• 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!

Wing Targeting Call

Griz Addict said:
Im telling yall it was targeting.. I was maybe 15 yards away and they were facing me. He lead with the helmet and hit the idaho player in the helmet.
Click to expand...
Where were you sitting? You were not 15 yards aways, or you would have had to be sitting on the field.

In college, has marks are 60 feet from the sideline. The play was about 3 or 4 yards inside the hash mark on about the 15 yard line. The runner mostly going straight down the field, although he veers slightly to his right and to the middle in his last few steps. Wing hits him from the right side and slightly behind, and certainly not from the front. It looks like he first hits the runner's right shoulder up high, and Wing's helmet slides by the runners helmet and in front of the runner and his helmet. Not saying there wasn't some contact by the helmets. The runner jumps up immediately after the tackle/hit and appears to be perfectly okay.

You wouldn't have had a clear view from the sideline seat, as the runner and his head would have been mostly blocking your view.

It's 7 or 8 yards from the start of the stands to the sideline at Griz stadium. If you are in row one, you are at least a 3 feet further back.

So 3 feet plus 21 (or more feet) plus 40 feet plus 9 feet, giving each measurement the shorter benefit of doubt.

So, 74 feet at a minimum from row 1 at the 15 or so yardline. That's 25.5 yards, not 15. I assume you weren't standing on the sideline, or were you?
 
Last edited:
Sure looks like initial contact was shoulder to shoulder. Would love to see opposite side or end zone video, or all 3. Odd thing is both players were essentially going in same direction.
 
I doubt we'll ever find out unless the appeal goes through and Wing is re-instated. Supposedly the replay review booth has more camera angles than what is shown on the TV broadcast (I feel like I've heard/seen this mentioned a zillion times but for the life of me, I can't find any supporting links!), but because this is the big sky conference, I trust that assertation about as far as I can throw it.
 
HookedonGriz said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1972793969496240297
Click to expand...
Interesting - it seems like from this - there are maybe 2 layers to the appeal?
1. Team makes appeal to conference
2. If conference doesn't agree, they can deny/uphold the call
or
3. Conference agrees with the appeal, but then needs to pass it up to the ncaa to get the call overturned.
4. Then NCAA upholds call or can re-instate the player
 
That call needs to be appealed to the Nth tier of the whatever ladder this stuff goes up. I suspect that once again we have the NCAA imposing standards on an FCS school that it would never, ever impose on a Power 5 school, or any bottom feeder FBS team.

It would be great if all officiating and appeals of officiating were equal but they are not and never will be if the bad calls go unchallenged. Didn't we have an unsportsmanlike call for celebration earlier this season?

I would like to see the non P5 and FCS schools push for a lottery system to select officials for games. That would be real humbling for NCAA officiating.
 
griz4life said:
That call needs to be appealed to the Nth tier of the whatever ladder this stuff goes up. I suspect that once again we have the NCAA imposing standards on an FCS school that it would never, ever impose on a Power 5 school, or any bottom feeder FBS team.

It would be great if all officiating and appeals of officiating were equal but they are not and never will be if the bad calls go unchallenged. Didn't we have an unsportsmanlike call for celebration earlier this season?

I would like to see the non P5 and FCS schools push for a lottery system to select officials for games. That would be real humbling for NCAA officiating.
Click to expand...
WRT the bolded above - I'm pretty sure that is as high as the ladder for the appeal goes. UM has done all they can I believe.
 
HelenaHandBasket said:
Call was upheld by the conference. Wing will miss the first half.
Click to expand...
Are you sure? My understanding is that the Griz didn't appeal because targets never get overturned. I saw the above post indicating that it had been appealed.

I saw another view of the play. No way that was targeting. It was a tackle from mostly behind and slightly from the side. First contact was at the shoulder/back level. It was a tackle just like a defender coming from that direction would make.
 
mthoopsfan said:
Where were you sitting? You were not 15 yards aways, or you would have had to be sitting on the field.

In college, has marks are 60 feet from the sideline. The play was about 3 or 4 yards inside the hash mark on about the 15 yard line. The runner mostly going straight down the field, although he veers slightly to his right and to the middle in his last few steps. Wing hits him from the right side and slightly behind, and certainly not from the front. It looks like he first hits the runner's right shoulder up high, and Wing's helmet slides by the runners helmet and in front of the runner and his helmet. Not saying there wasn't some contact by the helmets. The runner jumps up immediately after the tackle/hit and appears to be perfectly okay.

You wouldn't have had a clear view from the sideline seat, as the runner and his head would have been mostly blocking your view.

It's 7 or 8 yards from the start of the stands to the sideline at Griz stadium. If you are in row one, you are at least a 3 feet further back.

So 3 feet plus 21 (or more feet) plus 40 feet plus 9 feet, giving each measurement the shorter benefit of doubt.

So, 74 feet at a minimum from row 1 at the 15 or so yardline. That's 25.5 yards, not 15. I assume you weren't standing on the sideline, or were you?
Click to expand...
The bad video sure helped you describe
mthoopsfan said:
Where were you sitting? You were not 15 yards aways, or you would have had to be sitting on the field.

In college, has marks are 60 feet from the sideline. The play was about 3 or 4 yards inside the hash mark on about the 15 yard line. The runner mostly going straight down the field, although he veers slightly to his right and to the middle in his last few steps. Wing hits him from the right side and slightly behind, and certainly not from the front. It looks like he first hits the runner's right shoulder up high, and Wing's helmet slides by the runners helmet and in front of the runner and his helmet. Not saying there wasn't some contact by the helmets. The runner jumps up immediately after the tackle/hit and appears to be perfectly okay.

You wouldn't have had a clear view from the sideline seat, as the runner and his head would have been mostly blocking your view.

It's 7 or 8 yards from the start of the stands to the sideline at Griz stadium. If you are in row one, you are at least a 3 feet further back.

So 3 feet plus 21 (or more feet) plus 40 feet plus 9 feet, giving each measurement the shorter benefit of doubt.

So, 74 feet at a minimum from row 1 at the 15 or so yardline. That's 25.5 yards, not 15. I assume you weren't standing on the sideline, or were you?
Click to expand...
That bad video you described earlier sure gave you alot of detail to describe exactly where the players' helmets were as the play unfolded. What a blowhard you remain.

Griz Addict saw the play from 25.5 yards. You saw it on horrible bad video then somehow came up with two helmets sliding by each other.

Go watch rugby in Russia!
 
mousegriz1 said:
The bad video sure helped you describe

That bad video you described earlier sure gave you alot of detail to describe exactly where the players' helmets were as the play unfolded. What a blowhard you remain.

Griz Addict saw the play from 25.5 yards. You saw it on horrible bad video then somehow came up with two helmets sliding by each other.

Go watch rugby in Russia!
Click to expand...
Did he say something that was untrue?
 
mousegriz1 said:
That bad video you described earlier sure gave you alot of detail to describe exactly where the players' helmets were as the play unfolded. What a blowhard you remain.

Griz Addict saw the play from 25.5 yards. You saw it on horrible bad video then somehow came up with two helmets sliding by each other.

Go watch rugby in Russia!
Click to expand...
Perhaps he saw another angle that most people didn't see.
 
So if he had to miss the 4th quarter of the Idaho game, then why does he half to sit the whole first half against Idaho State? Shouldn’t he only have to miss the first quarter? Essentially this is costing him 3 quarters then?
 
BrownBear9501 said:
So if he had to miss the 4th quarter of the Idaho game, then why does he half to sit the whole first half against Idaho State? Shouldn’t he only have to miss the first quarter? Essentially this is costing him 3 quarters then?
Click to expand...
The punishment is essentially that the player must miss the next full half of football (including whatever is left in the current half the infraction occurred in).

If the player commits 3 or more targeting fouls in one season, he then must miss the entire next game, including whatever time remains in the current game.
 
mousegriz1 said:
The bad video sure helped you describe

That bad video you described earlier sure gave you alot of detail to describe exactly where the players' helmets were as the play unfolded. What a blowhard you remain.

Griz Addict saw the play from 25.5 yards. You saw it on horrible bad video then somehow came up with two helmets sliding by each other.

Go watch rugby in Russia!
Click to expand...
I found a much better video and then saw a 2d good video. No, I saw 2 good videos of the play. You need to catch up. I'm not the only person who saw the two good videos. Many saw it. And, after seeing a bad video, I then found a good video from the game. Griz Addict is wrong. I can tell you that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top