Cal too high
This game has all the earmarks of a Crisco debacle, though I recall he didn't struggle with Cal while at Oregon.
I really am not that hyped about Miami yet and have learned to not overly invest w/o a lot more proof, so I don't really care what happens. But I'd be lying if I said I really don't want to lose to Cal. It's just especially embarrassing for some reason. Like, sure, lose to UCLA or someone like that. Just as shitty and sometimes more so than Cal. But there is a certain smell on your clothes after a Cal loss. It is unbearable.
Please Crisco. At least try and run the ball off tackle and tell your QB to tuck the ball away when he runs. And tell him Cal has an all senior D backfield that produces INTs.
Fuck.
Comments
-
I’m rooting against Cal in this one. Let’s send them back to the 18th century.
-
-
Love me some dumbass Cam Ward.
-
This is amazing.
-
Cal dominating like the juggernaught program that they are… the ACC can’t help but notice and be afraid ~ very afraid.
-
-
I’m glad these other conferences are getting a taste of PAC-12 football.
-
That was the worst targeting non-call I’ve ever seen. This game should be over. Fuck the canes, the fix is in.
-
V. Tech got jobbed in favor of Miami and tonight Cal gets jobbed (despite giving up 29 unanswered).
If THAT was not targeting, there is no such thing as targeting. Crown of the helmet, lowered, and driven right into the side of the Cal QB's head.
-
I’m going to rule that out of order.
@dtd focus on your own retarded QB and get out of my thread. -
shut up you weff whining faggot.
-
the cam-jeanty-hunter race is going to be great
-
Hunter for Heisman IMO. Best player in the game and not close.
-
I gave out Miami -10 to all my gambling friends. I am so bad at gambling it’s insane
77 total points? Wtf? How did cal score 38 and lose -
Miami scored 39.
-
I gave up at 35-10
Cal lol
-
DHDMember, Swaye's WigwamPosts: 1,466
V. Tech got jobbed in favor of Miami and tonight Cal gets jobbed (despite giving up 29 unanswered).If THAT was not targeting, there is no such thing as targeting. Crown of the helmet, lowered, and driven right into the side of the Cal QB's head.I agree, on top of that the tackler was guilty of launching with the crown of his helmet as the initial point of contact with the obvious result of the Qb's helmet jerking at contact. Booth must not have had that angle ~ TV broadcast was so conclusive as to leave no doubt.
-
So close but yet so Cal
-
The last touchdown also had 2 ineligible receivers downfield. Two lineman were blocking in the end zone.
-
I recall an Orange Bowl loss by Miami to Wisconsin. There was as flagrant a PI call in the end zone on Wisc as you find that not only denied Miami A TD but directly caused an int. It was at a key point in the game, everybody saw it, and Miami’s erratic QB play was such that they could not afford to have TDs taken off the board.
when they lost and I came here and bitched, I was told very clearly that crying about the weffs was not allowed.So when you faggots start complaining about Washington getting the benefit of a shitty call or no call it will be the first time and then I’ll listen to your queefing about Miami weff conspiracy theories. It’s football, the kid was running and he got as much of his shoulder as helmet. IDFC and neither should you.
Fuck off now with your new found interest in targeting righteousness. Faggots. -
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:
- 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.
