(11-12-2013 11:09 AM)billetingman1 Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 11:07 AM)TN Knightfan Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 10:53 AM)billetingman1 Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 10:48 AM)UCF-ENG Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 10:46 AM)billetingman1 Wrote:  Well I guess thats it by that analogy! Football has becoome a ***** sport!

In many ways unfortunately yes. Concussions aren't a joke though...

Football is a violent game. No rules are going to stop what happened on Saturday. That was an awesome hit illegal or not it was a great football play. If you think the targeting rule is going to stop violent hits your sadly mistaken. The only thing thats going to stop such contact is Flag football. What did anyone expect a 160lb Corner to do as tackling goes? There is no way he could have rapped up on the 6Ft plus receiver, he would have been run over like a mack truck.

You're wrong. That rule IS going to stop what happened Saturday. It's going to take some time, but it will stop because it has to.

160 pounds? Geez, McMillian just keeps getting smaller and smaller at your convenience. If he can't tackle a decent sized receiver he shouldn't be on the field. All of which ignores the fact that he was big enough to deliver a hit that sent Perriman to the hospital. Your ridiculous idea of it being some self-defense hit so he wouldn't get hurt because he's sooo tiny is completely debunked because of what ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

BOO HO! Its football man. McMillian's dad made a living lighting Perrimans Dad UP in the NFL. You think McMillians Dad feels bad? Nope! Its football.

You were born in the wrong time. Sounds like you would have really enjoyed the Roman Colosseum.

Plantation owners made a living off free labor and cruelty for centuries, but sometimes things have to change.

(11-12-2013 11:35 AM)TN Knightfan Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 11:09 AM)billetingman1 Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 11:07 AM)TN Knightfan Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 10:53 AM)billetingman1 Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 10:48 AM)UCF-ENG Wrote:  In many ways unfortunately yes. Concussions aren't a joke though...

Football is a violent game. No rules are going to stop what happened on Saturday. That was an awesome hit illegal or not it was a great football play. If you think the targeting rule is going to stop violent hits your sadly mistaken. The only thing thats going to stop such contact is Flag football. What did anyone expect a 160lb Corner to do as tackling goes? There is no way he could have rapped up on the 6Ft plus receiver, he would have been run over like a mack truck.

You're wrong. That rule IS going to stop what happened Saturday. It's going to take some time, but it will stop because it has to.

160 pounds? Geez, McMillian just keeps getting smaller and smaller at your convenience. If he can't tackle a decent sized receiver he shouldn't be on the field. All of which ignores the fact that he was big enough to deliver a hit that sent Perriman to the hospital. Your ridiculous idea of it being some self-defense hit so he wouldn't get hurt because he's sooo tiny is completely debunked because of what ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

BOO HO! Its football man. McMillian's dad made a living lighting Perrimans Dad UP in the NFL. You think McMillians Dad feels bad? Nope! Its football.

You were born in the wrong time. Sounds like you would have really enjoyed the Roman Colosseum.

Plantation owners made a living off free labor and cruelty for decades, but sometimes things have to change.

I played the game from 87-91....I thrived on hits like that. You take that away the game it becomes Sh**. The game of football is played way to fast for a penalty like this, I'm all for protecting players, from a HS to Pro level, but the execution of this penalty in football this year has been atrocious and needs to be reviewed. If your scared don't play.... If your worried about getting hurt don't play. I suffered 3 concussion during my career and don't regret one. 2 of the 3 were from me laying the wood.

(11-11-2013 10:00 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  No, I said he hit your runningbacks shoulders first, which he did, and his head is angled the same way AS A LITERAL TEXTBOOK IMAGE OF A PROPER FORM TACKLE. Compare the bottom left image to Stanbeck, it's the exact same form. You act like you don't understand that a persons head will *always* lead their shoulders, as if you don't comprehend the basic anatomical structure of your head and neck being superior to ones shoulders. The difference is that he didn't lead with his helmet into your players helmet, he isn't launching upward into your players helmet, he is wrapping up, and your player wasn't defenseless.

You simply don't understand the rule.

Look I am glad the kid is alright . No game is so important to loose sight of that. Thing I have a problem with is your refusal to see what is right in front of you . The hit on the kick return shows the first point of contact is his helmet not his shoulders or his arms . How is that not leading with your helmet when it is in the kids face mask? Second the Houston hit shows the defensive player with his shoulders turned and in the kids chest. You might have a slim case for launching but the hit looked good to me. I have let go of the game it is over and can not be changed but to defend these two things is foolish. Please don't try to tell me I don't know football that is an assumption you should not make with out fact.

(11-12-2013 11:53 AM)FUB Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 10:00 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  No, I said he hit your runningbacks shoulders first, which he did, and his head is angled the same way AS A LITERAL TEXTBOOK IMAGE OF A PROPER FORM TACKLE. Compare the bottom left image to Stanbeck, it's the exact same form. You act like you don't understand that a persons head will *always* lead their shoulders, as if you don't comprehend the basic anatomical structure of your head and neck being superior to ones shoulders. The difference is that he didn't lead with his helmet into your players helmet, he isn't launching upward into your players helmet, he is wrapping up, and your player wasn't defenseless.

You simply don't understand the rule.

Look I am glad the kid is alright . No game is so important to loose sight of that. Thing I have a problem with is your refusal to see what is right in front of you . The hit on the kick return shows the first point of contact is his helmet not his shoulders or his arms . How is that not leading with your helmet when it is in the kids face mask? Second the Houston hit shows the defensive player with his shoulders turned and in the kids chest. You might have a slim case for launching but the hit looked good to me. I have let go of the game it is over and can not be changed but to defend these two things is foolish. Please don't try to tell me I don't know football that is an assumption you should not make with out fact.

The bolded part of his above quote isn't at all what he "said" in his post with the picture explaining his position, but that fact just gets lost in the rhetoric.

Even in my Memphis slanted opinion, in review; I think the tackle was legal. Even though he's being "difficult", we're making ourselves look a little silly in keeping this topic alive.

Let's just move on.

Here's the thing on the UH hit. It was a legitimate call. You know why? Because it was reviewed by the booth and they confirmed what occurred and that the hit was illegal. I love these message board fans that think they understand the rule better than the officials who have been trained on it and had plenty of time to review it and confirm it.

(11-12-2013 12:53 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  Here's the thing on the UH hit. It was a legitimate call. You know why? Because it was reviewed by the booth and they confirmed what occurred and that the hit was illegal. I love these message board fans that think they understand the rule better than the officials who have been trained on it and had plenty of time to review it and confirm it.

Rule is a rule. But in crunch time going at game speed in that situation you make that type of hit and never think twice about it.

I'm not saying this is that UCF did. And I am not saying Perriman was faking injury.

But hypothetically speaking, if I were coaching under these rules, I would have my medical staff trained and ready to sprint on the field any time a targeting flag was thrown. I would want my player being tended to by medical staff while the call was reviewed. It's just smart football.

(11-12-2013 12:59 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  I would want my player being tended to by medical staff while the call was reviewed. It's just smart football.

Says Coach Toad out at Arizona State. Come on man that is beyond consipracy theory.

UCF is not a Toad coached team. Some of their fans can be arrogant an annoying but I would not even consider this as a legit thought on the sideline over there.

I thought everyone's argument was that O'Leary intentionally denies medical treatment to players? Which is it?

(11-12-2013 12:57 PM)billetingman1 Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 12:53 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  Here's the thing on the UH hit. It was a legitimate call. You know why? Because it was reviewed by the booth and they confirmed what occurred and that the hit was illegal. I love these message board fans that think they understand the rule better than the officials who have been trained on it and had plenty of time to review it and confirm it.

Rule is a rule. But in crunch time going at game speed in that situation you make that type of hit and never think twice about it.

That's the way the game has been coached for a long time and they're putting a stop to it. Next time McMillian will think twice about it because he had to listen to the stadium erupt at the end of the game from the locker room. He's also only going to play the second half of the Louisville game. The ejection and first half suspension will help him remember how serious the NCAA is about stopping the type of hit he made.

Starting now coaches are teaching guys NOT to make hits like that. Your stubborn refusal to accept it as the way things have to be to protect the short and long term health of football players has no bearing whatsoever on what we will see over the next 5 years or so, which is the phasing out of plays like that.

(11-12-2013 01:50 PM)TN Knightfan Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 12:57 PM)billetingman1 Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 12:53 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  Here's the thing on the UH hit. It was a legitimate call. You know why? Because it was reviewed by the booth and they confirmed what occurred and that the hit was illegal. I love these message board fans that think they understand the rule better than the officials who have been trained on it and had plenty of time to review it and confirm it.

Rule is a rule. But in crunch time going at game speed in that situation you make that type of hit and never think twice about it.

That's the way the game has been coached for a long time and they're putting a stop to it. Next time McMillian will think twice about it because he had to listen to the stadium erupt at the end of the game from the locker room. He's also only going to play the second half of the Louisville game. The ejection and first half suspension will help him remember how serious the NCAA is about stopping the type of hit he made.

Starting now coaches are teaching guys NOT to make hits like that. Your stubborn refusal to accept it as the way things have to be to protect the short and long term health of football players has no bearing whatsoever on what we will see over the next 5 years or so, which is the phasing out of plays like that.

He led with his shoulder and hit the guy high, you don't know where your going to hit someone at game speed. He will attack it the same way he did Saturday.....Coach said the same thing it was an unlucky hit which he clearly intended to lead with the shoulder and still hit high....You can't teach accidents. You will not stop that from occuring. What you will start seeing is DB's getting injured more trying to not stick someone. You will see a lot more dislocated shoulders.

(11-12-2013 01:28 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 12:59 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  I would want my player being tended to by medical staff while the call was reviewed. It's just smart football.

Says Coach Toad out at Arizona State. Come on man that is beyond consipracy theory.

UCF is not a Toad coached team. Some of their fans can be arrogant an annoying but I would not even consider this as a legit thought on the sideline over there.

You are taking my statement out of context. I specifically said I did not accuse UCF of doing that.

I was saying what I would do.

(11-12-2013 01:57 PM)billetingman1 Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 01:50 PM)TN Knightfan Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 12:57 PM)billetingman1 Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 12:53 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  Here's the thing on the UH hit. It was a legitimate call. You know why? Because it was reviewed by the booth and they confirmed what occurred and that the hit was illegal. I love these message board fans that think they understand the rule better than the officials who have been trained on it and had plenty of time to review it and confirm it.

Rule is a rule. But in crunch time going at game speed in that situation you make that type of hit and never think twice about it.

That's the way the game has been coached for a long time and they're putting a stop to it. Next time McMillian will think twice about it because he had to listen to the stadium erupt at the end of the game from the locker room. He's also only going to play the second half of the Louisville game. The ejection and first half suspension will help him remember how serious the NCAA is about stopping the type of hit he made.

Starting now coaches are teaching guys NOT to make hits like that. Your stubborn refusal to accept it as the way things have to be to protect the short and long term health of football players has no bearing whatsoever on what we will see over the next 5 years or so, which is the phasing out of plays like that.

He led with his shoulder and hit the guy high, you don't know where your going to hit someone at game speed. He will attack it the same way he did Saturday.....Coach said the same thing it was an unlucky hit which he clearly intended to lead with the shoulder and still hit high....You can't teach accidents. You will not stop that from occuring. What you will start seeing is DB's getting injured more trying to not stick someone. You will see a lot more dislocated shoulders.

Bolded is the whole damn point of the targeting rule, genius. You don't have to lead with your helmet for it to be targeting. You can lead with your helmet, shoulder, forearm, whatever... And like you said, at game speed he can't be sure he won't hit him up around his neck/head area (which he DID). That's why he was ejected, because they're enforcing the idea that they need to be more careful about what part of the body they're hitting on defenseless players.

Once again, where he "intended" to hit him doesn't matter. He hit him too high and was rightly disqualified by the rules.

For the last time, your opinion about the rule doesn't mean jack s#i+.

(11-12-2013 03:42 PM)TN Knightfan Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 01:57 PM)billetingman1 Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 01:50 PM)TN Knightfan Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 12:57 PM)billetingman1 Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 12:53 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  Here's the thing on the UH hit. It was a legitimate call. You know why? Because it was reviewed by the booth and they confirmed what occurred and that the hit was illegal. I love these message board fans that think they understand the rule better than the officials who have been trained on it and had plenty of time to review it and confirm it.

Rule is a rule. But in crunch time going at game speed in that situation you make that type of hit and never think twice about it.

That's the way the game has been coached for a long time and they're putting a stop to it. Next time McMillian will think twice about it because he had to listen to the stadium erupt at the end of the game from the locker room. He's also only going to play the second half of the Louisville game. The ejection and first half suspension will help him remember how serious the NCAA is about stopping the type of hit he made.

Starting now coaches are teaching guys NOT to make hits like that. Your stubborn refusal to accept it as the way things have to be to protect the short and long term health of football players has no bearing whatsoever on what we will see over the next 5 years or so, which is the phasing out of plays like that.

He led with his shoulder and hit the guy high, you don't know where your going to hit someone at game speed. He will attack it the same way he did Saturday.....Coach said the same thing it was an unlucky hit which he clearly intended to lead with the shoulder and still hit high....You can't teach accidents. You will not stop that from occuring. What you will start seeing is DB's getting injured more trying to not stick someone. You will see a lot more dislocated shoulders.

Bolded is the whole damn point of the targeting rule, genius. You don't have to lead with your helmet for it to be targeting. You can lead with your helmet, shoulder, forearm, whatever... And like you said, at game speed he can't be sure he won't hit him up around his neck/head area (which he DID). That's why he was ejected, because they're enforcing the idea that they need to be more careful about what part of the body they're hitting on defenseless players.

Once again, where he "intended" to hit him doesn't matter. He hit him too high and was rightly disqualified by the rules.

For the last time, your opinion about the rule doesn't mean jack s#i+.

Never said it wasn't a targeting call genius...I said it was an accident and going at game speed you can't determine where your going to hit someone. No different then making a play on someone and accidently grabing the fast mask and almost taking the guy with the ball head off in the process. If you think its that simple then you never played a down in of D-1 FOOTBALL. But again the rule will not change anything...Only way it changes if you start playing flag football. You can kick a guy out for the whole season and you will still have targeting.

I can't believe there are over 130 comments about head to head contact.

lmao is this still going on? Memphis and houston fans are showing major pms in this thread.

What do you stop the receiver from catching the ball? Hit him a feather pillow and hope he drops the ball?

I think the mistake that the Houston DB made was not wrapping up Perriman when he hit him. If he wraps him up like he's trying to tackle him it might not have looked like targeting to the refs.

Keep this thread going a few more days and I'm sure we'll have another controversial AAC targeting call/non-call.

(11-13-2013 10:19 AM)SteveUCF19 Wrote:  I think the mistake that the Houston DB made was not wrapping up Perriman when he hit him. If he wraps him up like he's trying to tackle him it might not have looked like targeting to the refs.

Possible, but I don't think Zac McMillian is big enough to get his arms around a big receiver. Been watching Zac since he was a Freshman. He is a good tackler below the waist but never seen him be able to tackle high.