Targeting is just a bias call?
October 31st, 2015 at 11:13 PM ^
October 31st, 2015 at 11:42 PM ^
B1G hoops season is right around the corner with shitty Ed Hightower behind the whistle.
November 1st, 2015 at 12:07 AM ^
November 1st, 2015 at 12:31 AM ^
If the Big Ten gave Hightower a contract similar to the ones Undertaker and Brock Lesnar have with WWE, where he could make a few sporadic appearances a year, he would happily come back and fuck Michigan a few more times a year.
If they had an "award" for biggest piece of garbage to ever officiate college basketball, he would definitely be in the running.
November 1st, 2015 at 12:11 AM ^
The baby fro is coming to a sideline near you. I wonder if he could do a game with Teddy Valentine. They could just do the hustle all game long.
November 1st, 2015 at 1:20 AM ^
November 1st, 2015 at 9:52 AM ^
October 31st, 2015 at 11:14 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 31st, 2015 at 11:14 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 31st, 2015 at 11:15 PM ^
I don't think the first hit looked like targeting. It's a stupid rule anyway. I don't think the officials had it in for us today. The MSU game was bad. I thought this game was fair.
October 31st, 2015 at 11:17 PM ^
October 31st, 2015 at 11:17 PM ^
November 1st, 2015 at 12:33 AM ^
The quarterback should be the most protected player on the field at all times. The first guy that hit Ruddock hit him with his helmet. The second guy that knocked the helmet off lead with basically helmet and shoulder pad and hit directly a defensless Ruddock square in the skull while going down. Knocking the helmet clean off. How is that not a penalty. Nothing ruins a game like shitty officiating. Never fails. Cant get the calls at home or on the road. These refs are paid off or take their bias into the games. My dad said it years ago when I was in third grade. It pissed me off so bad at the time. I knew the old man was right. Something has to be done about refs makind bullshit calls. Seriously, I cant watch Michigan get hosed like this for the next 50 years.
November 1st, 2015 at 7:18 AM ^
It is targeting because by rule you can not initiate contact with the head on a defenselesss player with any part of your body including arm elbow shoulder. it doesnt have to be head to head. The second vine in that article is more the classic targeting call everyone is familiar with (except refs making calls in a michigan game) than the first but both are by rule targeting. (Rule 9-1-4) No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder.
October 31st, 2015 at 11:16 PM ^
Hit on Rudock that injured him was not targeting; not hit with crown of helmet.
October 31st, 2015 at 11:53 PM ^
of MSU game for targeting, involving a lesser "hit" that wasn't with the crown of his helmut. (Even ignoring how the offensive lineman was pushing him down onto Cook.) The inconsistency of the conference's officiating is ridiculous.
November 1st, 2015 at 9:27 AM ^
Well ifs and and buts....
be glad we dont have ACC refs
October 31st, 2015 at 11:43 PM ^
Objectively, I thought that was incidental. The earlier one where the defender popped him right under the chin leading with his helmet was 100% targetting and that player shouldve been ejected.
November 1st, 2015 at 12:48 AM ^
See, I actually didn't have any problem with the injury hit not being called because it did look like a weird play with Rudock getting hit by the other minnesota player which threw off where the questioned targeting hit took place, but at the same time, it's just ridiculous that lesser offenses get called while terrible hits to Rudock go uncalled. This rule just makes no sense, and I don't even know what they can do to make it better.
November 1st, 2015 at 12:08 AM ^
Doesn't have to be with the crown, any attempt to hit the opponent above the shoulders is also considered targetting.
November 1st, 2015 at 12:11 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 1st, 2015 at 12:51 AM ^
Shumate was making a FOOTBALL play on trying to dislodge the ball from the WR's hand when he's in the air. What was he supposed to do? Let him catch it and land on the ground for a TD? No, you hit him and hope he doesn't catch it.
That's how you play football as a DB. Make them pay for trying to jump and catch the ball.
Also, the hit by Marcus Ray on David Boston that sent him flying down to the ground in 1997 would've been a personal foul in today's game. Both are football plays but one would be a personal foul/targeting in today's game.
November 1st, 2015 at 1:10 AM ^
That's football. I agree with protecting the kids but then I rethink my true thoughts of the game of football. Back on the play ground if you couldn't handle the game you had to go play house or tag or whatever with the girls. Football is for the best of the best athletes. That's why they play the games. It's why the sport was created. For the studs. So the way they had it awhile back was better. Leading with the helmet is an advantage and dangerous if you know how to use that ability. I was one who used that with my cowboy collar as an outside linebacker. The poor boys didn't stand a chance. Looking back I would've hated to have been on the receiving end of them hits. Other than that, if the ball is the air, it touches the receivers hands at any spot on the field, he gets jacked up. You go up for the ball expect to get hit.
November 1st, 2015 at 1:12 AM ^
Banged all those girls in high school.
November 1st, 2015 at 8:32 AM ^
the moment they fully realized that all those bangs to the head can cause serious long-term neurological problems.
The reality is quickly becoming, yes, you let the guy make the catch and then tackle him.
It's kinda like how chop blocks are illegal because guys need their knees. Guys also kinda need their heads.
November 1st, 2015 at 10:58 AM ^
if you're going to let the guy catch the ball. I sure ain't damn going to let that WR catch the ball even if it means hitting him hard to get the ball out of his hands.
Chop blocks is a perfectly valid rule because you can't go low when DL is engaged with the OL. Different situation.
November 2nd, 2015 at 11:28 PM ^
Did not agree with it.
My issue here is the situation on how its happening. Here you have a DB trying to lay a hit on a WR catching a ball. The WR jumps into the air no longer having control of his body. While Shumate is lining him up to undercut his body. Had the WR been running and this was the same hit I would then agree and say yes. This is indeed targetting. Shumate is lining up the hit while the WR is in the air.
November 1st, 2015 at 12:12 AM ^
November 1st, 2015 at 10:58 AM ^
October 31st, 2015 at 11:17 PM ^
October 31st, 2015 at 11:18 PM ^
October 31st, 2015 at 11:31 PM ^
November 1st, 2015 at 1:44 AM ^
It's not targeting because, by rule, Rudock was not a "defenseless player." He wasn't throwing or catching a pass, wasn't kicking or catching a kick, wasn't on the ground, his forward progress hadn't clearly been stopped, he wasn't out of the play (he was the ball carrier after all), he hadn't received a blind-side block, there hadn't been a change of possession.
That's it. If you aren't one of those, you aren't protected. Quarterbacks don't receive any special protection unless they're throwing or have just thrown a pass, or there's been a change in possession.
Most of the examples put forward of uneven enforcement of the rule are comparing two similar hits, one against a player "defenseless" by rule and one against a player that wasn't.
November 1st, 2015 at 1:29 AM ^
Yeoman, you and I must have seen a different game. The one I saw Ruddock was going into a slide so as not to get hurt. According to your definition, that was targeting. Then again, maybe I saw a different game!
November 1st, 2015 at 9:45 AM ^
That's it. If you aren't one of those, you aren't protected.
How can you do such a great job of listing all the rulebook examples of a defenseless player and then make a silly statement like that? The rulebook also very specifically says "examples include but are not limited to" and also "when in question, a player is defenseless."
"If you aren't one of those, you aren't protected" is precisely the opposite of what the rulebook says.
October 31st, 2015 at 11:31 PM ^
October 31st, 2015 at 11:31 PM ^
October 31st, 2015 at 11:32 PM ^
November 1st, 2015 at 12:24 AM ^
was baffling.
this was not a horrible officiating crew. there were tough calls, close calls, and the TV guys called it correctly each time, always good evidence for the ref calls, whether we liked the result or not, nothing to get outraged about. Normal game stuff,
except for the Rudock hit...
When Jake's helmet flew off there may have been a case to be made in both directions but it at least should have been looked at..... player safety is supposed to be the reason.
November 1st, 2015 at 12:09 AM ^
The crappy part is that the officials could literally have watched the replay. If they had and said no targeting, then fine. But there was no attempt. If Bolden was ejected for his hit, I have no idea how these two hits weren't even reviewed.
November 1st, 2015 at 9:08 AM ^
The problem is you have to take all the other factors such as the other player hitting him first and Rudock sliding late. But, when a lot of calls are made for targeting, the refs don't take those into consideration. The rule brings a lot of inconclusive decisions. Replay officials are terrible also. If you strictly go by the book, then he hit a sliding player (defenseless) above his shoulder. Then it is targeting.
October 31st, 2015 at 11:18 PM ^
November 1st, 2015 at 12:05 AM ^
Not true at all. Did you see the targeting call in the Texas Tech game? I think Michigan has gotten screwed over with targeting, but that one was far far worse. Michigan isn't the only one getting screwed over. The rule is ridiculous. It's the most serious penalty you can have in the game and the inconsistency (not just with Michigan) is infuriating. Really needs to be addressed.
October 31st, 2015 at 11:20 PM ^
Not the crown of the helmet. No foul.
November 1st, 2015 at 12:10 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
November 1st, 2015 at 10:31 AM ^
Rudock wasn't defenseless.
November 1st, 2015 at 11:11 AM ^
October 31st, 2015 at 11:20 PM ^
I've seen two really bad targeting calls, one against Texas Tech and one against ND just a few minutes ago. And one very clear targeting that wasn't against Rudock. That was actually targeting, as defined in teh rule book...he launched at Rudock's chin, and Rudock was standing straight up. THATS what is actual supposed to be called targeting.
But very rarely do they ever get it right it seems. The rule is stupid...just get rid of it.
October 31st, 2015 at 11:37 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad