smart you think you are. You can’t make a form tackle in every situation. I’m far from a blind homer either there are just certain situations that can’t be avoided especially when a receiver ducks down into a tackle. Had he not ducked Paris hits him square in the chest. They debated this on the FAN last night and on the ACC network so to say it’s not debatable is a joke and you obviously don’t like any opinion other than your own. You’d make a perfect liberal.
the receiver had one foot down when ford hit him
The idea he ducked down into it is fantasy land
