Completely agree.
I’m sure anyone who denigrates any player(s) like that have never put on pads themselves.
From the Purdue forum
- Thread starter RUich
- Start date
I’m sure anyone who denigrates any player(s) like that have never put on pads themselves.
Love beating Purdue. We were better than them for years and then Flood and Ash. Just great we are 2-0 versus them.
Not even close to a “BS” call in today’s game. He did everything the rule says you can’t do. You can quarrel with the rule, but not the call.
Every tackle is lead with the crown of the helmet ... the helmet is on the head, and the head is attached to the shoulders, and every form tackle is made with one of the shoulders.
The call was not made by the refs on the field, who only had one quick look at it
It was made by the officials in the booth who could replay it, slow it down, and look at every angle
The guy hit our guy with the crown of his helmet no matter what you say, and he launched a bit in doing so
It was not a hasty call and looked like the correct call
Is it me or does Dremel seem to get drilled every week?
Tough kid.
Tough kid.
Except that this tackle did not involve the shoulder. The impact was crown of the helmet to lower faceguard / upper chest. Correct call. And you sound like more of a whiny pissed off Purdue fan than an RU fan.
I'm not a fanboy with my head in the sand; I call them like I see them. That was a terrible call and it had a dramatic effect on the game.
When I first saw the play I thought it was legal. But the replay showed him putting his head down and hitting with the crown.
Might not like the rule, but that's the rule.
Might not like the rule, but that's the rule.
Rutgers’ fans should understand more than most fan bases that there are two parts to the targeting call, and the part that was called yesterday isn’t terrible, it is an attempt to get defensive players to stop tackling in a way that can leave them with a severe neck injury.
Seems as if you just don’t like the evolution of the game and the targeting penalty. You can not like that all you want, but you can’t complain about that call....it was 100% targeting as the rule is written. If all you’re going to do is complain about what the game has become, maybe it’s time to step away.
I went there and I really do not have the time to get into it with the Purdue fanbase.
However, I did notice two things. They are ripping Brohm for his decisions and they are saying that they got screwed by the officials.
I actually think that Brohm did not have a bad game. He was able to identify that our defense could not tackle Horvath and he went to him repeatedly which nearly killed our defense in the 2nd quarter. While he did get away from this and Plummer pretty much lost the game with the back breaking interception. He probably wanted to save him for the 4th quarter. In addition, the announcers also said how Purdue's defense is not known for blitzing, but he saw how Art was shredding up his defense on his 2 TD drives early in the game. He then adjusted to using the blitz and Art started to have flashbacks to his true freshman year when he faced pressure. Otherwise, the SCILS guy would then have a long forum how Art should have been the starter all along and how Gleason is dumb for going with Vedral instead of Art. He would also mention how the team would have been 5-1 if Art was the starter from the beginning.
They also whined about the officiating by bringing up Derrick Barnes ejection and PI calls. Yes it was huge but they did not realize that it was the right call. The helmet definitely made contact with the body and Alaimo was defenseless. Kudos to Rutgers coaches for identifying this and putting Langan in for his QB power runs. (Derrick Barnes looks like he will be playing on sundays and I would love to see him in a Cowboys uniform with his pink pacifier mouth guard next season.) Rutgers also got screwed with no call on one pick play in the game that resulted in a TD and when RU tried to do something similar in the 4th quarter, they got his with a 15 yard penalty. There is no doubt that Rondale Moore pushed Avery Young off on another TD. Otherwise, Avery Young would have had another interception. RU was screwed by the officiating just as much as they were.
However, I did notice two things. They are ripping Brohm for his decisions and they are saying that they got screwed by the officials.
I actually think that Brohm did not have a bad game. He was able to identify that our defense could not tackle Horvath and he went to him repeatedly which nearly killed our defense in the 2nd quarter. While he did get away from this and Plummer pretty much lost the game with the back breaking interception. He probably wanted to save him for the 4th quarter. In addition, the announcers also said how Purdue's defense is not known for blitzing, but he saw how Art was shredding up his defense on his 2 TD drives early in the game. He then adjusted to using the blitz and Art started to have flashbacks to his true freshman year when he faced pressure. Otherwise, the SCILS guy would then have a long forum how Art should have been the starter all along and how Gleason is dumb for going with Vedral instead of Art. He would also mention how the team would have been 5-1 if Art was the starter from the beginning.
They also whined about the officiating by bringing up Derrick Barnes ejection and PI calls. Yes it was huge but they did not realize that it was the right call. The helmet definitely made contact with the body and Alaimo was defenseless. Kudos to Rutgers coaches for identifying this and putting Langan in for his QB power runs. (Derrick Barnes looks like he will be playing on sundays and I would love to see him in a Cowboys uniform with his pink pacifier mouth guard next season.) Rutgers also got screwed with no call on one pick play in the game that resulted in a TD and when RU tried to do something similar in the 4th quarter, they got his with a 15 yard penalty. There is no doubt that Rondale Moore pushed Avery Young off on another TD. Otherwise, Avery Young would have had another interception. RU was screwed by the officiating just as much as they were.
Last edited:
Well, it isn't like they are Rocket Scientists- oh wait...
Exactly, While, it may not have been intentional- that play was the very definition of targeting...WR was defenseless and defender hit him with the crown of the helmet up and around the neck/head area.
We should change our away jerseys to just say 'WHAT'S A RUTGERS?" in huge print so when we win it will be all the more miserable for them.
If we could only live life in slow motion , we’d never make mistakes.
That was a beautiful football play by the defender
So true.
And I was absolutely stunned that RU got a call like that on the road in the Big Ten.
But then, hasn't the history of Rutgers football been just full of such favorable calls ?
True, I don't.
I completely disagree; he's not purposefully (if at all) using the crown of the helmet to initiate contact.
Not our fault your vision is defective or you don't understand the rules...
Last edited:
Throttle back there big fella. Take a deep breath. ; )
There are some rules I can't stand, most of which hamper the defense because points puts fans in the seats (non-Covid, of course) across all sports. I hate the restrictions on DBs who are so often called for PI when a little bit of contact IMO should be allowed--it's football after all. As for the targeting call, I thought it was clean in real-time, but on replay he led with the helmet. It's brutal on a defender to have to make adjustments like that in fast motion, but the rules committee decided to take intent out of the equation, and that's unduly harsh on a defender. If something happened, he's guilty, and when it comes to targeting the penalty is too harsh IMO. Maybe they should have minor and major penalties, like in hockey, or like roughing the kicker. Targeting was designed to safeguard the defensive player as much as the offensive player, since leading with the helmet/head exposes the defender to neck injuries. It was the right call by the book, but it's the book that could be tweaked.
Last edited:
Except for the one year per decade when they go to the Rose Bowl.
But yeah I agree. Play with the mid teams every year. Win a couple top team games, and once in a while put together a big year
FIFY.. the main gist of the comment, imo, was that the Purdue board was melting down.. not in agreement with what those "fans" were saying. We have a lot of "fans" just like that.. you know it.
Right? Fading Jock has 5 posts.. and the guy who thanked him for posting has 4. They.. meaning HE.. is probably a PSU fan preparing for their own meltdown after losing to us.
Thought about the 2nd part of your post yesterday. If you lead and contact with your head, then a yardage penalty would be appropriate.
On the other hand, IF you target the head of a defenseless player, whether with a shoulder or helmet, then I think the ejection should be appropriate.
Regardless, as the rule is written, I think it was a legit call.
I'd like to see some offensive players get called for it when they dip their head for contact then. I have seen these targeting calls where the temple area of the defenders helmet is hit by the crown of the offensive player's helmet.. that's a BS call.. yes, heads hit.. but clearly the defender did not choose to risk getting his brains scrambled with getting hit on the temple.
You can see for yourself that my handle is from Sept 2003. Not sure what happened to my post history. Maybe lost it during one of the board migrations.
That's entirely irrelevant to everything, but I award you 10 SizzlePoints (10 SP) for your piping hot retort, nonetheless!
If the contact is not to a defenseless player's head or neck, the rule requires intent on the part of the defensive player to initiate contact with the crown of the helmet. There's no intent in this instance; if there was, the receiver wouldn't have a head right now ... because it would have been far easier and effective for the linebacker to have hit the receiver in the chin with the crown of his helmet than it was to kinda-sorta hit him perfectly in the center of his chest with his facemask and earhole.
Last edited:
Well, his name is DREMEL [roll]
I'm not singling you out, this is for everyone who thinks that this call was NOT targeting........I was NEVER taught to lead with my head OR facemask when tackling. That was actually discouraged for fear of neck injuries and/or paralysis. Perfect form for a tackle is "hat on the ball" and initiating contact with the shoulder, plain and simple.
You can dispute that all you want but you'll be wrong! BTW, I played in the 80's when rules were a LOT MORE lenient.
Players can be automatically disqualified (following replay review) for violating two definable rules: Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3) and Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player (Rule 9-1-4).
Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3)
- No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting. When in question, it is a foul.
- Launch--a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area.
- A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground.
- Leading with helmet, shoulder forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area.
- Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of his helmet.
Notice the last bullet has nothing to do with head or neck area...initiating forcible contact (not incidental contact) with crown after lowering head into tackle is targeting.
Officiating is hard enough without having to figure out "intent". The rule has been changed for a few years now that players have it drummed into them not to use the crown of their helmet. All he had to do was lift his head and no penalty would be called.
Agree with RaRa and Wisr 100% - and I do not think anyone believes there was any intent in the play. But a rule is a rule. Just like a few weeks ago when we lost Toure to the same rules. There was no intent. Same with the hit at the knees of Sit, I do not believe the defender had intent to take out the QB knees but again, rule is a rule. It is not always about intent.
Now, to the point that RaRa made- also agree- to be disqualified, I believe it should be ruled that there was obvious intent. Or maybe the 2nd one called on a player as we do with personal fouls. Make it 15 yds from the point of contact or line of scrimmage, whichever is more and an auto 1st down. But Toure, with us a few weeks ago and the Purdue Defender this week, should have stayed in game.
If you're going to the trouble of creating a list like that, it is also either homophobic or misogynistic.
I thought this thread was funny