NAU adding Okla St QB transfer

[granitegriz]

One can criticize the rule, but that was definitely targeting and the correct call!

 

[tourist]

I was criticizing the interpretation and enforcement of the rule generally, and nationwide. I agreed with the Cookus call.

 

[dbackjon]

Yes, you are correct. The targeting was absolutely blatant and malicious. And the back block was unnecessary. Cookus intentionally went up high to hit the pursuer in the face/helmet.

I'm knee deep in righteous indignation after reading this, PR. Was it targeting......yup. Was it malicious and blatant assault.....nope.

On a side note, Daniel Bridge-Gadd (NAU's backup QB from U Washington) who tore his knee up and missed the last three games of the season is no longer listed on NAU's roster. Haven't read that he transferred or quit. The transfer from Oklahoma State adds more roster depth.

Look again. High and vicious hit. Good thing Cookus was onlly a qb. A really blocker could have killed the Griz, who was a very good player.

Not even close. Take off your Maroon-colored Glasses

 

[PlayerRep]

Yes, you are correct. The targeting was absolutely blatant and malicious. And the back block was unnecessary. Cookus intentionally went up high to hit the pursuer in the face/helmet.

I'm knee deep in righteous indignation after reading this, PR. Was it targeting......yup. Was it malicious and blatant assault.....nope.

On a side note, Daniel Bridge-Gadd (NAU's backup QB from U Washington) who tore his knee up and missed the last three games of the season is no longer listed on NAU's roster. Haven't read that he transferred or quit. The transfer from Oklahoma State adds more roster depth.

Look again. High and vicious hit. Good thing Cookus was onlly a qb. A really blocker could have killed the Griz, who was a very good player.

Not even close. Take off your Maroon-colored Glasses

Absolutely clear. You need to put on some glasses. The high hit in the face/neck/helmet area knocked the UM player flying, and he was a good and not small player.

Want to bet $100 on this?

 

[AllWeatherFan]

Want to bet $100 on this?

Well, the only way to settle that bet would be to base it on whether or not the refs called targeting, so probably the question should be rephrased as: "Want to give me $100?" :lol:

 

[PlayerRep]

Want to bet $100 on this?

Well, the only way to settle that bet would be to base it on whether or not the refs called targeting, so probably the question should be rephrased as: "Want to give me $100?" :lol:

No, I say let's get the old video of the play, and look at it.


[tweet]https://mobile.twitter.com/Amie_Just/st ... 87/photo/1[/tweet]

[tweet]https://mobile.twitter.com/Amie_Just/st ... 28/photo/1[/tweet]

[tweet]https://mobile.twitter.com/Amie_Just/st ... 68/photo/1[/tweets

Looks at the view from behind the Griz player (no. 36). High, nasty and dangerous. Absolutely, clearly targeting. Probably would have been a penalty before targeting became a penalty.

Where's my $100? I'm in Phoenix. Going to Sedona and perhaps Flagstaff this weekend. Hope to see Pflu. NAU's spring game is tonight. The off-base NAU fan should give the $100 to Pflu after the scrimmage tonight, and he can give to me later this weekend.

 

[poorgriz]

Want to bet $100 on this?

Well, the only way to settle that bet would be to base it on whether or not the refs called targeting, so probably the question should be rephrased as: "Want to give me $100?" :lol:

No, I say let's get the old video of the play, and look at it.

Looks at the view from behind the Griz player (no. 36). High, nasty and dangerous. Absolutely, clearly targeting. Probably would have been a penalty before targeting became a penalty.

Where's my $100? I'm in Phoenix. Going to Sedona and perhaps Flagstaff this weekend. Hope to see Pflu. NAU's spring game is tonight. The off-base NAU fan should give the $100 to Pflu after the scrimmage tonight, and he can give to me later this weekend.

I completely agree it was targeting per the rule. But, the rule is really hard to interpret and in my opinion he wasn't trying to break the kid's neck or give him a concussion. And let's be honest, that's the reason for the rule. He's a QB for fuck sake. They don't teach him proper blocking techniques.

https://screengrabber.deadspin.com/watch-a-quarterback-get-ejected-for-targeting-1820150915

For comparison, I think it could be argued this hit was way more in the "Trying to injure" scenario than what Cookus did.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBgu7GtFhGY

 

[Paytonlives]

Was Thompson's hit illegal?

Nope... different time.

Different rules.

 

[kemajic]

Want to bet $100 on this?

Well, the only way to settle that bet would be to base it on whether or not the refs called targeting, so probably the question should be rephrased as: "Want to give me $100?" :lol:

No, I say let's get the old video of the play, and look at it.

Looks at the view from behind the Griz player (no. 36). High, nasty and dangerous. Absolutely, clearly targeting. Probably would have been a penalty before targeting became a penalty.

Where's my $100? I'm in Phoenix. Going to Sedona and perhaps Flagstaff this weekend. Hope to see Pflu. NAU's spring game is tonight. The off-base NAU fan should give the $100 to Pflu after the scrimmage tonight, and he can give to me later this weekend.

I completely agree it was targeting per the rule. But, the rule is really hard to interpret and in my opinion he wasn't trying to break the kid's neck or give him a concussion. And let's be honest, that's the reason for the rule. He's a QB for f*** sake. They don't teach him proper blocking techniques.

https://screengrabber.deadspin.com/watch-a-quarterback-get-ejected-for-targeting-1820150915

For comparison, I think it could be argued this hit was way more in the "Trying to injure" scenario than what Cookus did.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBgu7GtFhGY

Quarterbacks not capable of blocking correctly should not be blocking. Not many plays require the QB to block. Cookus was over the line from the block to his exit from the stadium.

The rules and/or interpretation on targeting have changed drastically since the 2009 game with Appy St.

 

[tourist]

Well, I seemed to have opened a can of worms with the Cookus hit. My sole intention was to point out that without a great QB, which Cookus is, IMO, NAU is just average.

 

[PlayerRep]

[tweet]https://mobile.twitter.com/Amie_Just/st ... 87/photo/1[/tweet]

[tweet]https://mobile.twitter.com/Amie_Just/st ... 28/photo/1[/tweet]

[tweet]https://mobile.twitter.com/Amie_Just/st ... 68/photo/1[/tweets

Looks at the view from behind the Griz player (no. 36). High, nasty and dangerous. Absolutely, clearly targeting. Probably would have been a penalty before targeting became a penalty.

 

[dbackjon]

[tweet]https://mobile.twitter.com/Amie_Just/st ... 87/photo/1[/tweet]

[tweet]https://mobile.twitter.com/Amie_Just/st ... 28/photo/1[/tweet]

[tweet]https://mobile.twitter.com/Amie_Just/st ... 68/photo/1[/tweets

Looks at the view from behind the Griz player (no. 36). High, nasty and dangerous. Absolutely, clearly targeting. Probably would have been a penalty before targeting became a penalty.

You can't even post a link correctly. You are wrong on this, Montana, as usual, got the hometown call.

For all the whining the eGrizers do about Big Sky refs, Montana has gotten far more benefit of calls that bad calls against. That's just reality.

 

[PlayerRep]

[tweet]https://mobile.twitter.com/Amie_Just/st ... 87/photo/1[/tweet]

[tweet]https://mobile.twitter.com/Amie_Just/st ... 28/photo/1[/tweet]

[tweet]https://mobile.twitter.com/Amie_Just/st ... 68/photo/1[/tweets

Looks at the view from behind the Griz player (no. 36). High, nasty and dangerous. Absolutely, clearly targeting. Probably would have been a penalty before targeting became a penalty.

You can't even post a link correctly. You are wrong on this, Montana, as usual, got the hometown call.

For all the whining the eGrizers do about Big Sky refs, Montana has gotten far more benefit of calls that bad calls against. That's just reality.

I copied and pasted a post from earlier in the thread. You were too stupid to even go to the beginning of the thread to look at the posts, links, and video.

It is absolutely clear that this was targeting. See if you can get any poster to agree with you on this. You are biased, and blind.

 

[dbackjon]

[tweet]https://mobile.twitter.com/Amie_Just/st ... 87/photo/1[/tweet]

[tweet]https://mobile.twitter.com/Amie_Just/st ... 28/photo/1[/tweet]

[tweet]https://mobile.twitter.com/Amie_Just/st ... 68/photo/1[/tweets

Looks at the view from behind the Griz player (no. 36). High, nasty and dangerous. Absolutely, clearly targeting. Probably would have been a penalty before targeting became a penalty.

You can't even post a link correctly. You are wrong on this, Montana, as usual, got the hometown call.

For all the whining the eGrizers do about Big Sky refs, Montana has gotten far more benefit of calls that bad calls against. That's just reality.

I copied and pasted a post from earlier in the thread. You were too stupid to even go to the beginning of the thread to look at the posts, links, and video.

It is absolutely clear that this was targeting. See if you can get any poster to agree with you on this. You are biased, and blind.

Which you didn't post correctly then, either.

LMAO at PlayerRapeApologist calling anyone biased and blind.

 

[PlayerRep]

[tweet]https://mobile.twitter.com/Amie_Just/st ... 87/photo/1[/tweet]

[tweet]https://mobile.twitter.com/Amie_Just/st ... 28/photo/1[/tweet]

[tweet]https://mobile.twitter.com/Amie_Just/st ... 68/photo/1[/tweets

Looks at the view from behind the Griz player (no. 36). High, nasty and dangerous. Absolutely, clearly targeting. Probably would have been a penalty before targeting became a penalty.

You can't even post a link correctly. You are wrong on this, Montana, as usual, got the hometown call.

For all the whining the eGrizers do about Big Sky refs, Montana has gotten far more benefit of calls that bad calls against. That's just reality.

I copied and pasted a post from earlier in the thread. You were too stupid to even go to the beginning of the thread to look at the posts, links, and video.

It is absolutely clear that this was targeting. See if you can get any poster to agree with you on this. You are biased, and blind.

Which you didn't post correctly then, either.

LMAO at PlayerRapeApologist calling anyone biased and blind.

Just look at the videos of the play and report. Are you unable to scroll to the first page of the thread?

I did try to link. I posted a copy of the post, as I said. Do you not understand the difference?

 

[SaskGriz]

[tweet]https://mobile.twitter.com/Amie_Just/st ... 87/photo/1[/tweet]

[tweet]https://mobile.twitter.com/Amie_Just/st ... 28/photo/1[/tweet]

[tweet]https://mobile.twitter.com/Amie_Just/st ... 68/photo/1[/tweets

Looks at the view from behind the Griz player (no. 36). High, nasty and dangerous. Absolutely, clearly targeting. Probably would have been a penalty before targeting became a penalty.

You can't even post a link correctly. You are wrong on this, Montana, as usual, got the hometown call.

For all the whining the eGrizers do about Big Sky refs, Montana has gotten far more benefit of calls that bad calls against. That's just reality.

Your saying or believing something does not make it "reality". I don't think that word means what you think it does. That's how measles get spread.

 

[kemajic]

[tweet]https://mobile.twitter.com/Amie_Just/st ... 87/photo/1[/tweet]

[tweet]https://mobile.twitter.com/Amie_Just/st ... 28/photo/1[/tweet]

[tweet]https://mobile.twitter.com/Amie_Just/st ... 68/photo/1[/tweets

Looks at the view from behind the Griz player (no. 36). High, nasty and dangerous. Absolutely, clearly targeting. Probably would have been a penalty before targeting became a penalty.

You can't even post a link correctly. You are wrong on this, Montana, as usual, got the hometown call.

For all the whining the eGrizers do about Big Sky refs, Montana has gotten far more benefit of calls that bad calls against. That's just reality.

Your saying or believing something does not make it "reality". I don't think that word means what you think it does. That's how measles get spread.

Never question the judge.

 

[Mousegriz]

I'm knee deep in righteous indignation after reading this, PR. Was it targeting......yup. Was it malicious and blatant assault.....nope.

On a side note, Daniel Bridge-Gadd (NAU's backup QB from U Washington) who tore his knee up and missed the last three games of the season is no longer listed on NAU's roster. Haven't read that he transferred or quit. The transfer from Oklahoma State adds more roster depth.

Look again. High and vicious hit. Good thing Cookus was onlly a qb. A really blocker could have killed the Griz, who was a very good player.

Not even close. Take off your Maroon-colored Glasses

Absolutely clean. You need to put on some glasses. The high hit in the face/neck/helmet area knocked the UM player flying, and he was a good and not small player.

Want to bet $100 on this?

Typical PR bet......a "high and vicious hit" "in the face/neck/helmet area" that was "absolutely clean".
If there were more than three bases in baseball you could still cover them all.

 

[tourist]

Now that I've seen it, helmet and shoulder to the head, it definitely fits the targeting criteria. Not a hit Jack Tatum would cringe about.

 

[PlayerRep]

Look again. High and vicious hit. Good thing Cookus was onlly a qb. A really blocker could have killed the Griz, who was a very good player.

Not even close. Take off your Maroon-colored Glasses

Absolutely clear. You need to put on some glasses. The high hit in the face/neck/helmet area knocked the UM player flying, and he was a good and not small player.

Want to bet $100 on this?

Typical PR bet......a "high and vicious hit" "in the face/neck/helmet area" that was "absolutely clean".
If there were more than three bases in baseball you could still cover them all.

Absolutely clear. Learn to read. Ha.

Why don’t you provide your view on whether it was targeting? Or, are you afraid to agree with me?