Foot Shooting

[sixtoes9134]

It ended up being a personal foul

[App90]

So you're referring to the on field discipline versus the off field discipline, right? Because the off the field discipline has gotten infinitely better.

ASU simply beat themselves yesterday, unsportsmanlike penalties, holds away from the play, dropped passes, poor play calling, and we say they can refocus. On field discipline is the challenge. There is none when it counts. ASU will get hammered by ULM and Georgia State, followed by ULL at home. This has become the culture at ASU, and now it has come home to roost for a while. I hope I am wrong but just dont see the problems fixing it self.

[AppSt94]

So you're referring to the on field discipline versus the off field discipline, right? Because the off the field discipline has gotten infinitely better.

ASU simply beat themselves yesterday, unsportsmanlike penalties, holds away from the play, dropped passes, poor play calling, and we say they can refocus. On field discipline is the challenge. There is none when it counts. ASU will get hammered by ULM and Georgia State, followed by ULL at home. This has become the culture at ASU, and now it has come home to roost for a while. I hope I am wrong but just dont see the problems fixing it self.

So it sound as if you have identified the problem. So what is your solution?

[AppDawg]

It ended up being a personal foul

But the call on the field was targeting. I didn’t think you could change the penatly after it was called, especially after video review confirm no targeting.

This leads to my next question, what is the difference between targeting and a personal foul when it occurs on the field of play during a play (not a late hit) and relates to a tackle not some other unsportsmanlike penalty?

[Rekdiver]

No it would have still been a personal foul for hitting a defenseless player

[Rekdiver]

No it would have still been a personal foul for hitting a defenseless player

[hapapp]

The targeting foul is part of the personal foul call. After review it was not deemed targeting but was still consider a personal foul. Targeting has to do with how and where the contact was initiated apart from the actual offense.

[Rekdiver]

And quite honestly the QB did turn his head to see the hit coming. It was a bad call. The QB had his bell rung earlier but they never checked him for a concussion. If you saw the game you saw their QB moving his neck around after a hit.

[TractorApp]

Fairly sure the call was Personal Foul/Unnecessary Contact. In other words, you don't put a hit on a guy if in the judgement of the official the blocker knew the opponent had no way to make a play on the ball carrier. I don't agree with the call, but I'm fairly sure that was the official's rational. Once the UMass QB turned toward the play and started pursuing the play he was actively trying to get into a position to make a play in my opinion. No way our player could know the QB couldn't make a play. I'm sure he is told to look to make a block on any type of turnover.
As a former high school official, I am always careful not to blame a loss on officials. But, I will say the poor spots and this call certainly had a huge impact on the outcome of the game. I wonder since UMass is an independent, what conference were those officials a part of. I don't know why those spots in the first half were not looked at.

[Rekdiver]

So you're referring to the on field discipline versus the off field discipline, right? Because the off the field discipline has gotten infinitely better.

ASU simply beat themselves yesterday, unsportsmanlike penalties, holds away from the play, dropped passes, poor play calling, and we say they can refocus. On field discipline is the challenge. There is none when it counts. ASU will get hammered by ULM and Georgia State, followed by ULL at home. This has become the culture at ASU, and now it has come home to roost for a while. I hope I am wrong but just dont see the problems fixing it self.
[/

I said before the game that UMASS was better than the record indicated. But we are not going to get hammered by anyone left on our schedule.

[bcoach]

How can you be better than your record? I have never understood that. Your record is what indicates how good you are.

[AppDawg]

This is where my confusion is stemming from. The targeting rule covers defenseless players in addition to helmet to helmet contact - it is wide ranging. There was a rule change in 2014 that if video review confirmed no targeting the penatly and related yards is to be waved off. Prior to 2014, the call yesterday would havw been correct. However, Yesterday the call on the field as I recall was targeting, not targeting + a personal foul (i.e. 30 total yds in penalties). Wish I could see a replay, but don’t have 11 sports. If 2 penaties called, resulting in the targeting being overturned but a 2nd personal foul remained (not related to the tackle), then that explains it and would be correct. But, I don’t think that is what happened.

http://www.myajc.com/sports/college/joh ... KYFw4bNfN/

the NCAA instituted a rule that defensive players who targeted an offensive player and hit him in the head would be ejected and assessed a 15-yard penalty. Officials were then to review the hit on video to confirm the defensive player was indeed going for the offensive player’s head. While the ejection could be overturned, the penalty could not.

On Thursday, the NCAA approved a rule change stating that the penalty would be wiped out if video review overturned the ejection. The change goes into effect for the 2014 season.

And another:
https://www.sbnation.com/college-footba ... anges-2017

Currently, a targeting foul means a 15-yard penalty and an automatic ejection from the game, if it’s upheld as a penalty after video review. If a targeting foul is overturned, there’s no penalty.

[WVAPPeer]

First off in my opinion the ref reacted to what he saw - he called targeting which can be reviewed - once reviewed the targeting/with ejection was overturned - I guess he left it as unnecessary roughness - upon my review, it wasn't targeting, it wasn't a clip, it wasn't unnecessary roughness as the player saw Stout coming but with it being the QB and with him lying on the field not moving they were not going to overturn the unnecessary roughness - Stout should have just left him alone but that being said is easier said than done in the middle of a play

[AppDawg]

Fairly sure the call was Personal Foul/Unnecessary Contact. In other words, you don't put a hit on a guy if in the judgement of the official the blocker knew the opponent had no way to make a play on the ball carrier. I don't agree with the call, but I'm fairly sure that was the official's rational. Once the UMass QB turned toward the play and started pursuing the play he was actively trying to get into a position to make a play in my opinion. No way our player could know the QB couldn't make a play. I'm sure he is told to look to make a block on any type of turnover.
As a former high school official, I am always careful not to blame a loss on officials. But, I will say the poor spots and this call certainly had a huge impact on the outcome of the game. I wonder since UMass is an independent, what conference were those officials a part of. I don't know why those spots in the first half were not looked at.

I think it was an AAC crew. One of the Refs was on the crew we had at the Camelia Bowl last year.

Personal Foul was the “final” ruling, however, when the ref got on the PA and initially assessed the penalty he said Targeting on #92 and will be reviewed. The broadcasters later said while Ford was on the field that the Targeting call had been reversed.

[MarxistMountaineer]

So you're referring to the on field discipline versus the off field discipline, right? Because the off the field discipline has gotten infinitely better.

ASU simply beat themselves yesterday, unsportsmanlike penalties, holds away from the play, dropped passes, poor play calling, and we say they can refocus. On field discipline is the challenge. There is none when it counts. ASU will get hammered by ULM and Georgia State, followed by ULL at home. This has become the culture at ASU, and now it has come home to roost for a while. I hope I am wrong but just dont see the problems fixing it self.

LOL

[AppinATL]

No it would have still been a personal foul for hitting a defenseless player

You are correct, but the QB was hardly a defenseless player. He was up and alert and making a move towards the ball carrier. He even saw the hit coming. Any other player (WR, RB, etc) and that would not have been called. Because the guy is a QB though the current thinking is apparently that they get special treatment. They might as well put red vests on them during games now. Its sickening.

[AppSt94]

I agree with WVAppeer. The call on the field is personal foul with targeting. The targeting is reviewed to determine whether disqualification is necessary. They can review the penalty in its entirety and overturn both if they choose. The review should have overturned both and the touchdown should have stood.

[AppDawg]

I agree with WVAppeer. The call on the field is personal foul with targeting. The targeting is reviewed to determine whether disqualification is necessary. They can review the penalty in its entirety and overturn both if they choose. The review should have overturned both and the touchdown should have stood.

Ok, so there were essentially 2 fouls on 1 play. Here is an excerpt from NCAA rules... I guess this is similar to what the refs “claimed” yesterday. SMH.

However, if the targeting foul is committed in conjunction with another personal foul, the 15-yard penalty for that personal foul remains. For example, if a player is called for roughing the passer and targeting the head and neck area, but the instant replay official rules that targeting did not occur, the player flagged would remain in the game, but the roughing the passer penalty would still be enforced.

[AppSt94]

I agree with WVAppeer. The call on the field is personal foul with targeting. The targeting is reviewed to determine whether disqualification is necessary. They can review the penalty in its entirety and overturn both if they choose. The review should have overturned both and the touchdown should have stood.

Ok, so there were essentially 2 fouls on 1 play. Here is an excerpt from NCAA rules... I guess this is similar to what the refs “claimed” yesterday. SMH.

However, if the targeting foul is committed in conjunction with another personal foul, the 15-yard penalty for that personal foul remains. For example, if a player is called for roughing the passer and targeting the head and neck area, but the instant replay official rules that targeting did not occur, the player flagged would remain in the game, but the roughing the passer penalty would still be enforced.

Yes, but it is my understanding that the personal foul can be overturned as well. But maybe not.

[GoBoone]

So you're referring to the on field discipline versus the off field discipline, right? Because the off the field discipline has gotten infinitely better.

ASU simply beat themselves yesterday, unsportsmanlike penalties, holds away from the play, dropped passes, poor play calling, and we say they can refocus. On field discipline is the challenge. There is none when it counts. ASU will get hammered by ULM and Georgia State, followed by ULL at home. This has become the culture at ASU, and now it has come home to roost for a while. I hope I am wrong but just dont see the problems fixing it self.

You must be hammered to think we'll get hammered by our last 4 opponents. Talk about going off the deep end.