that, and what kind of fan wants that kind of call to bail out a team that laid down for 29 points? it would have been a complete bail out because Mendoza was down either way and it was third down and they were punting. all that call would have done would have been to bail out Cal for blowing a huge lead.
I will gladly FO if i can figure out how and actually do like the points you are making @creepycoug and would definitely agree except for the broadcast side view which clearly shows the linebacker launching, leading with his head and the point of contact being at least 30 / 70 with the helmet and shoulder pad which is of course where the question is raised. You are right and I think its a good point about the play was stopped dead well short making it a key stop & requiring a bailout for Cal to continue. Tough choice for the Weffs and they were definitely respecting the defensive prowess by not making the call.
I don't know if you're serious, but assuming you are, yes, I agree. I'm all for protecting QBs doing QB shit in the pocket. You can't protect yourself and you're vulnerable there. Tucking the ball and making your self a runner? Beyond the LOS? Ah hell nah. You're like everybody else at that point or it's not football. Pretty soon the Eurotrash soccer fags are going to start laughing at our American game for being too soft. The rugby guys already do.
A somewhat more reasonable stance. Only this left to say:
launching. you always launch when you're tackling someone. it's the dumbest part of a dumb rule. I've never seen a tackle without a launch. The orientation and forward momentum of Bissainth's body is what 100% of the tacklers do 100% of the time on 100% of their tackles. You're moving forward to hit someone and knock them to the ground. no other way to do it. there is always 'launching'. dumb.
2. leading with the head. similar problem. some plays involve more obvious lowering of the head (Chuck Cecil style) to use the helmet as a projectile. but all plays involve some leading with the head because the head is attached the shoulders, and if you're moving forward it's kind of hard for your head not to be involved to some degree; you can only move it to one side so much, especially wearing shoulder pads.
3. contact with the head. sometimes, and I would argue this play, the head of the person being hit comes into contact with the head of the person hitting them because of recoil. Whatever extent to which Medoza's head hit Bissainth's was due as much to Medoza's head moving to the right because of the physics of his body forcefully moving left because of the hit. the only way to prevent any contact with the head is to make the rule that the defender can't hit the player above the armpit area. Anything north of the armpit is likely going involve some contact with the head.
QBs in the pocket in the throwing motion and wide receivers reaching for a pass should get more benefit of the doubt than a player running with the ball - those are different risk profiles and should be treated differently, and I think the weffs are rightly moving in that direction.
It would have been a bullshit result if Cal had received a targeting penalty on that play. Even Wilcox refused to address it in his post game, because he knew the real story was that his team gave up a big lead late in the game on the biggest stage Cal has played on in quite some time. Anyone who disagrees with this is a pussy.
I actually agree with you, my point is that i think the refs didnt see the replay the TV booth had which showed the head motion as a result of the contact with the tackler that did launch to make the play… Im saying that I’m surprised that they did not call targeting because of the politics of the day regarding targeted hits to the head, not because I think that they should have in this case.
Regarding the launching, the tackler correctly identified the physics of the motion and understood that his chance to make the play at a right angle instead of coming in from a step behind depended on his launching to get there in time and to hit with enough power to stop the runner in his tracks short of the first down. If he had taken the steps to get there as opposed to leaving his feet, the play might well have worked out differently.
Another aspect of “targeting” should be that the defender intentionally demonstrated intention to do more physical damage than was needed to make the play, again, in this case it was not true.
Comments
Sounds like you care to me.
Even though I quit at 35-10 I kept the recording going and watched the rest yesterday
Good non call on the non targeting. Solid hit to the shoulder. It's a man's game
that, and what kind of fan wants that kind of call to bail out a team that laid down for 29 points? it would have been a complete bail out because Mendoza was down either way and it was third down and they were punting. all that call would have done would have been to bail out Cal for blowing a huge lead.
yeah, probably.
I will gladly FO if i can figure out how and actually do like the points you are making @creepycoug and would definitely agree except for the broadcast side view which clearly shows the linebacker launching, leading with his head and the point of contact being at least 30 / 70 with the helmet and shoulder pad which is of course where the question is raised. You are right and I think its a good point about the play was stopped dead well short making it a key stop & requiring a bailout for Cal to continue. Tough choice for the Weffs and they were definitely respecting the defensive prowess by not making the call.
it’s on Mendoza for not sliding.
I don't know if you're serious, but assuming you are, yes, I agree. I'm all for protecting QBs doing QB shit in the pocket. You can't protect yourself and you're vulnerable there. Tucking the ball and making your self a runner? Beyond the LOS? Ah hell nah. You're like everybody else at that point or it's not football. Pretty soon the Eurotrash soccer fags are going to start laughing at our American game for being too soft. The rugby guys already do.
I’m 100% serious. He wasn’t gonna make the first, if he slides any contact draws an auto flag. He didn’t and got rocked, only has himself to blame
A somewhat more reasonable stance. Only this left to say:
2. leading with the head. similar problem. some plays involve more obvious lowering of the head (Chuck Cecil style) to use the helmet as a projectile. but all plays involve some leading with the head because the head is attached the shoulders, and if you're moving forward it's kind of hard for your head not to be involved to some degree; you can only move it to one side so much, especially wearing shoulder pads.
3. contact with the head. sometimes, and I would argue this play, the head of the person being hit comes into contact with the head of the person hitting them because of recoil. Whatever extent to which Medoza's head hit Bissainth's was due as much to Medoza's head moving to the right because of the physics of his body forcefully moving left because of the hit. the only way to prevent any contact with the head is to make the rule that the defender can't hit the player above the armpit area. Anything north of the armpit is likely going involve some contact with the head.
QBs in the pocket in the throwing motion and wide receivers reaching for a pass should get more benefit of the doubt than a player running with the ball - those are different risk profiles and should be treated differently, and I think the weffs are rightly moving in that direction.
It would have been a bullshit result if Cal had received a targeting penalty on that play. Even Wilcox refused to address it in his post game, because he knew the real story was that his team gave up a big lead late in the game on the biggest stage Cal has played on in quite some time. Anyone who disagrees with this is a pussy.
I actually agree with you, my point is that i think the refs didnt see the replay the TV booth had which showed the head motion as a result of the contact with the tackler that did launch to make the play… Im saying that I’m surprised that they did not call targeting because of the politics of the day regarding targeted hits to the head, not because I think that they should have in this case.
Regarding the launching, the tackler correctly identified the physics of the motion and understood that his chance to make the play at a right angle instead of coming in from a step behind depended on his launching to get there in time and to hit with enough power to stop the runner in his tracks short of the first down. If he had taken the steps to get there as opposed to leaving his feet, the play might well have worked out differently.
Another aspect of “targeting” should be that the defender intentionally demonstrated intention to do more physical damage than was needed to make the play, again, in this case it was not true.
Back and to the left…
exactly. Believe it or not, I was thinking about that very episode as I was typing.
Science!