Chattanooga 10/29 - Homecoming

[saltyshaker]

actually regarding the differenve in sound and picture on the radio and tv broadcast dan was actually almost a full play ahead of the tv broadcast.i thought dan had suddenly become psycic.he'd describe the play and then the tv would play it.

[furpop16]

Not a good look (part II) for SoCon officiating.

My heavens. On the radio, Dan & team reviewed the play and described it as unquestionably targeting. Of course, our announcers aren't officials; nevertheless, "targeting" now needs to be better defined & explained. Otherwise appears capricious.

[FU Hoopla]

Not a good look (part II) for SoCon officiating.

My heavens. On the radio, Dan & team reviewed the play and described it as unquestionably targeting. Of course, our announcers aren't officials; nevertheless, "targeting" now needs to be better defined & explained. Otherwise appears capricious.

Without question it was classic 'helmet to helmet' targeting, replay shows it very clearly

[Flagman]

Clay mentioned in his pre-game interview with Dan that when the one of ones practiced this week, things got testier.

Based on Tyler Huff's interview post-game—the DINS felt like they had things to prove on the field.

I thought early on the blindside block was a bad sign—it turns out I feel it showed us an early indication of Furman's fiesty-aggressive play.

Furman played far from perfect but the DINS were the better team. Our depth and diversity shined Saturday.

Officiating thoughts. I know UTC fans didn't like them, but I thought the calls were mostly correct. I think they missed a pass interference on Robinson late in the game, but then made up for it on maybe the very next play down by the goal line.

1. I went back and reviewed the rules on blindside blocks. They are forcible contact made in the open field outside the players' field of vision, so Dean's hit probably qualifies. What was odd, though, is that Dean was running almost right at him (surprising he didn't see someone right in front of him). However, the better thing to do would have just been to get in his way.

2. The targeting call, in my opinion, was absolutely the correct call. The only thing I thought was odd was that targeting was not called on the field. I have to assume there was a flag thrown because they were reviewing the play, the referee just did not indicate that targeting was under review.

There are two species of targeting. One involves the "crown of the helmet" and the other involves hitting a defenseless player. This was the latter.

Harris had just attempted to receive a pass over the middle of the field. He was still in the act of catching. That is a definitionally defenseless player.

The UTC linebacker then moved up to make forcible contact with the head or neck area. Definitional targeting. What's odd is he didn't even have to hit him, the ball was already by Harris when he initiated contact.

I watched the replay of the blindside hit. It was only blind side if the player was actually blind. It looked like an eye to eye hit.

[Flagman]

Rusty Wright should have been hit with an unsportsmanlike penalty for his sideline tirade.

[Flagman]

Not a good look (part II) for SoCon officiating.

Will we get another apology from the SoCon?

Despite this, Chatty still loses.

Yet another reason, the commissioner should look for a new supervisor of officials.

[apaladin]

Was there a statement from the SoCon?

[furpop16]

Yet another reason, the commissioner should look for a new supervisor of officials.

But Flag, the statement indicates the NCAA National Coordinator of officials backed him up. I'm really confused.

[MidlandsPaladin]

Clay mentioned in his pre-game interview with Dan that when the one of ones practiced this week, things got testier.

Based on Tyler Huff's interview post-game—the DINS felt like they had things to prove on the field.

I thought early on the blindside block was a bad sign—it turns out I feel it showed us an early indication of Furman's fiesty-aggressive play.

Furman played far from perfect but the DINS were the better team. Our depth and diversity shined Saturday.

Officiating thoughts. I know UTC fans didn't like them, but I thought the calls were mostly correct. I think they missed a pass interference on Robinson late in the game, but then made up for it on maybe the very next play down by the goal line.

1. I went back and reviewed the rules on blindside blocks. They are forcible contact made in the open field outside the players' field of vision, so Dean's hit probably qualifies. What was odd, though, is that Dean was running almost right at him (surprising he didn't see someone right in front of him). However, the better thing to do would have just been to get in his way.

2. The targeting call, in my opinion, was absolutely the correct call. The only thing I thought was odd was that targeting was not called on the field. I have to assume there was a flag thrown because they were reviewing the play, the referee just did not indicate that targeting was under review.

There are two species of targeting. One involves the "crown of the helmet" and the other involves hitting a defenseless player. This was the latter.

Harris had just attempted to receive a pass over the middle of the field. He was still in the act of catching. That is a definitionally defenseless player.

The UTC linebacker then moved up to make forcible contact with the head or neck area. Definitional targeting. What's odd is he didn't even have to hit him, the ball was already by Harris when he initiated contact.

I watched the replay of the blindside hit. It was only blind side if the player was actually blind. It looked like an eye to eye hit.

I think what we were penalized for is a crack-back block. They are trying to eliminate being able to peel back and block someone - even if you hit them square in the chest. If that is the case, we were guilty.

[The Jackal]

I'd be interesting to hear the ref's explanation of why it wasn't targeting. It looked to me to meet every definition.

[dornb]

Not a good look (part II) for SoCon officiating.

Will we get another apology from the SoCon?

Despite this, Chatty still loses.

Yet another reason, the commissioner should look for a new supervisor of officials.

Amen! We need a new supervisor of officials who can provide professional instruction on the rules and penalties. The whining and temper tantrums we have seen by some coaches are pathetic and should be penalized.

[tim]

Not a good look (part II) for SoCon officiating.

My heavens. On the radio, Dan & team reviewed the play and described it as unquestionably targeting. Of course, our announcers aren't officials; nevertheless, "targeting" now needs to be better defined & explained. Otherwise appears capricious.

Without question it was classic 'helmet to helmet' targeting, replay shows it very clearly

If THAT wasn't targeting, quit calling it, nothing is.

[The Jackal]

This is a relatively new rule. Schools can appeal through the conference to the coordinator of officials if a targeting occurs in the second half. If it had happened in the first half, it wouldn't have been appealable at all.

Essentially, this is a way to appeal a suspension from the next game.

Put a different way, the play happened. The refs on the field called and affirmed targeting. So, for all intents and purposes, there was targeting.

UTC appealed the disqualification. The NCAA coordinator of officials, in his final opinion, found there not to be targeting. This process is less about the individual play and more about the eligibility of the player.

So, on the one hand, it is targeting. That was the affirmed call.

On the other hand, someone given final authority by the NCAA decided it wasn't targeting.

[FUpaladin08]

Targeting is an opinion call just like pass interference. Even more reason those calls shouldn’t result in a playing being kicked out of the game and part of the next. That is unless there is actually intent to harm. Time to update that rule and better define the penalty if there can be so much indecision on the call.

[gofurman]

Several people mention “make up calls”. The funny thing is Refs are graded on the number of calls they get right and those that are wrong. One they missed was a clear PI on our defender - CLEAR - and then they appeared to make up for it on the next play. The thing is this means they get TWO calls wrong instead of ONE.
This is their job evaluation!! So they should never do a make up call. I’m not saying they don’t .. I’m not Naive …. but I knew a referee and he said he got promoted to bigger jobs /$ because he purposely avoided that and most of his friends did likewise. It got them more money. The ones who played to the makeup call never went far and generally stayed in HS or never made P5 where there is a lot of money. Just saying I’m always a little stunned when an obvious make up call is made soon after a missed call. You might as well be throwing money away. But they certainly appear to happen