Jump to content

BJ Foster's Targetting Call


BigHorn'13

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, BigHorn'13 said:

Was some bull shit. Can't complain too much seeing as the refs were acting like they were picking up keys to f250s after the game. Foster led with his shoulder and made contact on Rupaul's chest. His head was just along for the ride. 

Brick-Killed-A-Guy-I-Saw-That-Funny-Will

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, BigHorn'13 said:

I'm not sure you could call the 2 targeting penalties the same. Sam had his helmet ripped off and the metrosexual got his ass lit up. It would be awesome if someone could post a gif of it. Again, can't complain too much since almost every call went our way (see safety. )

St Browns Mouthpiece flew 5 yards in the air. That is harder to do than to pop a helmet off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Vertigo said:

I guess the part of targeting that I don't get is targeting without use of the helmet by the tackler. The helmets made contact but as a consequence of the initial hit by Foster's shoulder to his upper chest. I agree with whoever said there should be an "intent" clause to the rule. Something like unnecessary roughness since he wasn't deliberately going for Brown's head. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, BigHorn'13 said:

Was some bull shit. Can't complain too much seeing as the refs were acting like they were picking up keys to f250s after the game. Foster led with his shoulder and made contact on Rupaul's chest. His head was just along for the ride. 

You're completely wrong. Just like the USC DE,  Foster lead with the crown of  his helmet and directly connected with the other player's helmet.   You may not like the call or the rule itself but this is the reality of the game now.  Denial or being upset because "our guy" got DQ'd but also celebrating the USC player's DQ for the exact same thing is very aggy of you.  Don't be aggy.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, deadshank said:

You're completely wrong. Just like the USC DE,  Foster lead with the crown of  his helmet and directly connected with the other player's helmet.   You may not like the call or the rule itself but this is the reality of the game now.  Denial or being upset because "our guy" got DQ'd but also celebrating the USC player's DQ for the exact same thing is very aggy of you.  Don't be aggy.  

Lulz about being aggy. I merely pointed out the 2 weren't the same-- not the same as celebrating. Now not liking the rule and understanding that's where the game is now, we see eye to eye. But I guess I'm in the minority here that thought he led with his shoulder and that's fair

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am okay with the targeting call and the fifteen yard penalty but not with the one game suspension.  How about they make it suspension for a quarter or even a half but it sucks that you are punished in a game that the penalty wasn't even committed in.  Don't like the carry over.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, MOODY said:

I am okay with the targeting call and the fifteen yard penalty but not with the one game suspension.  How about they make it suspension for a quarter or even a half but it sucks that you are punished in a game that the penalty wasn't even committed in.  Don't like the carry over.

The dumbest rule is the carry over to the next season if targeting happens during a bowl game. What are they going to do carry it over to his flag football game if he is a senior and doesn't choose the NFL?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, MOODY said:

I am okay with the targeting call and the fifteen yard penalty but not with the one game suspension.  How about they make it suspension for a quarter or even a half but it sucks that you are punished in a game that the penalty wasn't even committed in.  Don't like the carry over.

It is a half.  First half of next game since it happened second half of game.  If penalty is in first half, the suspension is the second half of same game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who is currently battling seizures probably related to concussions incurred playing football and doing other country kid shit, I admit that these hits don’t get me as excited as they used to. I cringe at them much more than I did even a year ago. That was dangerous for BJ as well as St Brown. Cue the “shut up pussy” responses, but that’s just my current opinion. I also don’t really have an answer, other than reluctantly agreeing that targeting might be a correct penalty.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was targeting without intent to target. It happens with a lot of penalties. Grasping the face mask is almost always unintended.

I'm fine with the targeting rule just as I am with face mask and horse collar. I'd just as soon players not suffer head, neck or back injuries. The game doesn't suffer as far as I'm concerned. The length of ejection time is troublesome. It would be nice if you could rule on intent, but you can't stop the game to hold a speedy trial.

BJ had time to adjust his body. He didn't dip his head but he could have raised it or slid it to the side. It happened fast and maybe he was so intent on getting a good hit that he didn't think of targeting.  Players need to think of it. 

It was fun to see these spectacular hits when they were legal, but I didn't think anyone was getting long term damage. I don't like those hits anymore because of the risk. I played. I loved blasting another player when I had the chance. I never struck with intention to do anymore than stun the opponent. Some of my tackles may have had later consequences. Such things should be avoided.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, MAGS® said:

Per the rules, it was targeting.  There needs to be exceptions to the rule however.  I'm trying to imagine how else to make that tackle from that angle and speed and not be considered targeting.  Wasn't BJ a good foot taller than that runner?   

He is now

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Targeting and horsecollar are two bullshit penalties imo. But both targeting calls during the game were def. targeting, according to the bullshit rule


I like the horsecollar rule for 4 reasons:

1) Its used by players getting beat to stop forward progress. Its a bitch move.
2) Its an objective call. Not as much interpretation to fuck up
3) It causes injury. Brandon Jones for example against Maryland in the missed call.
4) Fuck evil Roy Williams
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, MAGS® said:

Per the rules, it was targeting.  There needs to be exceptions to the rule however.  I'm trying to imagine how else to make that tackle from that angle and speed and not be considered targeting.  Wasn't BJ a good foot taller than that runner?   

He had time to adjust, but he wanted to make the big, violent hit that has been encouraged for too long in this sport.  You don’t have to blow up a player to get them down.  

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, swraith said:

As the rule is written, I won’t fight the call. My question about the rule is where is the defender supposed to put his head when trying to make that tackle?

Also, is Foster out for the first half of the TCU game ?

Exactly what I said to Mrs Fidy. Where ore you supposed to put that appendage when you are tackling?  Lowering the helmet and using it as a weapon is one thing, helmets colliding in the act of tackling a different thing all together.  

Anyone remember put your hat on the ball when tackling?  Hindsight appears to be better to keep your eyes up and punch the ball. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can argue the virtue of the rule but that was textbook targeting. They will probably use that in the off-season to train officials. He launched himself, used his helmet and hit the receiver in the head. It is the type of play they want out of the sport. 

It’s a separate discussion about if it’s it the right thing to govern out of the sport but saying it was bad call is ludicrous. It was targeting. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A) Does is merit a penalty?

B) Does it merit an ejection?

C) Does it merit a suspension?

A & B should happen during the game.  C should be determined after the game.  Players shouldn't be suspended for half of the next game during a less than 2 minute review by officials who don't even know what is/isn't a safety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Learn to live with targeting rules that you don't like or prepare to say goodbye to football within your lifetime.  The game has to change and players have to change the way they play it.  That's reality.

I get that but don't agree with the automatic ejection that can carry over to the next game..or season if it happens in a bowl. Like someone said above, if the refs feel like the targeting was intended to injure, or the same player gets called twice..eject them. Otherwise it should just be 15 yards, automatic first down.

 

When you have a bunch of defensive players playing tentatively because they don't want to get tossed the game suffers as a whole.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...