Donnie Brasco

October 31st, 2015 at 11:13 PM ^

both should have been targeting. Im starting to think harbaugh pissed some people off in high places

Tater

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.  

jimt1023

October 31st, 2015 at 11:15 PM ^

Hit looks like targeting to me and probably should have been called.



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.

A Fan In Fargo

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.

BuckNekked

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.

TheRonimal

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.

Michigan4Life

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.

A Fan In Fargo

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.  

Michigan4Life

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.

phork

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.

Dawkins

October 31st, 2015 at 11:18 PM ^

I agree with the no call. I understand why youre upset, since targeting has been called many times in situations like that where it shouldn't have been. But it was the correct call. The league needs to do a better job of getting the officials to understand and apply the rule uniformly.

Yeoman

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.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

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.

You Only Live Twice

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.

UMForLife

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.

Gulogulo37

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.

CompleteLunacy

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.