• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

CFB Offseason 2014: The Spartans End a B1G Case of Wiscy Dick, Cold Pizza for Victims

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

cdyhybrid

Member
Fuck the referees.

/pac12fan

Edit: P12 commish Larry Scott doing a live chat with the Seattle Times

oQIZe6E.png


Yeah, I don't see this happening for a loooooooooong time, if ever.
 
P

Purple Cheeto

Member
M

Monroeski

Unconfirmed Member
andycapps said:
NCAA also approved the rule where if a targeting rule is overturned, the 15 yard penalty is reversed. Well needed.
Click to expand...

zyxwvu4321 said:
Just saw the targeting change. Great that they fixed that. I can't understand why it was ever the original way. "Upon further review, we were wrong. 15 yards, automatic first down."
Click to expand...

I assume that they left the yardage penalty in because now, if that can be reversed, it opens up the argument for most or all other penalties to be reversed. Why is targeting now reviewable and pass interference isn't, for example? Why is an ejected player reviewable for targeting but not for, say, shoving or punching, a review of which being able to not only possibly overturn one ejection but also implicate additional players to be ejected (to kind of cover the "they always see the guy who punches back, not the guy who punches first" phenomenon.

I imagine we'll start seeing some arguments to that effect over the next few offseasons. This likely won't stop at just targeting but where the line will ultimately be drawn (personal fouls only? Ejectable events only?) will be interesting to see.
 
C

chaosblade

Unconfirmed Member
I don't think it will be that big of a deal, targeting calls are already a special case since they include a mandatory ejection and review. I don't think any other penalty has a mandatory review afterward which could overturn the decision.

The whole rule itself is what makes it awkward, because it's broken no matter how it's implemented. Unless they make it a standard penalty and remove the review I guess, but I doubt many people would support that either.
 
A

andycapps

Member
Monroeski said:
I assume that they left the yardage penalty in because now, if that can be reversed, it opens up the argument for most or all other penalties to be reversed. Why is targeting now reviewable and pass interference isn't, for example? Why is an ejected player reviewable for targeting but not for, say, shoving or punching, a review of which being able to not only possibly overturn one ejection but also implicate additional players to be ejected (to kind of cover the "they always see the guy who punches back, not the guy who punches first" phenomenon.

I imagine we'll start seeing some arguments to that effect over the next few offseasons. This likely won't stop at just targeting but where the line will ultimately be drawn (personal fouls only? Ejectable events only?) will be interesting to see.
Click to expand...

I don't think it'll be the slippery slope that you think it is. They're already reviewing the ejection, makes sense that if they determine there was nothing to merit the ejection that they toss out the penalty as well. As it was, they review it and determine there was no foul, yet they penalize anyway. That's fucked up.
 
M

Monroeski

Unconfirmed Member
andycapps said:
I don't think it'll be the slippery slope that you think it is. They're already reviewing the ejection, makes sense that if they determine there was nothing to merit the ejection that they toss out the penalty as well. As it was, they review it and determine there was no foul, yet they penalize anyway. That's fucked up.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily think it WILL become a slippery slope, at least not in "the sky is falling" sense, just that there will be conversations about possibly expanding it and I expect it probably will, at least by a little bit. All it's going to take to start the conversation is a high profile end zone PI. You start getting a lot of targeting penalties overturned and then you're going to start getting a lot of questions about why you can't even look at game-changing PI calls.

If we can have a legitimate rule proposal about limiting how often an offense can snap the ball then I think we will certainly have at a minimum some very serious conversations about why only one penalty in the entire catalog of penalties can be overturned.

chaosblade said:
I don't think it will be that big of a deal, targeting calls are already a special case since they include a mandatory ejection and review. I don't think any other penalty has a mandatory review afterward which could overturn the decision.
Click to expand...

That's my whole point, though; it is a "special case," and the only one of its kind. Now it's even more of a special case being the only penalty that can be overturned. All I'm saying is people are going to start asking WHY it's the only one with mandatory review, WHY it's the only one with mandatory ejection, and WHY it's the only one that can ultimately be overturned. Not to say that it will 100% take over the sport or anything, I just expect that it won't take too long for targeting to no longer be the only one of its kind.
 
A

andycapps

Member
Monroeski said:
I don't necessarily think it WILL become a slippery slope, at least not in "the sky is falling" sense, just that there will be conversations about possibly expanding it and I expect it probably will, at least by a little bit. All it's going to take to start the conversation is a high profile end zone PI. You start getting a lot of targeting penalties overturned and then you're going to start getting a lot of questions about why you can't even look at game-changing PI calls.

If we can have a legitimate rule proposal about limiting how often an offense can snap the ball then I think we will certainly have at a minimum some very serious conversations about why only one penalty in the entire catalog of penalties can be overturned
Click to expand...

Difference is that PI's aren't reviewed. They're reviewing every targeting call, and I saw the team I follow affected this year a couple times because of a bogus call. On one, on a 3rd and 9 or so there was a pass play that was broken up by what was initially called targeting. On review it was determined to be not targeting so the player was allowed to remain in the game, but the offense got a first down. So instead of a hard hitting play that caused a 4th down, they got the ball on our goal line with a fresh set of downs. All because of a shitty targeting call that was overturned.
 
C

cdyhybrid

Member
NCAA eyes early signing period

College football is taking steps toward establishing an early signing period, according to the NCAA official who manages the national letter of intent program.

Susan Peal, NCAA associate director of operations, said the continued acceleration of recruiting has led the Conference Commissioners Association to consider an earlier date to supplement the long-existing date in February, similar to the structure for basketball and other sports.
Click to expand...
 
C

cdyhybrid

Member
So our team captain/starting MLB was suspended because he was arrested for stealing parking passes and selling them to teammates.

:jnc/SMH. Good thing LB is probably the deepest unit on the team.
 
M

Monroeski

Unconfirmed Member
cashman said:
And they got him.
Click to expand...

The only other team people have really been talking about as having a chance was Baylor, and that was based basically on nothing but the last couple of years' records and the fact that Stidham is from Stephenville, the school where Briles made his name and is still a legend. Wasn't really based on quotes, interest shown, etc.

Still a long way to signing day, of course, but Stidham will take Amaro's place as the highest rated recruit in Tech history. Highly rated QBs, especially those that commit early, tend to attract a lot of other highly rated talent as well, so there is a hell of a lot of optimism around Tech fans right now for recruiting between Stidham, the guys that have said they would like to play with him, and DT Breiden Fehoko out of Hawaii (normally the kind of guy who is out of Tech's recruiting league) who Tech has a REALLY good chance of getting due to some family ties and a long-standing family relationship with co-DC Mike Smith.

Of course, right now Stidham is the #1 dual threat QB on both Rivals and ESPN (#3 on 247), so Tech fans are expecting him to drop to at best #2 based on nothing but the fact that Kyler Murray will likely commit to A&M and get the SEC bump while Stidham gets the Tech get the non-blue blood drop. ; ) We'll see what happens after the Rivals camp in Dallas this weekend.
 
B

bucknuticus

Member
Saw this retweeted, although cant find who its in regard to:

@RecruitingAJC 3m
So another #Bama player gets into off-field trouble and we find out NOW that he wasn't on roster? Love PR strategy
 
L

Limedust

Member
bucknuticus said:
Saw this retweeted, although cant find who its in regard to:

@RecruitingAJC 3m
So another #Bama player gets into off-field trouble and we find out NOW that he wasn't on roster? Love PR strategy
Click to expand...

I'm guessing this in regards to Dee Hart... from weeks back. Not understanding why it is anybodys' responsibility to keep this guy in the loop on the roster situation. Only people who are required to know are players, coaches, the school, and the NCAA.
 
L

Lonestar

I joined for Erin Brockovich discussion
Limedust said:
I'm guessing this in regards to Dee Hart... from weeks back. Not understanding why it is anybodys' responsibility to keep this guy in the loop on the roster situation. Only people who are required to know are players, coaches, the school, and the NCAA.
Click to expand...

it's actually Wilson Love.

The Love Brothers, who did about as much on the field for Alabama as I have.
 
C

cdyhybrid

Member
Cali QB Jake Browning enjoyed his visit up here this past weekend. He's still tripping to WSU, Colorado, and OSUs but $9.95 says he's ours to lose. He decides next month.
 
A

andycapps

Member
R

Randolph Freelander

Member
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

All Major PlayStation Franchises And Their Current Status
|OT| News Platform
44
3K
dorkimoe replied
CFB 2017 Week 4 |OT| "We were in a nickel. But with injuries, we didn’t have a dime."
28 29 30 31 32
2K
86K
Purple Cheeto replied
101st Indianapolis 500 - May 28th |OT| We Got Bigger Crowds than Trump's Inauguration
18 19 20 21 22
1K
87K
FrankCanada97 replied
Why gamers complain about their games being taken away |OT| Censorship Controversy Central
|OT| NSFW 26 27 28 29 30
1K
190K
Pantz replied
  • Locked
CFB Week 7: Katy Perry, Football Goddess. Everyone else, Cougin It.
28 29 30 31 32
2K
71K
Mac the KNife replied
Top Bottom