|
Replies: 43
| visibility 852
|
Webmaster [∞]
TigerPulse: 100%
∞
Posts: 44960
Joined: 2012
|
New Story: Swinney on Smith hit: "We need to take off the pads and put flags on"
Nov 9, 2014, 6:56 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
All-TigerNet [10134]
TigerPulse: 100%
45
|
Re: New Story: Swinney on Smith hit: "We need to take off the pads and put flags on"
Nov 9, 2014, 6:59 PM
|
|
Amen to that! These rules are watering down the sport. They've already taken away the kick return now we can't separate the receiver from the ball? Bad call!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2566]
TigerPulse: 89%
32
|
The real problem is that the penalty is way too
Nov 9, 2014, 7:33 PM
|
|
punitive. Here you have a judgment call play to protect players, and that's all fine and good, but if the judgment goes against the player, he misses the rest of the second half and the next game, first half. This would be the equivalent of a flagrant one in basketball resulting in missing the rest of the basketball game and the first half of the next. It's sort of like levying the death penalty for an involuntary manslaughter. Why not just penalize the team fifteen yards and maybe two series, or a quarter of play? Why is the penalty disproportionately stiff? It's not consistent with anything except an over-reaction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [210]
TigerPulse: 60%
13
|
Re: The real problem is that the penalty is way too
Nov 9, 2014, 8:00 PM
|
|
These guys are jocks ( and I mean the coaches and administrators ) that set the rules--don't expect them to think logically! They are always putting in new rules and never fixing old ones that need changing ( like the Wake punter whose knee touched the ground ). I am glad that it worked in our favor, but it is a stupid rule that has never been fixed. Just go with the NFL rule that you cannot be down unless touched by an opponent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10134]
TigerPulse: 100%
45
|
Re: The real problem is that the penalty is way too
Nov 9, 2014, 8:09 PM
|
|
Agree, the judgement call is vague. I really don't know what constitutes as targeting as I've seen it many ways. Smith did launch into the receiver but turned at the last second to prevent helmet to helmet. His shoulder clearly hit the guy in the chest, which is a clean hit but the launch made it targeting. If that's the case they should ban a helmet to chest or shoulder to chest hit as well because as it stands now , there is no definative picture to what targeting is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [27060]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 45940
Joined: 2010
|
"Launch" does NOT make it targeting without a blow to the
Nov 9, 2014, 10:19 PM
|
|
neck area/ head or leading with the helmet according to the rule. They just decided to enhance their interpretation. The call on the field was understandable. The review in the booth was BS !!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [278]
TigerPulse: 100%
14
|
Re: "Launch" does NOT make it targeting without a blow to the
Nov 10, 2014, 9:21 AM
|
|
Agree, the refs are liberal in their on-field interpretation because they expect the booth to make the correct call on review.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3311]
TigerPulse: 100%
34
|
Re: "Launch" does NOT make it targeting without a blow to the
Nov 10, 2014, 11:45 AM
|
|
you're right, I don't fault the refs on the field for throwing the flag. Heck I thought it was targeting initially. Then the replay was definitive, in my mind, that it was not targeting at all. The ref in the booth screwed up and the ACC covered their butt. Hopefully that's all it was and not a case of someone wanting us to be without one of senior leaders for the first half of the Tech game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Sports Icon [53858]
TigerPulse: 100%
59
Posts: 43700
Joined: 2004
|
Careful, der führer will fine you.***
Nov 9, 2014, 8:06 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [27060]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 45940
Joined: 2010
|
Swat Swof...***
Nov 9, 2014, 10:20 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zealot [868]
TigerPulse: 50%
23
|
Dabo needs to back off this one...
Nov 9, 2014, 9:02 PM
|
|
With all we've learned about concussions and what players go through years after playing football, this rule is in place to protect them.
The hit wasn't helmet to helmet but it was a safety going for the kill shot on a reciever over the middle which is what they're trying to prevent and discourage these players from doing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [128]
TigerPulse: 65%
11
|
GPOY
Nov 9, 2014, 9:20 PM
|
|
You are either a female child or a homersexual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4506]
TigerPulse: 100%
36
|
Coot***
Nov 9, 2014, 9:44 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Time Great [97516]
TigerPulse: 100%
63
Posts: 97188
Joined: 2009
|
What do you have against female children who are homos?***
Nov 9, 2014, 10:36 PM
[ in reply to GPOY ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1781]
TigerPulse: 100%
31
|
Right, they need to go low and cripple them for life.
Nov 9, 2014, 9:31 PM
[ in reply to Dabo needs to back off this one... ] |
|
Damage to the lower extremities is a much higher probability and just as dibilatating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zealot [868]
TigerPulse: 50%
23
|
Re: Right, they need to go low and cripple them for life.
Nov 9, 2014, 11:26 PM
|
|
Players with beat up knees haven't killed themselves like players that had concussions.
Brain injuries are more serious than a broke leg.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2576]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
No new rules needed to be instituted for safety.
Nov 9, 2014, 9:37 PM
[ in reply to Dabo needs to back off this one... ] |
|
Spearing was already a penalty, just never called.
Plus, leading with helmet is more likely to hurt the hitter, not the hittee.
When was the last time a player got injured, not just hurt, when someone unloaded into his chest? I don't recall seeing it.
The spinal injuries I've seen are usually an offensive player dropping his head, or two defenders running into each other after dropping their heads when coming into contact.
Otherwise, the most gruesome injuries are to legs and ankles when guys get caught in the pile or rolled up on.
I think this is another case of doing something to be seen doing something without actually doing anything useful. Kind of like airport security.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [27060]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 45940
Joined: 2010
|
+1 and good analogy....***
Nov 9, 2014, 10:22 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [1145]
TigerPulse: 93%
26
|
He hit high in th chest. That probaly the place least
Nov 9, 2014, 10:02 PM
[ in reply to Dabo needs to back off this one... ] |
|
likely to injure him, but most likely to separate the ball if he caught it. I say he did exactly what he is supposed to do. I think that is what Dabo was saying too. Given the facts, your post doesn't make much sense to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zealot [868]
TigerPulse: 50%
23
|
Re: He hit high in th chest. That probaly the place least
Nov 9, 2014, 11:29 PM
|
|
It was a ######## call, I agree.
But I understand why they are calling it. If the receiver drops his head a foot he's knocked unconscious and being carted off the field.
You think they just have something against Dabo and Robert Smith?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [211]
TigerPulse: 74%
13
|
Give it a rest!
Nov 10, 2014, 3:51 PM
|
|
The counter arguments are too strong against your opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Playmaker [354]
TigerPulse: 100%
16
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [8455]
TigerPulse: 100%
43
Posts: 11261
Joined: 2011
|
Wrong. The league needs to explain to Dabo what was wrong
Nov 9, 2014, 10:08 PM
[ in reply to Dabo needs to back off this one... ] |
|
with Smith's hit. He needs to know so he can coach our players what will get called and what won't get called. AND then we have to hope the officials can be consistent. We need consistency in officiating. Dabo has a right to know what exactly was wrong with the hit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zealot [868]
TigerPulse: 50%
23
|
Re: Wrong. The league needs to explain to Dabo what was wrong
Nov 9, 2014, 11:31 PM
|
|
I didn't say he didn't need to know all that.
But saying "we need to take off the pads and use flags" is pretty childish IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3233]
TigerPulse: 98%
34
|
Yeah, let's make sure that they've safetly caught the ball
Nov 10, 2014, 12:22 AM
[ in reply to Dabo needs to back off this one... ] |
|
and taken at least 3 safe steps before we hit them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2218]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
Re: Dabo needs to back off this one...
Nov 10, 2014, 8:07 AM
[ in reply to Dabo needs to back off this one... ] |
|
I agree he shouldn't attack the rule itself. I think the rule is fine. But they need to do better enforcing it. Smith's hit was huge and it rocked the guy. But his head was turned to the side and he hit the guy in the chest. It was NOT targeting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2576]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
It's the rule that's stupid. Dabo's point is valid & logical***
Nov 10, 2014, 9:31 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rookie [18]
TigerPulse: 71%
2
|
Re: Dabo needs to back off this one...
Nov 10, 2014, 8:21 AM
[ in reply to Dabo needs to back off this one... ] |
|
Really, the tight end is a football player, he is wearing pads and a helmet just like every other player. He was hit in the chest not the head plain and simple, maybe he could wear a dress next time so he won't get hit as hard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14655]
TigerPulse: 80%
49
Posts: 23143
Joined: 1998
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [74]
TigerPulse: 92%
8
|
Re: Dabo needs to back off this one...
Nov 12, 2014, 8:16 AM
[ in reply to Dabo needs to back off this one... ] |
|
concussions? how about soccer, should we remove the header? that sport has the most concussions by far... the play and call were an over reaction b/c that WFU player got laid out....and laying down for a while. too bad. it's football- jump for a pass over the middle and that is what should happen. there was ZERO targeting or launching. shoulder to chest- and a dropped like a sack of dirt, period. Shame on the rules committee and the NCAA for this crap call. it should have been a top ten legal hits reel...Flags and trophies for everyone!!!!! Good bye Harry Reid!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1071]
TigerPulse: 100%
25
|
Re: Dabo needs to back off this one...
Nov 14, 2014, 7:09 AM
[ in reply to Dabo needs to back off this one... ] |
|
Dabo is 100% right.
Your comment is total BS. Robert Smith was obviously avoiding a "kill shot" because he made sure he hit the receiver in the chest with his shoulder, perfectly legal.
The intent of the rule is to prevent targeting defenseless players and hitting them in the head or using the helmet as a weapon. Robert did none of that and it was really clear in the video replay. Whoever reviewed the replay just blew it. I don't see anything anyone has said to indicate they think someone "had it in for Clemson." It was just a really, really bad call and review.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [140]
TigerPulse: 52%
11
|
Re: New Story: Swinney on Smith hit: "We need to take off the pads and put flags on"
Nov 9, 2014, 9:41 PM
|
|
This was the WORST officiating I have seen in some time. If the ACC wants to play football they've got to play with the big boys. Take the panties off Swoffard and reprimand the referees of this game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3573]
TigerPulse: 100%
34
|
A-freakin-men
Nov 9, 2014, 9:45 PM
|
|
if a defender is not allowed to jump to seperate man from ball, there is no point in playing defense. If an offensive player knows that they can leap to catch a ball without fear of being hit, QBs will just start throwing it high so the defender has absolutely no way to stop it.
Make it equal, If the defender can't jump, then neither can the receiver. That would be about as absurd and Smith being called for targeting on that play,
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11934]
TigerPulse: 100%
46
Posts: 16363
Joined: 1998
|
It's one thing to miss the call on the field, quite another
Nov 9, 2014, 10:06 PM
|
|
to blow it with the benefit of slow motion instant replay.
It was a vicious hit ... but it was a clean hit.
He went high because that's where the ball was. If he'd stayed on the ground and under cut, the receiver, he'd have probably caused the guy to land on his head. Very dangerous!
Making the call on the field was not all that out of line. Not reversing it on replay was ridiculous.
And speaking of missed calls, why no flag when our gimpy, injured QB was under cut 4 feet out of bounds?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [18210]
TigerPulse: 100%
52
Posts: 22449
Joined: 1999
|
Over/Under on Dabo's fine
Nov 9, 2014, 10:22 PM
|
|
$10,000
I'll take the push.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2218]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
Re: Over/Under on Dabo's fine
Nov 10, 2014, 6:14 AM
|
|
Plus the additional fine tacked on by Swofford.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Time Great [97516]
TigerPulse: 100%
63
Posts: 97188
Joined: 2009
|
Officials need to take off their pads & call the game right!
Nov 9, 2014, 10:34 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Master [16688]
TigerPulse: 100%
51
Posts: 21750
Joined: 2007
|
Re: New Story: Swinney on Smith hit: "We need to take off the pads and put flags on"
Nov 10, 2014, 8:26 AM
|
|
The 2nd sentence in your 2nd paragraph couldn't be more incorrect. Granted the call was made, but if anything, the replay confirmed that a great play was made, and there was no "Targeting" involved. Total BS call from a ref. who had to be trying to find something to throw a flag on us for. There were plenty of holding penalties he could have called on WF's OL, that were justified, if he just needed to pull the rag out of his pocket to get some attention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Elite [73241]
TigerPulse: 100%
61
Posts: 117607
Joined: 1998
|
Re: New Story: Swinney on Smith hit: "We need to take off the pads and put flags on"
Nov 10, 2014, 8:29 AM
|
|
The ACC fouls it up again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3788]
TigerPulse: 99%
35
|
Radakovich talked tot he ACC?
Nov 10, 2014, 10:07 AM
|
|
if DRad negotiated with them the way he negotiates contracts with our coaches, no wonder the ACC upheld the ruling
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amateur [42]
TigerPulse: 52%
5
|
Re: New Story: Swinney on Smith hit: "We need to take off the pads and put flags on"
Nov 10, 2014, 11:34 AM
|
|
as good of a play as you'll ever see?
bahaha, leaving feet, hitting a defensive receiver within inches of his head with shoulder, continuation of hit causing head to head contact. please dabo, stop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [482]
TigerPulse: 100%
18
|
Re: New Story: Swinney on Smith hit: "We need to take off the pads and put flags on"
Nov 10, 2014, 11:41 AM
|
|
It's obvious that the play, penalty and.reweiw is a done deal. It is also obvious that any appeals are a total wastep of time and effort. The Swoffy gang, along with the NCAA, if they were even contacted by the ACC, are going to protect their officals. Still, that was probably the worst officiated game I have witnessed in a long time . COle getting cut down 3 yards out of bounds, multiple pass interference calls missed on their D backs and the blatant take down holding calls by their O line. Kind of reminds me of not only having to beat WF, but also beating the Officals to get out of there with a win. Bottom line is TIGERS won and let's move on. Hope we don't see same officals at GA. TECH.
On a positive note, hopefully DW starts, Peake and Jay will be back and the offense is healed and ready to go. Defense probably will have hands full with triple opton threat to deal with, so gonna need to score.early and often on offense. Gonna miss Robert the first half, so hope Green fills in and gets it done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2379]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
Re: New Story: Swinney on Smith hit: "We need to take off the pads and put flags on"
Nov 10, 2014, 12:39 PM
|
|
Couldn't agree more. It's a classic case of "Circle the Wagons." As soon as the call was "confirmed" by the replay official, it was all over-- there was no way the "establishment" was going to turn against its own and reverse it-- no matter the facts. Too bad, because Smith made a great, CLEAN play.
If you (Mr. Redding) want to see a "textbook" targeting penalty, just take a look at about the 2:30-2:45 mark of the video below from the Southern Cal - Stanford game. The tackler led with the crown of his helmet into the chin of the ball carrier, and launched his body like a weapon. This was called and confirmed. Conversely, in the Auburn - Tex A&M game Saturday night, the call of targeting on the field was correctly reversed by the replay official... and it was amazingly similar to Smith's tackle. So, I guess it's just the ACC that can't "get it right."
What I'm most disappointed about is Redding's quote that Smith's "initial forceful contact was made in the neck/head area" of the Wake Forest receiver. I can only surmise that he was watching a different play. Okay, so you're not going to "overturn" the call, Mr. Redding, but don't insult our intelligence with BS like that.
That call made my Top 5 all-time bad calls, right behind the two Ron Cherry calls in consecutive Clemson - Ga Tech games... the "Holding That Never Was" that called back our winning TD, and the "No-Call With The Jersey Torn Half Off" that allowed Tech to score the winning touchdown the very next year.
And speaking of Ron C, be careful what you ask for about "hopefully not getting the same officials" for the Tech game next week. We haven't had to deal with Ron's crew for awhile, but...Argh!
Here's the USC-Stanford clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJOqDoImavE
Go Tigers!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2481]
TigerPulse: 81%
32
|
I mentioned that yesterday***
Nov 10, 2014, 3:55 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 43
| visibility 852
|
|
|
50
