Calhoun’s status

[SaskGriz]

Again, why are we acting surprised and outraged?

This IS what the bsc is, people. They've proven to us each and every game of each and every year. If we're happy and satisfied being in the bsc, we've got to be happy and satisfied with this.

Go on any team's message board. Anywhere. I dare you to find one, in any conference, at any level, that doesn't believe their league has the worst refs in the land.

Probably. The difference, of course, is the bsc absolutely does.

And officiating is just the tip of a massive iceberg when it comes to the shitness in this conference.

Everett, this is the first we've heard you say anything about not loving the Big Sky Conference! :roll: :lol: #axetogrind

 

[Griz#64]

That #52 is a well schooled cheap shot artist.

 

[Yukon]

what sucks is Hauck says it was a clean hit. I disagree.

When and where did Hauck say it was a clean hit? It clearly isn't. Had he seen it on replay/video?

Today's presser.

 

[debellatio]

I think Hauck’s right. The difference between the two hits is the “defenseless” part. I do not believe you are defenseless when toting the rock. Otherwise it would be nearly impossible to tackle without ever touching helmets.
For the Demming call, he was defenseless but it wasn’t helmet to helmet.
I think both calls were correct, I just did not realize they could pick up the flag.

I believe I heard last year while watching a game it was explained that it can be called two ways, either targeting on its own or unnecessary roughness targeting. If it is just called targeting and replay shows that there was no targeting the flag is picked up with no penalty. If it is called unnecessary roughness targeting and targeting is waived off the 15 year unnecessary roughness is still enforced.

My question is how is that not unnecessary roughness. The ball was at least three feet over the receivers head and he was defenseless. I think that would have been flagged before the targeting rule came into effect?

Kind of on a side note...I sit a few rows up on the visitors side on the 40 yard line and when they came off the field I yelled the guys name that made that hit. He made eye contact with me and I told him he was cheap. First time anyone looked up when I yelled his name.

 

[bgbigdog]

Again, why are we acting surprised and outraged?

I can only speak for myself, but acting like that makes me look less old & fat. Still not a turn on for Mrs. bigdog, but if I have dinner ready & do the dishes, I’m golden. :thumb:

 

[PlayerRep]

I think Hauck’s right. The difference between the two hits is the “defenseless” part. I do not believe you are defenseless when toting the rock. Otherwise it would be nearly impossible to tackle without ever touching helmets.
For the Demming call, he was defenseless but it wasn’t helmet to helmet.
I think both calls were correct, I just did not realize they could pick up the flag.

This hit is targeting 99 out of 100 times (actually 100 out of 100, but obviously it wasn't called in this game). It is an incredibly dangerous hit. Hitting a runner from the side, directly in the eye hole, by coming hard, launching, and not even trying to tackle, is targeting. Calhoun didn't lower his head. He appears not to have seen the tackler. The tackler could have tackled Calhoun, low, medium or high. The defender intentionally went to the head. I'd throw the guy out for the rest of the year, for that one.

 

[Grizlaw]

This hit is targeting 99 out of 100 times (actually 100 out of 100, but obviously it wasn't called in this game). It is an incredibly dangerous hit. Hitting a runner from the side, directly in the eye hole, by coming hard, launching, and not even trying to tackle, is targeting. Calhoun didn't lower his head. He appears not to have seen the tackler. The tackler could have tackled Calhoun, low, medium or high. The defender intentionally went to the head. I'd throw the guy out for the rest of the year, for that one.

I agree with this - it was a terrible no-call. I’ve watched the play about 40 times, tried to be objective, given the Sac State player the benefit of the doubt, but at the end of the day, it was a helmet-to-helmet hit, and it appears (to me) to have been 100% intentional. Sometimes a spade really is a spade.

 

[IdaGriz01]

... This hit is targeting 99 out of 100 times (actually 100 out of 100, but obviously it wasn't called in this game). It is an incredibly dangerous hit. Hitting a runner from the side, directly in the eye hole, by coming hard, launching, and not even trying to tackle, is targeting. Calhoun didn't lower his head. He appears not to have seen the tackler. The tackler could have tackled Calhoun, low, medium or high. The defender intentionally went to the head. I'd throw the guy out for the rest of the year, for that one.

Totally agree ...but it's not likely to happen. :evil:

One camera angle was very clear ... you could see he had "taken off," with "daylight" under his toes before he drilled his helmet into Calhoun face/head. I agree that Calhoun probably didn't see him coming. The way the guy left his feet, and didn't try very hard (if at all) to wrap up ... if Calhoun had seen him, he might have been able to duck and make him whiff altogether. (Of course, there were other tacklers, so he wasn't likely to get away.)

 

[Ursus1]

The defender launched himself. Incredibly blatant.

Hauck said it was a clean hit today in the presser, and that Jeremy is fine. Watching it, you can tell that Hauck is just doing what a coach often does, take it and move on. He knows it was targeting but he also knows he can’t publicly call out Big Sky officials, the same ones who will probably ref many more of our games.

It wasn't clean. Hauck should have said "no comment" if he is afraid of the officials retaliation and not said it was clean thus supporting the call. With all the holding not called in the game, maybe Hauck is getting soft with the officials, in the old days he would have been in their ears non stop.

 

[nzone]

All coaches,IMO, have a duty to protect his/her players regardless. If any coach doesn’t speak out because of the possibility of retaliation he/she is running scared. So if Hauck really thinks it’s a legal hit that’s one thing. If he knows it wasn’t that’s another. I have no doubt that was an intentional illegal hit which could have severely injured Calhoun. I also realize Bobby has been around and has seen a lot more than I have. I also find it ironic that the league implements a new kick off rule to scale back injury and totally whiffs on what most think was an obvious targeting violation on the field of play. :bad:

 

[grizghost]

….when l played this would have been considered a clean hit and applauded by the coaches but times have changed...maybe Hauck likes this kind of playing ...if the shoe was on the other foot maybe we
be saying 'clean hit'...

 

[Fahque]

I think Hauck’s right. The difference between the two hits is the “defenseless” part. I do not believe you are defenseless when toting the rock. Otherwise it would be nearly impossible to tackle without ever touching helmets.
For the Demming call, he was defenseless but it wasn’t helmet to helmet.
I think both calls were correct, I just did not realize they could pick up the flag.

The hit on the tight end was correct, the hit on Calhoun should’ve been called

 

[garizzalies]

I’ve watched the play about 40 times, tried to be objective

I'd throw the guy out for the rest of the year

"daylight" under his toes

he is afraid of the officials retaliation

maybe Hauck likes this kind of playing

 

[Diesel]

Have any of the fans contacted the Big Sky conference and asked for written explanation or the conference’s position on the targeting against Calhoun or their position on defenders launching at defensless players. Or ask if the conference’s position is to protect their officials over the Saftey of the student athletes.
May be helpful if someone could post contact info for Big Sky Conference where concerned fans can get answers to valid concerns.
It would be interesting to see the official response.

 

[kemajic]

Have any of the fans contacted the Big Sky conference and asked for written explanation or the conference’s position on the targeting against Calhoun or their position on defenders launching at defensless players. Or ask if the conference’s position is to protect their officials over the Saftey of the student athletes.
May be helpful if someone could post contact info for Big Sky Conference where concerned fans can get answers to valid concerns.
It would be interesting to see the official response.

"Someone" could be you. Get 'er done.

 

[YttriumGriz39]

Have any of the fans contacted the Big Sky conference and asked for written explanation or the conference’s position on the targeting against Calhoun or their position on defenders launching at defensless players. Or ask if the conference’s position is to protect their officials over the Saftey of the student athletes.
May be helpful if someone could post contact info for Big Sky Conference where concerned fans can get answers to valid concerns.
It would be interesting to see the official response.

[email protected]
League office Address: 2491 Washington BLVD, Suite 201
Ogden, UT 84401
Phone Number: 801.392.1978
Fax Number: 801.392.5568

 

[grizeyes]

Have any of the fans contacted the Big Sky conference and asked for written explanation or the conference’s position on the targeting against Calhoun or their position on defenders launching at defensless players. Or ask if the conference’s position is to protect their officials over the Saftey of the student athletes.
May be helpful if someone could post contact info for Big Sky Conference where concerned fans can get answers to valid concerns.
It would be interesting to see the official response.

[email protected]
League office Address: 2491 Washington BLVD, Suite 201
Ogden, UT 84401
Phone Number: 801.392.1978
Fax Number: 801.392.5568

Done. Will let you know if I get any response.

 

[Grisly Fan]

I’ve watched the play about 40 times, tried to be objective

I'd throw the guy out for the rest of the year

"daylight" under his toes

he is afraid of the officials retaliation

maybe Hauck likes this kind of playing

If this in anyway represents the way BH looks at this "tackle" then he is going to be sorely disappointed when his players is ejected from the game for targeting. Obviously they don't always call it right but sooner or later they will accidentally make the right call and karma would suggest it would be on his player. I doubt Bobby would actually encourage such a cheap and dangerous hit. Those days are past.

 

[BadlandsGrizFan]

This hit is targeting 99 out of 100 times (actually 100 out of 100, but obviously it wasn't called in this game). It is an incredibly dangerous hit. Hitting a runner from the side, directly in the eye hole, by coming hard, launching, and not even trying to tackle, is targeting. Calhoun didn't lower his head. He appears not to have seen the tackler. The tackler could have tackled Calhoun, low, medium or high. The defender intentionally went to the head. I'd throw the guy out for the rest of the year, for that one.

I agree with this - it was a terrible no-call. I’ve watched the play about 40 times, tried to be objective, given the Sac State player the benefit of the doubt, but at the end of the day, it was a helmet-to-helmet hit, and it appears (to me) to have been 100% intentional. Sometimes a spade really is a spade.

I said this same thing earlier, you could almost see the decision being made by the Sac State player o aim for the ear hole.