Fisch says CJ West not likely to sit out 1st half Saturday.....

[eddy4iu]

He's heard a strong rumor that the B10 has rescinded that penalty for his targeting call vs UCLA.. Can't remember when a ruling like this favored IU!

[btownqb]

Then fine the officiating crew. That was some horse poop. 

[Hoosierfan1901]

37 minutes ago, eddy4iu said:

He's heard a strong rumor that the B10 has rescinded that penalty for his targeting call vs UCLA.. Can't remember when a ruling like this favored IU!

A rescinded penalty for IU??? Is this another dimension we are living in?

[MSHoosier]

I don't remember, was the West call the one where he put his facemask in his chest, or was it the one where he had his head down going for a fumble ?

 

[IU Scott]

52 minutes ago, MSHoosier said:

I don't remember, was the West call the one where he put his facemask in his chest, or was it the one where he had his head down going for a fumble ?

 

It was when UCLA QB dropped the snap and put his head down just in time for West to hit him in the head.

[5fouls]

It needs to be coupled with a penalty against the UCLA player that went helmet to helmet on the interception return.  

[BobSaccamanno]

That’s good for CJ.   

Having said that, these rules are transparently set up so they can point to rules in case of lawsuits.  The rules are arbitrary and capricious.  They don’t really operate to make the game safer.  

You’re in effect suspending a player from playing when you kick him out of a game and then make him miss another half.   But you’re doing so even if there is no intent.   The plain meaning of the word “targeting” means aiming an attack, which should be implying intent but we know that’s not how it’s playing out.

CJ West isn’t the only example.  We have seen inadvertent helmet to helmet collisions caused by two players’ movements where innocent guys are kicked out.  I don’t think McFadden had any intent when he was infamously kicked out against Cincinnati a couple of years ago as another example.  To suspend a player without intent but due to the vagaries of two people moving is absurd.   You’re suspending someone for something inadvertent.  How does that make the game safer?

Then they’ve created this weird standard that a player running with the ball is not defenseless so a helmet to helmet to tackle him, which can be far more vicious than the inadvertent knocking of heads, is not eligible for targeting.  Furthermore, there’s little to no protection of any defenders.  

We saw how little any of that made sense.  This isn’t specific to Indiana.  This outcome could happen to anyone.  

I would tell the NCAA lawyers to try again to create rules that make sense.  We are all for that.  While everyone knows football is inherently dangerous, no one wants to see a player suffer CTE or be in constant pain when they are older.  But the rules have to be designed to actually function to help.  These don’t.  They should look at a minimum of the NBA flagrant rules and you damn well better see intent before you kick someone out.   As written these rules could be mocked by a plaintiff’s lawyer for being superficial and not actually addressing core issues.

That is without getting into the Carr sack.  It was as textbook as it gets.  He literally did it perfectly.   Again, nothing in calling that penalty makes anything safer.  It’s asinine.   No human alive doesn’t understand you’re taking a risk when you play football.   Sure, design rules and equipment that help.  Not this.  

Edited Monday at 10:59 PM by BobSaccamanno

[rogue3542]

43 minutes ago, BobSaccamanno said:

That’s good for CJ.   

Having said that, these rules are transparently set up so they can point to rules in case of lawsuits.  The rules are arbitrary and capricious.  They don’t really operate to make the game safer.  

You’re in effect suspending a player from playing when you kick him out of a game and then make him miss another half.   But you’re doing so even if there is no intent.   The plain meaning of the word “targeting” means aiming an attack, which should be implying intent but we know that’s not how it’s playing out.

CJ West isn’t the only example.  We have seen inadvertent helmet to helmet collisions caused by two players’ movements where innocent guys are kicked out.  I don’t think McFadden had any intent when he was infamously kicked out against Cincinnati a couple of years ago as another example.  To suspend a player without intent but due to the vagaries of two people moving is absurd.   You’re suspending someone for something inadvertent.  How does that make the game safer?

Then they’ve created this weird standard that a player running with the ball is not defenseless so a helmet to helmet to tackle him, which can be far more vicious than the inadvertent knocking of heads, is not eligible for targeting.  Furthermore, there’s little to no protection of any defenders.  

We saw how little any of that made sense.  This isn’t specific to Indiana.  This outcome could happen to anyone.  

I would tell the NCAA lawyers to try again to create rules that make sense.  We are all for that.  While everyone knows football is inherently dangerous, no one wants to see a player suffer CTE or be in constant pain when they are older.  But the rules have to be designed to actually function to help.  These don’t.  They should look at a minimum of the NBA flagrant rules and you damn well better see intent before you kick someone out.   As written these rules could be mocked by a plaintiff’s lawyer for being superficial and not actually addressing core issues.

That is without getting into the Carr sack.  It was as textbook as it gets.  He literally did it perfectly.   Again, nothing in calling that penalty makes anything safer.  It’s asinine.   No human alive doesn’t understand you’re taking a risk when you play football.   Sure, design rules and equipment that help.  Not this.  

The ucla hit on our guy after he made the interception was by far the worst hit of the game, and definitely intentional. You could literally see the IU player’s helmet bend with the hit.

I don’t really have a problem with the Ponds call, except that by technicalities it shouldn’t have been targeting. It’s still the kind of hit that needs to be removed from the game for this sport to get safer (and ultimately live on). With that said though, we still need to make it possible for defenders to break up a pass and play the game.

They’ve definitely lost the spirit of the targeting rule, favoring vague technicalities instead.