Or also Goff's injury?

I missed both.

Still no?

Seeing it again. if he's not suspended for the next game I feel like cal should file a formal complaint with the PAC. That's complete horse ****

Wow, lined him up and launched. Horrible.

cccbear04;842232642 said:

---

Seeing it again. if he's not suspended for the next game I feel like cal should file a formal complaint with the PAC. That's complete horse ****

---

The problem is ... Cal should not be the one who had to file a complaint. Make us look petty. The season is over and hopefully Goff is OK. But the Pac-12 must step up!

cccbear04;842232642 said:

---

Seeing it again. if he's not suspended for the next game I feel like cal should file a formal complaint with the PAC. That's complete horse ****

---

horsesh!t is right. didn't even use his hands. that's the kind of hit that's dangerous for both players. wow.

TouchedTheAxeIn82;842232627 said:

---

---

Man, he launches with the crown pointed. He become airborne. I'm still baffled by the no call. Sometimes in the NFL there is a no call followed by a hefty fine and possible suspension. In this case, nothing? What an effing joke...

I'd love to see that compared to some of the plays where we've gotten roughing the passer, let alone the targeting call on McCain.

I'm convinced that refs feel much, much more comfortable calling penalties on teams that are supposed to be bad. I think subconsciously they feel that (1) they have to call some penalties, especially those relating to high-profile rule changes, and (2) if they call a questionable penalty on a team that's supposed to lose no one will complain, so they don't hesitate or second guess it. No one will put a no-call that knocks Goff out of the game on ESPN, but an ejection that takes Skov out of the Notre Dame game...

jeeez the replay is worse. afterwards he should have completed it and just kicked jared in the balls

TiredBear;842232684 said:

---

Man, he launches with the crown pointed. He become airborne. I'm still baffled by the no call. Sometimes in the NFL there is a no call followed by a hefty fine and possible suspension. In this case, nothing? What an effing joke...

---

It's a textbook launching/targeting call. Hell he doesn't even get a chance to wrap up with his arms because his helmet is the only thing that really contacts Goff. Absolutely ridiculous no-call.

^exactly!!!

berk18;842232685 said:

---

I'd love to see that compared to some of the plays where we've gotten roughing the passer, let alone the targeting call on McCain.

I'm convinced that refs feel much, much more comfortable calling penalties on teams that are supposed to be bad. I think subconsciously they feel that (1) they have to call some penalties, especially those relating to high-profile rule changes, and (2) if they call a questionable penalty on a team that's supposed to lose no one will complain, so they don't hesitate or second guess it. No one will put a no-call that knocks Goff out of the game on ESPN, but an ejection that takes Skov out of the Notre Dame game...

---

I think this may be true but I also think there's home team bias.

freshfunk;842232694 said:

---

I think this may be true but I also think there's home team bias.

---

Not when we're the home-team, haha.

I also think this can go the other way. There was a stretch where USC was getting shafted pretty bad toward the end of their dominant run. Pete Carroll put together the stats, and not only did USC lead the conference in penalties, but everyone in the conference had their season low in penalty yards when they played the Trojans. I'm sure the refs aren't immune to the same feelings the rest of the viewer-ship has, where there's a sense of who "should" win. That can be a dominant team hammering a cellar-dweller or a plucky underdog beating a team that everyone's gotten bored of, but whatever it is they make calls based on that.

The truly gross and sickening thing about this play is the huge smile on his face after this play while being congratulated by both teammates and coaches. Disgusting. Reprehensible. Man, WTF?!?!?!

How can no action be taken about this? Simply incomprehensible. Hard to see how this could have been more blatant.

Disgusting...

TiredBear;842232684 said:

---

Man, he launches with the crown pointed. He become airborne. I'm still baffled by the no call. Sometimes in the NFL there is a no call followed by a hefty fine and possible suspension. In this case, nothing? What an effing joke...

---

I absolutely cannot stand that ref that looks like Michael Bluth's dad on Arrested Development. He ALWAYS screws us. ALWAYS. What McCain did on the Northwestern QB was nothing compared to this.

Sadly, I think you are right berk18. Refs are all too human and influenced at all levels---high school, college, and yes, even pro. I think it's one of the most frustrating things in sports now---the inconsistency of officials. In close games where a single play can make a huge difference in the outcome, they often decide who wins or loses (and often with a bad call). This is nothing new. Many of you are not old enough to remember when UCLA was the power in basketball in the 1960s. They were definitely great, but it was also frustrating because you had to battle against not just the players but the refs as well. ANY pushing or shoving and jockeying for position was invariably called a foul on the opposing player. I always thought it weird that even though they were better than everyone else, they were ALSO PROTECTED more than anyone else. This made it extremely hard to defeat them. I'm convinced this is part of the reason they had such long winning streaks in those days.

TouchedTheAxeIn82;842232627 said:

---

---

Skov, you goddamned scumbag.

Wow. I was at the game and didn't see this hit live. So the entire officiating crew and I have THAT in common, I guess.

From an article prior to the season on the new targeting rule:

Quote:

---

According to a handout produced by College Football Officiating, LLC, if officials see the following things, the risk of a targeting foul is high:

• Launching toward an opponent to make contact in the head or neck area.

• A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust with contact at the head or neck area.

• Leading with the helmet, forearm, fist, hand or elbow into the head or neck area.

• Lowering the head before attacking and initiating with the crown of the helmet.

According to that same handout, the following factors would indicate less risk of a targeting penalty being called:

• A heads-up tackle where the crown of the helmet does not strike above the shoulders.

• A wrap-up tackle.

• The head is to the side rather than used to initiate contact.

• Incidental helmet contact due to players changing position during the play.

---

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130723/college-football-officials-targeting-rule/#ixzz2lgxgCYVf

86Oski;842233028 said:

---

Wow. I was at the game and didn't see this hit live. So the entire officiating crew and I have THAT in common, I guess.

From an article prior to the season on the new targeting rule:

Quote:

---

According to a handout produced by College Football Officiating, LLC, if officials see the following things, the risk of a targeting foul is high:

• Launching toward an opponent to make contact in the head or neck area. Yup.

• A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust with contact at the head or neck area.Yup.

• Leading with the helmet, forearm, fist, hand or elbow into the head or neck area.Yup.

• Lowering the head before attacking and initiating with the crown of the helmet.Yup.

According to that same handout, the following factors would indicate less risk of a targeting penalty being called:

• A heads-up tackle where the crown of the helmet does not strike above the shoulders. Nope.

• A wrap-up tackle. Nope.

• The head is to the side rather than used to initiate contact. Nope.

• Incidental helmet contact due to players changing position during the play. Nope.

---

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130723/college-football-officials-targeting-rule/#ixzz2lgxgCYVf

---

Well, that seems pretty clear, doesn't it?

Quote:

---

According to a handout produced by College Football Officiating, LLC, if officials see the following things, the risk of a targeting foul is high:

• Launching toward an opponent to make contact in the head or neck area. - CHECK

• A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust with contact at the head or neck area. - CHECK

• Leading with the helmet, forearm, fist, hand or elbow into the head or neck area. - CHECK

• Lowering the head before attacking and initiating with the crown of the helmet. - CHECK

According to that same handout, the following factors would indicate less risk of a targeting penalty being called:

• A heads-up tackle where the crown of the helmet does not strike above the shoulders. - N/A

• A wrap-up tackle. - N/A

• The head is to the side rather than used to initiate contact. - N/A

• Incidental helmet contact due to players changing position during the play. - N/A

---

This is literally the most textbook case of targeting I've ever seen since the rule was implemented.

Wonder if 20 years or so from now we'll be reading stories about Skov turning into a physical and emotional wreck from repeated concussions because of actions like this. And none of us will have any sympathy for him.

cccbear04;842232642 said:

---

Seeing it again. if he's not suspended for the next game I feel like cal should file a formal complaint with the PAC. That's complete horse ****

---

Uhhh, seeing it for the first time...

That is as blatant as it gets.

HungryCalBear;842232678 said:

---

The problem is ... Cal should not be the one who had to file a complaint. Make us look petty. The season is over and hopefully Goff is OK. But the Pac-12 must step up!

---

It is a SAFETY rule... not a PI or holding. It is a rule in place for SAFETY.

This is like not being able to draw a distinction between cheating on a test in high school and shooting a gun inside city limits.

Guilty guilty guilty. No question.

CalBarn;842232726 said:

---

Sadly, I think you are right berk18. Refs are all too human and influenced at all levels---high school, college, and yes, even pro. I think it's one of the most frustrating things in sports now---the inconsistency of officials. In close games where a single play can make a huge difference in the outcome, they often decide who wins or loses (and often with a bad call). This is nothing new. Many of you are not old enough to remember when UCLA was the power in basketball in the 1960s. They were definitely great, but it was also frustrating because you had to battle against not just the players but the refs as well. ANY pushing or shoving and jockeying for position was invariably called a foul on the opposing player. I always thought it weird that even though they were better than everyone else, they were ALSO PROTECTED more than anyone else. This made it extremely hard to defeat them. I'm convinced this is part of the reason they had such long winning streaks in those days.

---

Solid point. Need a computer program to take this out of the officials hands. A play like that can be fed into a program and judged fairly. Pac12 refs are notoriously bag. They are probably the worst.

And player who targets should be suspended for next game.

From this article:

Asked if he thought the hit by Stanford linebacker Shayne Skov that caused the injury was an example of targeting, Dykes said, "I thought we've gotten called for roughing the quarterback for a lot less than that. It's probably better if I don't say anything."


Dykes has to set an example of doing what's right and fight for his team!

HungryCalBear;842233348 said:

---

From this article:

Asked if he thought the hit by Stanford linebacker Shayne Skov that caused the injury was an example of targeting, Dykes said, "I thought we've gotten called for roughing the quarterback for a lot less than that. It's probably better if I don't say anything."


Dykes has to set an example of doing what's right and fight for his team!

---

Yeah, I think he should have berated the officials in his presser and eaten the fine(s). If your head coach doesn't advocate for you, who will?

BigDaddyBear;842233273 said:

---

And player who targets should be suspended for next game.

---

How come they can review it to overturn the suspension/ejection (McCain's hit) and they can't review it to impose a suspension?

Go!Bears;842233445 said:

---

How come they can review it to overturn the suspension/ejection (McCain's hit) and they can't review it to impose a suspension?

---

Who knows? Maybe they want Furd to be at full strength when facing ND?

TouchedTheAxeIn82;842232627 said:

---

---

You see one of the feet of one of the referees in the background? No farther than 10 yards away from where it happened? These refs are pathetic. We should formally file a complaint to Pac12.

chazzed;842233489 said:

---

Who knows? Maybe they want Furd to be at full strength when facing ND?

---

I wouldn't mind a belated punishment to have Skov out in the Pac-12 championship game...