Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Just now, DFW Horn said:

I officiated TXHSFB for ten years (by NCAA rules) when the Targeting rule was first introduced.

Truth be told, I wouldn't have called that foul today, seeing it at game speed. But, there were only 5 of us - not 8. We missed a lot of shit we probably should've flagged.

I mean it wasn’t the worst we’ve seen so if it wasn’t called it wouldn’t be a blatant no call. I just want to make sure when we are bitching about the refs it’s for good reason. And there is plenty of good reason in the SEC. Truth be told the expectation should a screw job is headed to Austin in 6 days. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, scramblyn said:

I mean it wasn’t the worst we’ve seen so if it wasn’t called it wouldn’t be a blatant no call. I just want to make sure when we are bitching about the refs it’s for good reason. And there is plenty of good reason in the SEC. Truth be told the expectation should a screw job is headed to Austin in 6 days. 

Maybe, but why would the SEC want to build up A&M at the expense of more tenured members like Bama, UGA, and Ole Miss?

I hope you're wrong, bc that will drive me batshit crazy. 

Edited by DFW Horn
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

Maybe, but why would the SEC want to build up A&M at the expense of more tenured members like Bama and Ole Miss?

I hope you're wrong, bc that will drive me batshit crazy. 

I played golf with a long time SEC alum from a mid program a few weeks ago, he was adamant like matter of fact that the SEC refs protect the higher ranked team, and that newcomers are going to be kept from the title for a while. That last one is suspect besides Texas what newcomer was really good enough, Missouri I guess but they also didn’t win now did they? 

here you have a higher ranked A&M and the newcomer Texas.  
 

I don’t know about cross game tendencies - ref to protect a team not playing. 
 

all of these is pure speculation and opinion but I found it interesting how definitive and emphatic his view was. 

Edited by scramblyn
Posted

Defense needs to work on being disciplined on accounting for late releasing TEs and RBs next week. 
 

Georgia and Ark both gouged the D with those plays. That’s what I would be calling if I was an Off coordinator.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

Maybe, but why would the SEC want to build up A&M at the expense of more tenured members like Bama, UGA, and Ole Miss?

I hope you're wrong, bc that will drive me batshit crazy. 

If the SEC wanted to fix the aggy game, wouldn't they be better off having Texas with a shot for the playoffs and potentially keeping aggy out of the SEC championship game? I mean, no TV audience wants to watch aggy pulling each other's dicks in the CCG.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
Posted

Dammit, I thought this team was a shitty offense with a good defense.  Now it looks like a good offense with a shitty defense? Can we get good on both sides of the ball in the same game?

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, Paper_jam said:

Dammit, I thought this team was a shitty offense with a good defense.  Now it looks like a good offense with a shitty defense? Can we get good on both sides of the ball in the same game?

 

 

No

Posted
1 hour ago, scramblyn said:

Y'all are both thinking it has to be some evidence of mental intent, it doesn’t. It’s the way you hit period, that’s it. Read the rule. 

 

57 minutes ago, scramblyn said:

No where does it say, the player seemed extra mean or hit extra hard or the offensive player looks like he coulda gotten hurt. 

The rule defines targeting by hit technique and that’s it. 

I understand the rule. As Twice indicated, the intent is to identify those sorts of forcible contact that go beyond making a normal football tackle. The examples listed as "indicators of targeting" are meant to be objective indicators of that.  I don't think this play qualifies. He didn't lead with his helmet. Contact with the helmet may have been first, but it wasn't because he had his helmet down or out in front such that he was leading with it. His helmet was in a natural position for his body, upright, and his eyes facing forward. If you actually go and look at the NCAA's example books, that sort of play is specifically called out as not targeting. I think the closest indicator the play qualified for is "launching," but even then it wasn't a particular clear example of it. 

Posted
4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

 

I understand the rule. As Twice indicated, the intent is to identify those sorts of forcible contact that go beyond making a normal football tackle. The examples listed as "indicators of targeting" are meant to be objective indicators of that.  I don't think this play qualifies. He didn't lead with his helmet. Contact with the helmet may have been first, but it wasn't because he had his helmet down or out in front such that he was leading with it. His helmet was in a natural position for his body, upright, and his eyes facing forward. If you actually go and look at the NCAA's example books, that sort of play is specifically called out as not targeting. I think the closest indicator the play qualified for is "launching," but even then it wasn't a particular clear example of it. 

Okay.

Posted
34 minutes ago, Paper_jam said:

Dammit, I thought this team was a shitty offense with a good defense.  Now it looks like a good offense with a shitty defense? Can we get good on both sides of the ball in the same game?

 

If that happened, Texas would be undefeated 

Posted
2 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

It's really not. Mateer didn't suck against Texas because of his injury, that's just silly to say. His mistakes were mental. 

this. look at Mateers stats.  objectively Arch is just as good or better than Mateer.

  • Pancho unpinned this topic
Posted
10 hours ago, DFW Horn said:

I officiated TXHSFB for ten years (by NCAA rules) when the Targeting rule was first introduced.

Truth be told, I wouldn't have called that foul today, seeing it at game speed. But, there were only 5 of us - not 8. We missed a lot of shit we probably should've flagged.

There reallly needs to be some clarification and education with Refs at all levels to what is targeting that could result in an injury and what is not.   I mean it’s not hard to find film clips of the showboat hits that kicked this rule into effect and compare them to what is being called in some of the games currently.   What was intended to be an obvious penalty is now become as subjective as some of the other penalties we as fans and I’m sure coaches complain about.   What is targeting in the SEC might not be the same in the Rig 12.   Or for that matter from crew to crew.  

Posted
1 minute ago, Nueces River Rat said:

There reallly needs to be some clarification and education with Refs at all levels to what is targeting that could result in an injury and what is not.   I mean it’s not hard to find film clips of the showboat hits that kicked this rule into effect and compare them to what is being called in some of the games currently.   What was intended to be an obvious penalty is now become as subjective as some of the other penalties we as fans and I’m sure coaches complain about.   What is targeting in the SEC might not be the same in the Rig 12.   Or for that matter from crew to crew.  

Targeting has been a "point of emphasis" to improve player safety since its inception.

Without the benefit of replay, TXHSFB officials are usually less prone to calling it unless it's blatantly obvious headhunting. We wanted to see "malicious intent" before throwing a flag. At the D1 college level, officials are actually encouraged to call it more often.

Posted

So, haven't seen much discussion about the benching of Taylen Green.

Seems he's kind of the engine that makes their offense go, even if a bit of a turnover machine.

The frosh did ok I guess, but I wonder if Green might have made it closer, or less close.

Posted

Sunday - Bobby

Spoiler

Sunday

 

Bobby Burton

By Bobby Burton

  • 2 hours ago
 

Last week, a few readers dismissed my assertion that the Texas offense had been moving in the right direction and was becoming a consistent strength of the team.

That’s understandable. I wrote and said that right after a paltry 10-point performance against Georgia.

Yet here we are after a 52-37 win over Arkansas, and I’ll say the same thing again this morning. And that fact - at least to me - is as clear as day.

The Texas offense has emerged as the team’s better, more consistent and more reliable unit.

Since the flip switched for Arch Manning late against Mississippi State, he is 99 of 152 for 1,314 yards, 11 TDs and just two INTs. That’s an average of 8.6 yards per pass attempt and more than 13 yards per completion.

With every game, Manning continues to gain more and more confidence with a set of capable receivers. The offensive line is finally giving him more time to throw, which has allowed Steve Sarkisian to eschew a run game that has been largely ineffective for almost two years.

Let’s face it. The Texas offense looked hapless against Ohio State and Kentucky. Heck, even against UTEP.

But those days are now long gone.

On the other side of the ball, the defense is struggling mightily. Tight ends are killing the Texas linebackers and safeties on a regular basis. Coverage busts continue to happen even from some of the most veteran members of the secondary. Arkansas was able able to run the ball easily, averaging more than nine yards a carry on first downs alone.

What’s more, the Texas D is struggling more and more as the games wear on.

In each of the last three games, the defense has given up 21, 21 and 14 points in the games final quarters. The Horns seemingly give up those points with little resistance.

If not for the first defensive score of the season forced by Colin Simmons, this would have likely been a tighter game to close things out.

With this Texas defense and this secondary, no lead is safe and not against any quarterback, including the Arkansas second-stringer.

**

The youth movement on defense was on full display yesterday.

At one point, the Horns were playing three true freshman in the secondary at the same time: safety Jonah Williams, cornerback Kade Phillips and nickel Graceson Littleton.

While Littleton has been a fixture in the secondary all year, Phillips has seen his playing time steadily increase to the point where he started yesterday.

As Rod Babers said in the post-game show, it’s that time of year where if upperclassmen aren’t better than the freshmen, then the freshmen need to play to get more seasoning.

**

So where does this leave us for Texas A&M on Friday?

The Longhorns need to protect Arch Manning first and foremost. Give him time to throw, give his receivers time to work downfield.

The Texas defense will need to create a turnover or two and not let the talented Aggie receiver corps run rampant through the secondary.

A player or two will need to create disruptive, off-schedule plays that can turn a game.

Maybe that’s Colin Simmons. Or maybe that’s Anthony Hill.

Hook’Em!

 

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...