What do you think of the targeting call on James Ross?

Submitted by FatGuyTouchdown on

Ross was ejected for targeting on a questionable call. Anyone have a real issue with it or was it called by the rules?

MGoBoard
Football
ross
Targeting

Mr. Yost

October 10th, 2015 at 5:50 PM ^

What kind of reaction do you think you're going to get on this board? 5 minutes after the call?

And why couldn't you ask in the open thread?

Questions answer a question...don't you love me? See, another question.

Joined: 07/25/2011

MGoPoints: -9898220

Mr. Yost

October 10th, 2015 at 6:08 PM ^

My point was...why would you ask a Michigan board 5 minutes after it happened?

Do you think you're going to get a bunch of rational, deep thought?

If you really wanted a genuine answer to your question...you would've asked it at a time when you could've gotten an objective answer.

Joined: 07/25/2011

MGoPoints: -9898220

Profwoot

October 10th, 2015 at 5:52 PM ^

Seemed pretty much text book targeting. Clearly defenseless receiver, clearly hit him helmet to helmet. Doesn't mean there was ill intent, but if that's not targeting there's no such thing.

Joined: 10/12/2010

MGoPoints: 155

I Like Burgers

October 10th, 2015 at 5:52 PM ^

Call was borderline, but bullshit given the reversal on the hit to Rudock when he slid. Plus the no call on the hit out of bounds. If you're going to let stuff slide, let it slide both ways.

Hope it doesn't hurt us next game.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 10/06/2012

MGoPoints: 30574

TheTruth41

October 10th, 2015 at 8:51 PM ^

Had the Michigan radio feed synced up for most ofnyge game. actually started it during the rudock helmet to helmet. was interesting to hear the two sides of it. May do this more often. Had to pause/fast forward the TV a bit throughout the game but wasnt bad and a much better alternative to the TV broadcasters.

Joined: 10/07/2010

MGoPoints: 3180

m1jjb00

October 10th, 2015 at 5:55 PM ^

He left his feet.  Was around the head.  Ball was gone.  I don't think it's so immoral that his soul is in danger, but yeah I think it qualifies.

I don't get hitting a quarterback sliding with the crown of the helmet in the QB's helmet and it not only not getting targeting but not even 15 yards.

At least we won't have to listen to NW saying they were robbed of anything.

Joined: 11/21/2009

MGoPoints: 8063

HelloHeisman91

October 10th, 2015 at 5:57 PM ^

Targeting in general needs to be reviewed by the rules committee.  The spirit of the rule has been infected with fear of head trauma.  It's being applied erroneously and it sucks. 

Joined: 08/05/2009

MGoPoints: 46190

Pinky

October 10th, 2015 at 5:57 PM ^

After looking at it again, it probably was targeting, but man.  What are you supposed to do if your the LB there? 

Joined: 02/05/2015

MGoPoints: 7353

turtleboy

October 10th, 2015 at 6:01 PM ^

I think it was the definition of questionable, because he wasn't in pursuit. He simply stood his ground, and lowered himself for a hit. The player ran to him. Contact happened. Bad call.

Joined: 04/22/2011

MGoPoints: 35131

Jon06

October 10th, 2015 at 6:04 PM ^

I thought the reversed call on NU was a terrible piece of refereeing, but not because the call was reversed. They didn't call the second guy to jump on Rudock for a personal foul, and they should have. I think they didn't call it because they were calling targeting. But once the targeting was overturned (which I thought was wrong by the rule but whatever), given that it wasn't a hard enough hit to also be a personal foul, the second foul needed to have been called.

Joined: 09/19/2009

MGoPoints: 15295

RJWolvie

October 10th, 2015 at 6:16 PM ^

Exactly as I see it too. Could've let the Ross hit go, but it probably did meet the rule's definition. The hit on Rudock (by Harris, ironically, was borderline to eject, but was definitely a late hit in there. That nothing called kept at least 3 more off the board, too, remember



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 10/22/2011

MGoPoints: 4417