|
Furman
Nov 12, 2022 10:09:18 GMT -5
Post by FUBeAR on Nov 12, 2022 10:09:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Furman
Nov 12, 2022 16:22:34 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by mumd on Nov 12, 2022 16:22:34 GMT -5
TFBS on the targeting on Mercer. Can’t believe this. And now the spot?  These officials are fuc$&@g crazy!
|
|
|
Furman
Nov 12, 2022 16:51:37 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by BearDownMU on Nov 12, 2022 16:51:37 GMT -5
We are killing ourselves.
And I have no idea what the deal was with the targeting. Feels not equitable.
|
|
ursus
Spires Bear
 
Posts: 213
|
Furman
Nov 12, 2022 16:59:25 GMT -5
via mobile
mumd likes this
Post by ursus on Nov 12, 2022 16:59:25 GMT -5
Blocked kick.....
Feels like the targetings should be opposite. We're not getting much on the ground and now down one of our best receivers means we're gonna need something going our way to pull this out.
|
|
|
Furman
Nov 12, 2022 18:29:16 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by MUfan on Nov 12, 2022 18:29:16 GMT -5
Mercer can’t seem to step up for the bigger games.
|
|
|
Furman
Nov 12, 2022 20:32:22 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by BearFan on Nov 12, 2022 20:32:22 GMT -5
Unfortunate loss tonight. What makes me even more mad is finding out that Furman absolutely TRASHED the visitors locker room complete with broken chairs, upturned Trashcans and spilled Gatorade all over the floor. (There is photo proof of this, these are not baseless accusations)
I’ll tell you what, losing tonight sucked but I will always thank Drew Cronic for running a classy program and building our men up to be leaders. Furman administration and coaches should be ashamed of their players.
|
|
|
Furman
Nov 12, 2022 23:48:30 GMT -5
mumd likes this
Post by jackal on Nov 12, 2022 23:48:30 GMT -5
We are killing ourselves. And I have no idea what the deal was with the targeting. Feels not equitable. First, great game by the Bears. They played their butts off tonight. Second, while I don't come around much anymore, but I do like rules discussions. As you probably know, Furman fans have had a belly full of SoCon refs after their complete debacle in our Samford game. So, rules interpretations by SoCon refs are like their own little insane asylum for me. Trying to be as objective as possible, this is my best guess. Honestly, it's more than you will get from the SoCon office. Reverse order: (1) I was surprised the refs threw a flag on the batted pass. I believe the refs are instructed to make the call if in doubt, but nothing on the video replay suggested targeting to me. I think that was clearly the correct call. (2) The Ty James hit. I think this hit would have fallen under the second of two definitions of targeting - forcible contact with the head or neck area of a defenseless player. The definition of "defenseless player" includes a kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick. So, I think Furman's punt returner, Cally Chizik, meets the definition of a defenseless player. The question then becomes whether there is some "indication of targeting." As I saw the replay, James hit Chizik with his shoulder in the head or neck area. Forcible contact with the head or neck with the shoulder is an "indication of targeting." So, in my view, that hit meets both elements: there is an indication of targeting due to the player leading with his shoulder in making forcible contact with the head or neck area of a definitionally defenseless player. I think the refs probably got that one correct. (3) the Jack Barton hit. This was a tougher call for me. The play itself on replay was a little tougher to diagnose than the James hit, which was obvious in so far as it happened off to itself with good camera angles. It appeared to me that Payton jumped and spun in an effort to throw the ball right before he was hit. Under the definitions, Payton is arguably a defenseless player having just thrown the ball. I suppose in their judgment, there was no indication of targeting - forcible contact with the head or neck. Comparing the two plays, James was essentially on a full run when he made contact with Chizik. Barton and Payton were sort of all mixed up in the jostle of a lot of QB pressure. Maybe that's what the refs saw as the difference in the two plays. Honestly, I thought Barton's hit was going to be upheld. It could go either way, but with the call on the field being targeting, I assumed it would hold. I think the James call was technically correct. I think the third call wasn't remotely targeting.
|
|
|
Furman
Nov 13, 2022 22:32:58 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by commoncents on Nov 13, 2022 22:32:58 GMT -5
The Mercer QB was “arguably defenseless”? Um, he had just thrown the ball. By definition, he was defenseless. Furman defender took two full steps after the ball came out of the QB’s hand, lowered his helmet, hammered the QB’s face mask with his helmet, QB’s head snaps straight back. They could have called either a late hit/roughing the passer or targeting. Would have given Mercer a first down deep in Furman territory and would have completely changed how the 2nd qtr played out. As we know, the last 6:00 of the 2nd qtr. flipped the game in all respects. SoCon officials are a complete embarrassment each and every week.
|
|
|
Furman
Nov 14, 2022 6:46:23 GMT -5
Post by jackal on Nov 14, 2022 6:46:23 GMT -5
The Mercer QB was “arguably defenseless”? Um, he had just thrown the ball. By definition, he was defenseless. Furman defender took two full steps after the ball came out of the QB’s hand, lowered his helmet, hammered the QB’s face mask with his helmet, QB’s head snaps straight back. They could have called either a late hit/roughing the passer or targeting. Would have given Mercer a first down deep in Furman territory and would have completely changed how the 2nd qtr played out. As we know, the last 6:00 of the 2nd qtr. flipped the game in all respects. SoCon officials are a complete embarrassment each and every week. I went back and watched the play just to confirm. Mercer was running a TE screen. Payton sprinted back and to his left and then attempted a sort of jump/spin throw to the TE. Barton had one step prior to hitting the QB. I suppose minds can differ, but it appears to me (again, trying to be objective) that Barton puts his facemask in Payton's chest. I assume that given the overturned call, the referees did not determine that there was an "indication of targeting" - there was no action by Barton to create forcible contact to Payton's head. Some of the awkwardness of the hit was created because Payton was jumping while he was throwing. Barton was a yard away and running full speed when Payton released the ball with both feet off the ground. My intent isn't to speak for SoCon referees. It's to try and answer the question on why those three "targeting" calls were made.
|
|
ursus
Spires Bear
 
Posts: 213
|
Furman
Nov 14, 2022 10:48:38 GMT -5
Post by ursus on Nov 14, 2022 10:48:38 GMT -5
The Mercer QB was “arguably defenseless”? Um, he had just thrown the ball. By definition, he was defenseless. Furman defender took two full steps after the ball came out of the QB’s hand, lowered his helmet, hammered the QB’s face mask with his helmet, QB’s head snaps straight back. They could have called either a late hit/roughing the passer or targeting. Would have given Mercer a first down deep in Furman territory and would have completely changed how the 2nd qtr played out. As we know, the last 6:00 of the 2nd qtr. flipped the game in all respects. SoCon officials are a complete embarrassment each and every week. I went back and watched the play just to confirm. Mercer was running a TE screen. Payton sprinted back and to his left and then attempted a sort of jump/spin throw to the TE. Barton had one step prior to hitting the QB. I suppose minds can differ, but it appears to me (again, trying to be objective) that Barton puts his facemask in Payton's chest. I assume that given the overturned call, the referees did not determine that there was an "indication of targeting" - there was no action by Barton to create forcible contact to Payton's head. Some of the awkwardness of the hit was created because Payton was jumping while he was throwing. Barton was a yard away and running full speed when Payton released the ball with both feet off the ground. My intent isn't to speak for SoCon referees. It's to try and answer the question on why those three "targeting" calls were made.   Just the top of the helmet right to the facemask. You can go back to the Furman board now. See you next year!
|
|
|
Furman
Nov 14, 2022 14:12:46 GMT -5
via mobile
mumd likes this
Post by commoncents on Nov 14, 2022 14:12:46 GMT -5
Jack, are you serious? Did I miss a rule change making a quarterback NOT defenseless if it’s a screen pass? But you’re right about one thing—his face mask did go under Payton’s helmet; it was merely the crown of his helmet that hit Payton directly in the head. In any event, what evidence was there to REVERSE the call that was made? The refs blew it, as per usual, and it turned the game around. Congrats to Furman for taking advantage.
|
|
|
Furman
Nov 14, 2022 15:03:20 GMT -5
Post by commoncents on Nov 14, 2022 15:03:20 GMT -5
 Attachments:
|
|
|
Furman
Nov 14, 2022 15:04:32 GMT -5
Post by commoncents on Nov 14, 2022 15:04:32 GMT -5
You can see from the end zone angle that poor #93 just didn’t have a chance to slow down before launching into Payton’s head 🙄
|
|