• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

...it's called getting earholed...

PlayerRep said:
In the replay in this thread, the first thing that moves on Buss, is his head. Just a very dirty play. The Big Sky officials are pathetic. If the booth guy can't see the problem with that hit, then he should be put out to pasture. Buss could have been hurt very bad. Hope he wasn't.
Click to expand...

:thumb:
 
zengriz said:
...in conclusion..back in the day...
...it's not call earholed from the location...
...it's if/when you got up..and coaches laughing...
...you were looking out the earhole of your helmet...

... :shock: ...
Click to expand...
You're absolutely right! I had forgotten that (I wonder why?) :lol: :lol:

On the other hand, the hits that ended with your helmet turned that drastically were almost always big time helmet-to-helmet ... and would be called targeting now. :?
 
My thoughts are that if the rolls had been reversed and this was an interception return with the linebacker hitting a receiver a flag would have been thrown immediately. It seems the defensive players aren't protected as much as the offensive players. I have seen it a few times that no flag has been thrown when a defensive player has been hit like this.
 
debellatio said:
My thoughts are that if the rolls had been reversed and this was an interception return with the linebacker hitting a receiver a flag would have been thrown immediately. It seems the defensive players aren't protected as much as the offensive players. I have seen it a few times that no flag has been thrown when a defensive player has been hit like this.
Click to expand...

What I have been saying for years! They do not protect defensive players, which I think partly comes from everyone wanting "action" and offense sells. I still cannot understand why it's completely acceptable for a running back to lower the crown of his helmet to cause (more than likely) helmet-to-helmet contact. There's a reason they have outlawed RB's lowering their helmets in HS, but yet at the college and pro levels it's completely ok and considered a good way to gain a few extra yards. I've seen a lot of defensive players go down with concussions and neck injuries due to this, but nothing from the higher ups to stop it. Makes no sense to me at all.
 
Ah, the good old days

I remember well Dick Night Train Lane from the Detroit Lions a DB who had perfected grabbing receivers and nearly taking their heads off. Times change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Train_Lane

"Lane was known as a ferocious tackler, and his style of play led to changes in the rules of the game. In 1961, he tackled Jon Arnett by the face mask as he ran at full speed down the field. Arnett lay motionless on the field after the tackle, and the play left a lasting impression.[37] The following year, the NFL adopted a rule prohibiting the grasping of an opponent's face mask.[38]

Lane's practice of tackling opponents about the head and neck, which was then a legal technique, was sometimes called a "Night Train Necktie". It later became known as a clothesline tackle and prohibited.[39] He later explained the rationale for his practice of necktie tackling:

My object is to stop the guy before he gains another inch. . . . f I hit them in the legs they may fall forward for a first down. . . . I grab them around the neck so I can go back to the bench and sit down.[40]"
 
Another Incredibly poor outing by the zebras.

If he’s planning on sharing something, I hope Bob spends more time with the blatant holding & missed PI calls. It got so bad that Scheye was holding his hands up in the universal WTF pose when one of his teammates got slammed to the turf well after the whistle. Was there a offensive holding call on either team?
 
I agree it was definitely targeting. Will bsc review?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
wbtfg said:
PlayerRep said:
"A player who receives a blind-side block." As someone said above, a blind-side block is part of the rule.

"When in question, it is a foul." Again, as someone stated above.

In my view, the initial contact was with the helmet to the helmet (and was certainly above the shoulders). "Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area"

https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/9/7/12829482/targeting-penalty-rulebook-ncaa-football
Click to expand...

That's a good read. If I'm understanding the rule, in order to be targeting defender would need to be defenseless. To meet the standard of defenseless, the block would have to be a blindside block.

Looking at the tape again, it's difficult to determine if it was a blindside block.

6d685aa77b8838fcdb35385c60f1920d.jpg



And yes, I do have a lot of time on my hands as I'm waiting for tires to be installed at Costco.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Costco, always Costco :thumb:
 
griz5700 said:
Go play or watch soccer if you think that was a cheap hit.

Man up, bitches. It was a clean and legal block.
Click to expand...

The whole point of the overhaul of the rules the past few years is to combat your archaic attitude about "manning up" Players are supposed to "man up" after head injuries and neck injuries. Supposed to "man up" when they are coldcocked without warning. The point is to reduce and limit the amount and severity of head injuries. Head injuries are why there has been a decline in youth participation. Every level of football from youth up to the NFL is trying to change the way the game is played for the better.

That was a blatantly illegal hit according to the modern rules of football. Your antiquated attitude can eat it.
 
Another angle to look at all of this is that the point or goal is to disrupt a player from making a play. You can just as effectively block a guy by putting your hands up and popping him in his shoulder pads. This kind of play has no place in modern football. Youth players will never come back to the sport of football if changes aren't made and enforced.
 
grizfan406 said:
Another angle to look at all of this is that the point or goal is to disrupt a player from making a play. You can just as effectively block a guy by putting your hands up and popping him in his shoulder pads. This kind of play has no place in modern football. Youth players will never come back to the sport of football if changes aren't made and enforced.
Click to expand...
And if social pressure tells the kid different, Mom is going to have more than a few words to say about it. :evil:
 
IdaGriz01 said:
grizfan406 said:
Another angle to look at all of this is that the point or goal is to disrupt a player from making a play. You can just as effectively block a guy by putting your hands up and popping him in his shoulder pads. This kind of play has no place in modern football. Youth players will never come back to the sport of football if changes aren't made and enforced.
Click to expand...
And if social pressure tells the kid different, Mom is going to have more than a few words to say about it. :evil:
Click to expand...

I agree that football has no room for this play/block. The receiver/blocker was a wimp. Came in high and to the head. All he needed to do was brush Buss, or lay a good hit on him below the shoulders. I'm fine with the good hit style, but my god, don't go helmet to helmet.

Did the Big Sky ever say or announce anything on the play? Let me know. If they haven't, I will start weighing in on the Big Sky.
 
rocklobster said:
I've seen plays called targeting that we're less helmet to helmet. Bad call by the refs! Player should have been ejected! In Missoula he would have been. PSU played a little dirty. The targeting call is there to protect players. I would think if he had the ball or was a wide receiver, it would have been called, and the player, ejected. Just hope he's ok.
Click to expand...
PSU has had a well-deserved reputation for dirty play for years. You'd feel lucky if all your linemen got out of the game with their knees intact.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Just assuming that if the ref only had what I saw on this replay to assess the call maybe that is why no penalty was called. If I remember, there was a shot from the end zone behind the offense that made it look very obvious. I didn't see that replay with the Portland State announcers.
 
The hit on Buss should have been flagged no doubt about it. But whoever thinks that a brush block or a push would have been just as effective is simply incorrect. A hard block (legal) will have an impact for the rest of the game.
 
Just saw pretty much this exact play in the cal wsu game, no flag.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
So if stitt asked the BS for a review ( believe he said he was going to) what’s the response??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top