SIAP. Moore’s ejection

[Courtsensetwo]

I didn’t get to look at the replay until this morning but watching it confirmed what I felt at the moment.

My issue with the call is that the only reason there was illegal contact is because the receiver lowered his head into the path of Moore’s helmet.

Losing both Moore and Pierre was a killer. Noah out for the season. Ugh

 

[secondasky]

I didn’t get to look at the replay until this morning but watching it confirmed what I felt at the moment.

My issue with the call is that the only reason there was illegal contact is because the receiver lowered his head into the path of Moore’s helmet.

Losing both Moore and Pierre was a killer. Noah out for the season. Ugh

That's how I saw it. The receiver lowered his head after Moore had already committed on the play. Impossible for Moore to stop in mid air. That's why targeting is a BS call.

 

[Bucket Getter]

Horrible call in a weekend of horrible calls. It was clearly the receiver’s fault, but officials are never going to call it that way.

 

[stonerj]

That's how I saw it. The receiver lowered his head after Moore had already committed on the play. Impossible for Moore to stop in mid air. That's why targeting is a BS call.

Ejection is a BS penalty for the crime. Sometimes there is little that can be done to avoid it, even if coaches can (and have) already taught most of the reckless instances away. 15 yards and a first down is plenty for a first offense, with an ejection for a second offense passes a logic test better in my mind. And no non-intentional play should ever result in a suspension Carry-over to another game.

 

[kmathum]

I didn’t get to look at the replay until this morning but watching it confirmed what I felt at the moment.

My issue with the call is that the only reason there was illegal contact is because the receiver lowered his head into the path of Moore’s helmet.

Losing both Moore and Pierre was a killer. Noah out for the season. Ugh

Its a ridiculous rule. Get rid of it.

 

[Jackskip23]

That's how I saw it. The receiver lowered his head after Moore had already committed on the play. Impossible for Moore to stop in mid air. That's why targeting is a BS call.

The issue is that he lowered his head and led with the crown of his helmet. Targeting isn’t always black and white, but when you tuck your chin and lead with your helmet, you’re going to get called every time.

 

[76-1]

Its a ridiculous rule. Get rid of it.

If it's intentional then it's a great rule... The gray area is when something like this happens where the ball carrier drops his head at the last second making head to head contact unavoidable...

They need to adjust the rule to take this type of scenario in account. They definitely need to drop the ejection part of the rule if it's not intentional and unavoidable...

Basically it's a good reason to always keep your head up and your eyes on the point of impact while going in for the tackle.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

If it's intentional then it's a great rule... The gray area is when something like this happens where the ball carrier drops his head at the last second making head to head contact unavoidable...

They need to adjust the rule to take this type of scenario in account. They definitely need to drop the ejection part of the rule if it's not intentional and unavoidable...

Basically it's a good reason to always keep your head up and your eyes on the point of impact while going in for the tackle.

Agreed.

I am all for reducing head and neck injuries but the call has to be fair to both players. In this case the contact was created by the receiver and should have been waived off.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

That's how I saw it. The receiver lowered his head after Moore had already committed on the play. Impossible for Moore to stop in mid air. That's why targeting is a BS call.

It was the incorrect call in this situation for the reasons outlined here.

 

[Jackskip23]

If it's intentional then it's a great rule... The gray area is when something like this happens where the ball carrier drops his head at the last second making head to head contact unavoidable...

They need to adjust the rule to take this type of scenario in account. They definitely need to drop the ejection part of the rule if it's not intentional and unavoidable...

Basically it's a good reason to always keep your head up and your eyes on the point of impact while going in for the tackle.

As long as you keep your head up and don’t lead with the crown of your helmet, you’re good. Moore didn’t, as the replays and officials all easily concluded, and targeting was rightly called. I‘m not a fan of the severity of the punishment or the lack of discretion, but this one wasn’t close, unfortunately. Head up, not crown, no problem. Easy.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

Lol.

Pavlov

 

[Fenny72]

Doesn't seem like deserving of ejection. Coach TA mentioned he would like to see two different penalties, based on the situation. They already review the play, so just have a Level 1 Ejection and Level 2 just the 15 yard penalty.

 

[Jackskip23]

Doesn't seem like deserving of ejection. Coach TA mentioned he would like to see two different penalties, based on the situation. They already review the play, so just have a Level 1 Ejection and Level 2 just the 15 yard penalty.

This would be a great revision to the current rule, and it would be far more fitting in the instance of Moore’s foul and ejection. By the definition of the rule, he targeted, but there were circumstances on that hit that should’ve merited a reduced punishment, in my view. Still, if you keep your head up and don’t lead with the crown of your helmet, you’ll be fine. Unfortunately, Moore did neither, and he was tossed.

 

[Eyedoc991]

I disagree with the call, but it's just bad (and dangerous) technique to lead with the crown of your helmet. It's worse for the tackler than the ball carrier.

 

[hoquat63]

I disagree with the call, but it's just bad (and dangerous) technique to lead with the crown of your helmet. It's worse for the tackler than the ball carrier.

Yes - that is how Rutgers lineman was paralyzed making a tackle years back.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

I disagree with the call, but it's just bad (and dangerous) technique to lead with the crown of your helmet. It's worse for the tackler than the ball carrier.

It is very dangerous. Not applicable to this situation as he was heading downward but I agree with the premise

 

[Courtsensetwo]

Doesn't seem like deserving of ejection. Coach TA mentioned he would like to see two different penalties, based on the situation. They already review the play, so just have a Level 1 Ejection and Level 2 just the 15 yard penalty.

Agreed. I have made this point in the past as well.

 

[secondasky]

The issue is that he lowered his head and led with the crown of his helmet. Targeting isn’t always black and white, but when you tuck your chin and lead with your helmet, you’re going to get called every time.

I agree because that is the rule which is BS. I asked a friend who started at safety for 4 years and he said not only can you not stop your direction but when lunging to tackle your head goes down naturally.

 

[Jackskip23]

I agree because that is the rule which is BS. I asked a friend who started at safety for 4 years and he said not only can you not stop your direction but when lunging to tackle your head goes down naturally.

I know a couple of guys who were multi year IU DB starters, and they said the same thing. They also said lowering your head creates a feeling of safety when you know a big hit is coming. It’s why the One Size Fits All rule needs some type of revision. They also said that using your helmet was never (or rarely) discouraged in all their years of playing, something most of us who played at various levels can attest to.

 

[Eyedoc991]

I know a couple of guys who were multi year IU DB starters, and they said the same thing. They also said lowering your head creates a feeling of safety when you know a big hit is coming. It’s why the One Size Fits All rule needs some type of revision. They also said that using your helmet was never (or rarely) discouraged in all their years of playing, something most of us who played at various levels can attest to.

The NFL Films effect. Leading with the crown of helmet was discouraged in pee wee all the way through high school where I grew up, as a protection to the tackler, and better tackling form. Tackling =/= hitting.

 

[Palmbeachhoosier]

Its a ridiculous rule. Get rid of it.

The rule is noy ridiculus but interpretation and administration of the rule is ridiculous.

 

[Jackskip23]

The NFL Films effect. Leading with the crown of helmet was discouraged in pee wee all the way through high school where I grew up, as a protection to the tackler, and better tackling form. Tackling =/= hitting.

Some coaches would emphasize using your shoulder to make the hit, but helmet hitting hurt us less and usually delivered a bigger hit.

 

[rcaulfie]

Agreed.

I am all for reducing head and neck injuries but the call has to be fair to both players. In this case the contact was created by the receiver and should have been waived off.

I have not watched a single replay of the game, and have no desire to. But I agree, they need to make it safer. But tell me this.....if the WR lowers his head and leads with it, how is that safe for him? It isn't. Of course, they won't ever do anything to change that. But why can't the receiver or any ball carrier lead with his shoulder as well? Probably a dumb point to make.

But bottom line, in relationship to the call itself. We all know Big Ten refs are not the best. And of all the weekend's conference games, you can rest assured the worst of the bunch will be at our game. Can't wait for us to play other cellar dwellers - MSU, Illinois and Purdue. Definitely will be the worst teams of refs the Big Ten has. (And even then, those other teams will get any close calls because they have a bigger following than IU.)

 

[Jackskip23]

I have not watched a single replay of the game, and have no desire to. But I agree, they need to make it safer. But tell me this.....if the WR lowers his head and leads with it, how is that safe for him? It isn't. Of course, they won't ever do anything to change that. But why can't the receiver or any ball carrier lead with his shoulder as well? Probably a dumb point to make.

But bottom line, in relationship to the call itself. We all know Big Ten refs are not the best. And of all the weekend's conference games, you can rest assured the worst of the bunch will be at our game. Can't wait for us to play other cellar dwellers - MSU, Illinois and Purdue. Definitely will be the worst teams of refs the Big Ten has. (And even then, those other teams will get any close calls because they have a bigger following than IU.)

The receiver lowered his head but didn’t lead with it (which isn’t against the rules anyway) while Moore lowered his head and led with the crown of his helmet, which is why it was called. If Moore’s head is up, there’s no penalty.

 

[IUNorth]

This would be a great revision to the current rule, and it would be far more fitting in the instance of Moore’s foul and ejection. By the definition of the rule, he targeted, but there were circumstances on that hit that should’ve merited a reduced punishment, in my view. Still, if you keep your head up and don’t lead with the crown of your helmet, you’ll be fine. Unfortunately, Moore did neither, and he was tossed.

Take a cue from soccer. Yellow card/red card. If its obviously malicious, intentional, etc...in the replay, red card, gets the penalty and ejection. If not, if the ball carrier lowers their head, if they're blocked in to the ball carrier, whatever...yellow card. But if they do something similar in the same game, automatic red card. And then also there's a cumulative number of yellow cards they can get throughout the season, before it becomes a red card.

High school soccer officials can keep all this straight with little note books in their pocket, surely college football could as well.

 

[Eyedoc991]

The thing I hate about replay is that you can convince yourself of anything in slow motion. I think replay should have to be viewed at normal speed and calls reversed only if an obvious error was made on the field. Guys don't move in slow motion.

How many calls are wrong even after replay? I'm not convinced it has been a net positive on the game because of the way it's utilized.

 

[Jackskip23]

Take a cue from soccer. Yellow card/red card. If its obviously malicious, intentional, etc...in the replay, red card, gets the penalty and ejection. If not, if the ball carrier lowers their head, if they're blocked in to the ball carrier, whatever...yellow card. But if they do something similar in the same game, automatic red card. And then also there's a cumulative number of yellow cards they can get throughout the season, before it becomes a red card.

High school soccer officials can keep all this straight with little note books in their pocket, surely college football could as well.

Great ideas and something that would likely create a more just level of officiating.

 

[IUNorth]

Great ideas and something that would likely create a more just level of officiating.

When there are simple answers like this...it makes me confused and frustrated they aren't already in place. Obviously they feel the need to overreach on these helmet hits to fundamentally change the game. I think soccer style does a better job of it.

A soccer red card can actually be worse. I believe a soccer red card is an ejection from the current game, and suspension from the entire rest of the next game.

I'd be advocate for that. Make the penalty more harsh for the obviously intentional and malicious hits. And for the players that are tackling with their crowns multiple times in a short amount of time. But provide for some levity and realism for how the game is actually played, and what can happen to cause helmet to helmet hits.

 

[Jackskip23]

When there are simple answers like this...it makes me confused and frustrated they aren't already in place. Obviously they feel the need to overreach on these helmet hits to fundamentally change the game. I think soccer style does a better job of it.

A soccer red card can actually be worse. I believe a soccer red card is an ejection from the current game, and suspension from the entire rest of the next game.

I'd be advocate for that. Make the penalty more harsh for the obviously intentional and malicious hits. And for the players that are tackling with their crowns multiple times in a short amount of time. But provide for some levity and realism for how the game is actually played, and what can happen to cause helmet to helmet hits.

I think the simplicity argument fades when you consider that soccer yellow and red cards typically aren’t issued due to threats of head injuries, while the targeting rules have been specifically implemented to impact just that. Whether intentional or avoidable, cumulative head trauma leading to permanent brain injury is what the rule makers are trying to address, and they’ve taken a zero tolerance approach in their quest. The practical application of the rules and punishment have revealed gray areas, and those should be addressed. But suggesting that there are easy so.utions here isn’t necessarily accurate based on the intention of those who crafted the rule.

 

[DANC]

Agreed.

I am all for reducing head and neck injuries but the call has to be fair to both players. In this case the contact was created by the receiver and should have been waived off.

If we can see it, why couldn't the officials see it.

 

[Jackskip23]

If we can see it, why couldn't the officials see it.

Because the officials understand the rule.

 

[DANC]

Because the officials understand the rule.

Of course you'd support the penalty - it went against IU.

 

[Jackskip23]

Of course you'd support the penalty - it went against IU.

Not a matter of support . . . I just understand the rule. It’s not particularly difficult, and it has nothing to do with why I’m an IU fan.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

Of course you'd support the penalty - it went against IU.

Ya think?

 

[DANC]

Ya think?

Have you EVER heard him criticize a call that went against IU? I haven't.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

If we can see it, why couldn't the officials see it.

If they had the advantage of time to really look at it as we did afterwards they would not make that call. They didn't and I don't blame them for missing a bang bang play.

Fortunately it was just for the second half and does not bleed into the next game.

All that said, the officials need to get that rule and how it is called straightened out.

 

[DANC]

If they had the advantage of time to really look at it as we did afterwards they would not make that call. They didn't and I don't blame them for missing a bang bang play.

Fortunately it was just for the second half and does not bleed into the next game.

All that said, the officials need to get that rule and how it is called straightened out.

They had time on the review.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

Have you EVER heard him criticize a call that went against IU? I haven't.

Honestly, for his last six or seven user names i have really tried to pay less attention to his mind-numbing anti-IU rants and constant fabrications.

 

[82hoosier]

They had time on the review.

One one of my favorite professors at Indiana, Michael Metzger, on the first day of class in business law said: "life is not fair so don't expect the law to be fair". That sage advice has spared me punching my fist through walls more than once.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

They had time on the review.

Yes. but there is a lot of pressure on them to make quick decisions and stop the four hour games.