Welcome Guest! Create an Account login email: password: remember me: BASKETBALL Latest News News Archive Schedule/Results Multi-Media Recruiting FOOTBALL Latest News News Archive Schedule/Results Multi-Media Recruiting MESSAGE BOARD Message Home - Ohio Basketball - Ohio Basketball Recruiting - The O Zone - Ohio Football - Ohio Football Recruiting - Ohio Volleyball - Ohio Baseball - Ohio Olympic Sports... - General OU Discussion... - Website Feedback... - Posting Policy Edit My Profile Private Messages Logout CHAT LINKS site searchwhere to watchcontact usabout usadvertise with ushelp Message Board BobcatAttack.com Message Board Ohio Football Topic:  Targeting on Aloese Topic:  Targeting on Aloese Author Message shabamon General User Member Since: 11/17/2006 Location: Cincinnati Post Count: 6,546 Status: Offline     Targeting on Aloese    Posted: 9/30/2017 4:00:11 PM  What the hell call was that? Lamer than a twice-shot dog. Back to Top LuckySparrow General User Member Since: 10/15/2012 Location: Illinois Post Count: 1,750 Status: Offline     RE: Targeting on Aloese    Posted: 9/30/2017 8:46:49 PM  It was an absolutely ridiculous call. At least it was in the first half so he won't miss any time next week. What a day at the Convo.....Wow! Back to Top 89Cat General User Member Since: 9/12/2011 Post Count: 64 Status: Offline     RE: Targeting on Aloese    Posted: 10/1/2017 12:22:25 AM  The worst part is that the poor kid lost a whole game of his senior year over a totally incorrect call. I even had to go to the NCAA rules sight to see if the targeting rule had changed. Nope it hasn't . Just a bad call. Back to Top 71 BOBCAT General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Post Count: 1,891 Status: Offline     RE: Targeting on Aloese    Posted: 10/1/2017 9:13:28 AM  Where did they find these refs, THEY WERE AWFUL, PERIOD Back to Top Obc2 General User Member Since: 11/8/2007 Location: Cincinnati, OH Post Count: 597 Status: Offline     RE: Targeting on Aloese    Posted: 10/1/2017 10:32:32 AM  the color commentator on Eleven network must have said "he hit him with a flipper" at least a half dozen times. Back to Top bobcatsquared General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Post Count: 5,296 Status: Offline     RE: Targeting on Aloese    Posted: 10/1/2017 12:01:36 PM  Then, after the long delay to decide the correct call, he complained that the delay was killing UMass' momentum. Back to Top L.C. General User Member Since: 8/31/2005 Location: United States Post Count: 10,470 Status: Offline     RE: Targeting on Aloese    Posted: 10/1/2017 12:15:57 PM  Eleven network seemed to be filming the game with only a couple cameras. As a result, when the time came for "video review", there wasn't much video to review, and most calls on the field would have been upheld for lack of conclusive evidence to overturn. “We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.” ― Epictetus Back to Top BillyTheCat General User Member Since: 10/6/2012 Post Count: 10,038 Status: Offline     RE: Targeting on Aloese    Posted: 10/1/2017 12:38:33 PM  L.C. wrote: Eleven network seemed to be filming the game with only a couple cameras. As a result, when the time came for "video review", there wasn't much video to review, and most calls on the field would have been upheld for lack of conclusive evidence to overturn. Typical game is 4 cameras. That is what we use for a thing less than a U, CBS or such Back to Top BillyTheCat General User Member Since: 10/6/2012 Post Count: 10,038 Status: Offline     RE: Targeting on Aloese    Posted: 10/1/2017 12:40:04 PM  Obc2 wrote: the color commentator on Eleven network must have said "he hit him with a flipper" at least a half dozen times. Haven't seen the play, but a flipper to the head will get you tossed Back to Top C Money General User Member Since: 8/28/2010 Post Count: 3,420 Status: Offline     RE: Targeting on Aloese    Posted: 10/1/2017 1:14:30 PM  Aloese dropped his head. That's about the only thing I can think that would have been grounds for ejection. But it was such a bang-bang play, I think the call was awfully harsh. It did not appear intentional. Back to Top rpbobcat General User Member Since: 4/28/2006 Location: Rochelle Park, NJ Post Count: 3,570 Status: Offline     RE: Targeting on Aloese    Posted: 10/1/2017 2:23:44 PM  C Money wrote: Aloese dropped his head. That's about the only thing I can think that would have been grounds for ejection. But it was such a bang-bang play, I think the call was awfully harsh. It did not appear intentional. The issue of intentional targeting came up during a game I was watching last week. The initial call was targeting. The replay showed it wasn't intentional (The player that got hit dropped his shoulder). Didn't matter,their "rules expert" said its the hit,whether intentional or not. Back to Top El Gato Roberto General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Buffalo Grove, IL Post Count: 1,218 Status: Offline     RE: Targeting on Aloese    Posted: 10/1/2017 2:46:12 PM  BillyTheCat wrote: Obc2 wrote: the color commentator on Eleven network must have said "he hit him with a flipper" at least a half dozen times. Haven't seen the play, but a flipper to the head will get you tossed Can someone explain what is "a flipper to the head"? "The name's Ohio University, but everybody calls me Ohio. Any of you guys call me Ohio U, and I'll kill you." Back to Top Joe McKinley General User Member Since: 11/15/2004 Post Count: 485 Status: Offline     RE: Targeting on Aloese    Posted: 10/1/2017 3:04:04 PM  ^ I'm pretty sure the announcer was suggesting a shoulder blow to the head, but not 100%. I think flipper technique is something linemen use to gain leverage/advantage against an opponent. I see how using a shoulder pad to the helmet in a tackling situation as described on this play would be dangerous. Intent wouldn't matter. Back to Top Obc2 General User Member Since: 11/8/2007 Location: Cincinnati, OH Post Count: 597 Status: Offline     RE: Targeting on Aloese    Posted: 10/1/2017 5:13:37 PM  i think flipper is forearm. color guy referenced hit him with a chicken wing too. Back to Top BillyTheCat General User Member Since: 10/6/2012 Post Count: 10,038 Status: Offline     RE: Targeting on Aloese    Posted: 10/3/2017 2:24:42 PM  rpbobcat wrote: C Money wrote: Aloese dropped his head. That's about the only thing I can think that would have been grounds for ejection. But it was such a bang-bang play, I think the call was awfully harsh. It did not appear intentional. The issue of intentional targeting came up during a game I was watching last week. The initial call was targeting. The replay showed it wasn't intentional (The player that got hit dropped his shoulder). Didn't matter,their "rules expert" said its the hit,whether intentional or not. " Intentional" does not really come into play. Two types of targeting, a Crown play 9-1-4 and a non crown play 9-1-3. A flipper to the head in a thrusting blow would be a 9-1-3, and dropping head to deliver a blow to the head/neck area is a 9-1-4. Back to Top C Money General User Member Since: 8/28/2010 Post Count: 3,420 Status: Offline     RE: Targeting on Aloese    Posted: 10/3/2017 3:22:44 PM  BillyTheCat wrote: rpbobcat wrote: C Money wrote: Aloese dropped his head. That's about the only thing I can think that would have been grounds for ejection. But it was such a bang-bang play, I think the call was awfully harsh. It did not appear intentional. The issue of intentional targeting came up during a game I was watching last week. The initial call was targeting. The replay showed it wasn't intentional (The player that got hit dropped his shoulder). Didn't matter,their "rules expert" said its the hit,whether intentional or not. " Intentional" does not really come into play. Two types of targeting, a Crown play 9-1-4 and a non crown play 9-1-3. A flipper to the head in a thrusting blow would be a 9-1-3, and dropping head to deliver a blow to the head/neck area is a 9-1-4. "Flagrant" is probably the word I should have used instead of "intentional." Any flagrant foul is grounds for ejection. My reading of 9-1-3 and 9-1-4 are that both require contact be made against the opponent. He did drop his head and lead with the helmet, but there was no contact with it (9-1-3). He made contact with his body, while his head was dropped. It's also hard to argue that the QB had "obviously" given himself up and was defenseless (9-1-4). As I said, I think the call was harsh under those circumstances. But they're instructed to err on the side of calling the penalty, and that was probably the ref's logic in sustaining the call. Back to Top BillyTheCat General User Member Since: 10/6/2012 Post Count: 10,038 Status: Offline     RE: Targeting on Aloese    Posted: 10/4/2017 12:32:00 PM  C Money wrote: BillyTheCat wrote: rpbobcat wrote: C Money wrote: Aloese dropped his head. That's about the only thing I can think that would have been grounds for ejection. But it was such a bang-bang play, I think the call was awfully harsh. It did not appear intentional. The issue of intentional targeting came up during a game I was watching last week. The initial call was targeting. The replay showed it wasn't intentional (The player that got hit dropped his shoulder). Didn't matter,their "rules expert" said its the hit,whether intentional or not. " Intentional" does not really come into play. Two types of targeting, a Crown play 9-1-4 and a non crown play 9-1-3. A flipper to the head in a thrusting blow would be a 9-1-3, and dropping head to deliver a blow to the head/neck area is a 9-1-4. "Flagrant" is probably the word I should have used instead of "intentional." Any flagrant foul is grounds for ejection. My reading of 9-1-3 and 9-1-4 are that both require contact be made against the opponent. He did drop his head and lead with the helmet, but there was no contact with it (9-1-3). He made contact with his body, while his head was dropped. It's also hard to argue that the QB had "obviously" given himself up and was defenseless (9-1-4). As I said, I think the call was harsh under those circumstances. But they're instructed to err on the side of calling the penalty, and that was probably the ref's logic in sustaining the call. As stated, I have not seen the play, simply quoting the rule. Was this on a sliding QB? The fact that a player would by rule be defenseless changes things as well. Back to Top C Money General User Member Since: 8/28/2010 Post Count: 3,420 Status: Offline     RE: Targeting on Aloese    Posted: 10/4/2017 1:55:20 PM  BillyTheCat wrote: C Money wrote: "Flagrant" is probably the word I should have used instead of "intentional." Any flagrant foul is grounds for ejection. My reading of 9-1-3 and 9-1-4 are that both require contact be made against the opponent. He did drop his head and lead with the helmet, but there was no contact with it (9-1-3). He made contact with his body, while his head was dropped. It's also hard to argue that the QB had "obviously" given himself up and was defenseless (9-1-4). As I said, I think the call was harsh under those circumstances. But they're instructed to err on the side of calling the penalty, and that was probably the ref's logic in sustaining the call. As stated, I have not seen the play, simply quoting the rule. Was this on a sliding QB? The fact that a player would by rule be defenseless changes things as well. It was one of those QB slides that wasn't really a slide. The QB dropped to his knees about a step and a half before he was about to be sandwiched. Back to Top BillyTheCat General User Member Since: 10/6/2012 Post Count: 10,038 Status: Offline     RE: Targeting on Aloese    Posted: 10/4/2017 9:02:47 PM  C Money wrote: BillyTheCat wrote: C Money wrote: "Flagrant" is probably the word I should have used instead of "intentional." Any flagrant foul is grounds for ejection. My reading of 9-1-3 and 9-1-4 are that both require contact be made against the opponent. He did drop his head and lead with the helmet, but there was no contact with it (9-1-3). He made contact with his body, while his head was dropped. It's also hard to argue that the QB had "obviously" given himself up and was defenseless (9-1-4). As I said, I think the call was harsh under those circumstances. But they're instructed to err on the side of calling the penalty, and that was probably the ref's logic in sustaining the call. As stated, I have not seen the play, simply quoting the rule. Was this on a sliding QB? The fact that a player would by rule be defenseless changes things as well. It was one of those QB slides that wasn't really a slide. The QB dropped to his knees about a step and a half before he was about to be sandwiched. The moment the QB drops his hips he is defenseless at that moment. Back to Top L.C. General User Member Since: 8/31/2005 Location: United States Post Count: 10,470 Status: Offline     RE: Targeting on Aloese    Posted: 10/5/2017 11:07:38 AM  BillyTheCat wrote: L.C. wrote: Eleven network seemed to be filming the game with only a couple cameras. As a result, when the time came for "video review", there wasn't much video to review, and most calls on the field would have been upheld for lack of conclusive evidence to overturn. Typical game is 4 cameras. That is what we use for a thing less than a U, CBS or such Based on Solich's comments in press release, the officials did have 4, but the film Ohio had available only had 2. “We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.” ― Epictetus Back to Top Showing Replies:   1 - 20  of 20 Posts Jump to Page:   1 View Other 'Ohio Football' Topics                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               WHO'S ONLINE There are 155 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com 152 Guests 3 Registered Users:   colobobcat66, GraffZ06, Jeff Hill There are no other users looking at this page.

Copyright ©2025 BobcatAttack.com. All rights reserved.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use
Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties