amie just comment about cookus play - huh?

[kemajic]

read the missoulian article about the game, and amie just states, as if it is indisputably factual, that cookus 'led with his shoulder'. huh? that seems misleading to readers who might be looking for fair and objective journalism. sure, it looked like he had his shoulder ready for a collision, but every angle i've seen also makes it appear that it is his head that is leading the way, ahead if the shoulder, and that is what the ref and replay ref seemed to think, too.

sorry for the (probably) extraneous thread, but how that was written bugs me. also, i guess i was hoping for better journalism from her.

http://www.egriz.com/grizboard/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=77984&p=1261499#p1261499

 

[ordigger]

read the missoulian article about the game, and amie just states, as if it is indisputably factual, that cookus 'led with his shoulder'. huh? that seems misleading to readers who might be looking for fair and objective journalism. sure, it looked like he had his shoulder ready for a collision, but every angle i've seen also makes it appear that it is his head that is leading the way, ahead if the shoulder, and that is what the ref and replay ref seemed to think, too.

sorry for the (probably) extraneous thread, but how that was written bugs me. also, i guess i was hoping for better journalism from her.

http://www.egriz.com/grizboard/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=77984&p=1261499#p1261499

Here is the rule:

No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)

Note 1: "Targeting" means that 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. Some indicators of targeting 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 the helmet

Thus you can still lead with shoulder (Which happened here), and get penalized and ejected for targeting.

 

[argh!]

read the missoulian article about the game, and amie just states, as if it is indisputably factual, that cookus 'led with his shoulder'. huh? that seems misleading to readers who might be looking for fair and objective journalism. sure, it looked like he had his shoulder ready for a collision, but every angle i've seen also makes it appear that it is his head that is leading the way, ahead if the shoulder, and that is what the ref and replay ref seemed to think, too.

sorry for the (probably) extraneous thread, but how that was written bugs me. also, i guess i was hoping for better journalism from her.

http://www.egriz.com/grizboard/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=77984&p=1261499#p1261499

Here is the rule:

No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)

Note 1: "Targeting" means that 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. Some indicators of targeting 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 the helmet

Thus you can still lead with shoulder (Which happened here), and get penalized and ejected for targeting.

but he didn't 'lead with his shoulder'. having your shoulder ready for contact and leading with your shoulder aren't necessarily the same thing. anyway, you aren't going to agree, which is fine. i hate to break it to you, though, but just because you pronounce it as such doesn't make it true.

anyway, this horse is dead.

 

[ordigger]

read the missoulian article about the game, and amie just states, as if it is indisputably factual, that cookus 'led with his shoulder'. huh? that seems misleading to readers who might be looking for fair and objective journalism. sure, it looked like he had his shoulder ready for a collision, but every angle i've seen also makes it appear that it is his head that is leading the way, ahead if the shoulder, and that is what the ref and replay ref seemed to think, too.

sorry for the (probably) extraneous thread, but how that was written bugs me. also, i guess i was hoping for better journalism from her.

http://www.egriz.com/grizboard/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=77984&p=1261499#p1261499

Here is the rule:

No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)

Note 1: "Targeting" means that 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. Some indicators of targeting 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 the helmet

Thus you can still lead with shoulder (Which happened here), and get penalized and ejected for targeting.

but he didn't 'lead with his shoulder'. having your shoulder ready for contact and leading with your shoulder aren't necessarily the same thing. anyway, you aren't going to agree, which is fine. i hate to break it to you, though, but just because you pronounce it as such doesn't make it true.

anyway, this horse is dead.

Right he led with it, but contact did not happen with it first, he clearly lowers it first. This is pretty much along the same lines of the play against us last week when Alexander put up his hands to push the Weber qb, but because the qb stepped up to pass he forced the contact, and the crown contact. Both were the correct calls, but neither had intent.

It was clearly targeting, but target does not have to be lead with the head. In can be lead with the shoulder per the rule, which happened here. I took more offense at you trashing on Amie, who I find to be the best reporter in years - and for basically stating a fact that most others agree with.

 

[argh!]

http://www.egriz.com/grizboard/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=77984&p=1261499#p1261499

Here is the rule:

No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)

Note 1: "Targeting" means that 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. Some indicators of targeting 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 the helmet

Thus you can still lead with shoulder (Which happened here), and get penalized and ejected for targeting.

but he didn't 'lead with his shoulder'. having your shoulder ready for contact and leading with your shoulder aren't necessarily the same thing. anyway, you aren't going to agree, which is fine. i hate to break it to you, though, but just because you pronounce it as such doesn't make it true.

anyway, this horse is dead.

Right he led with it, but contact did not happen with it first, he clearly lowers it first. This is pretty much along the same lines of the play against us last week when Alexander put up his hands to push the Weber qb, but because the qb stepped up to pass he forced the contact, and the crown contact. Both were the correct calls, but neither had intent.

It was clearly targeting, but target does not have to be lead with the head. In can be lead with the shoulder per the rule, which happened here. I took more offense at you trashing on Amie, who I find to be the best reporter in years - and for basically stating a fact that most others agree with.

didn't think i trashed her and didn't mean to, but i thought the way she described it wasn't accurate and example of opinion creeping into her journalism.