Soko Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 8 minutes ago, Adrenaline_Flux said: That isn't true at all. Targeting ejections have increased steadily since 2013. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrry32 Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 Just now, CWood21 said: That's a cop out and you know it. I'm done posting if you're going to continue to literally dance around the subject. There's no dancing around anything. You made a claim. I asked you to provide evidence. You won't do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
everlong Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 Looks like Pittsburgh spent more time planning their protest than their game against Chicago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrry32 Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 2 minutes ago, riceman80 said: Impact, intent, recklessness, and post hit response would be my criteria. Impact - the aggressiveness and impact of the hit Intent - was the player defenseless, did it happen in the course of a regular play (Or like we just saw, were you away from the play, stop, see the ball carrier, and proceed to try and take his head off), was their chippiness or such taking place before the play. Recklessness - form of the hit, leading with the crown, impact zone, general body language Post hit response - not necessary unless you get bragging, like when Brandon Meriweather/Dashon Goldson used took heads off and act like they made an awesome play in doing so This is completely subjective. People will get angry when Player A on the opposition escapes suspension and Player B on their team gets suspended for similar plays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spartacus Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 Can you guys take the rule discussion to a different thread. Nothing to do with the game at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oregon Ducks Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 Mathews is a cretin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pats#1 Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 2 minutes ago, CWood21 said: That's a cop out and you know it. I'm done posting if you're going to continue to literally dance around the subject. I think he is saying that if the rule hasn't increased player safety in college since being implemented, then what would be the purpose of it and it's improvement over the rules that are in place now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 1 minute ago, jrry32 said: There's no dancing around anything. You made a claim. I asked you to provide evidence. You won't do so. Because it's literally impossible to prove one way or the other. The only thing you've thrown out there is that a star player might be suspended because the rule wasn't applied correctly. I gave you a very viable solution to your issue, and you threw it to the side because your skeptical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 Just now, Pats#1 said: I think he is saying that if the rule hasn't increased player safety in college since being implemented, then what would be the purpose of it and it's improvement over the rules that are in place now. So you don't the number of illegal helmet-to-helmet hits has gone down? Again, the onus is on him as much as it is me to prove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragnarok Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 Guys. Shut up and drop it. This discussion isn't going anywhere good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragnarok Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 Yes! Fantasy points from Howard! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riceman80 Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 3 minutes ago, jrry32 said: This is completely subjective. People will get angry when Player A on the opposition escapes suspension and Player B on their team gets suspended for similar plays. If two plays end up with seperate results then they aren't similar so I don't understand this argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 I feel like that would have been a great drive to have Trubs in there to get some experience based on the playcalling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrry32 Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 Just now, CWood21 said: So you don't the number of illegal helmet-to-helmet hits has gone down? Again, the onus is on him as much as it is me to prove it. No, it's not. I'm not using player safety as a justification for keeping the status quo. You have college football implementing a similar rule. Wouldn't the obvious result be that deterrence would cause ejections to drop over time? Has that happened? Answer: http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/news/college-football-targeting-rule-change-ncaa-fewer-ejections-confirmed-vs-stands/1bgyk9w5g5v2n14mx2c8fbhcxd Quote The NCAA reported 144 targeting ejections in the FBS during the 2016 season, double the 72 ejections in 2014. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riceman80 Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 Just now, Forge said: I feel like that would have been a great drive to have Trubs in there to get some experience based on the playcalling. At this point I'd just let him sit and give him the opportunity to play next week Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.