Hit on McKnight ruled illegal...

[dply]

Here is the thing. I'm not going to call it a "dirty" play, because that implys "intent." I don't know if you can go that far here. And I don't think the kid should be suspended.

What bugs me is that the official had no choice, under the rules as I understand them, to disallow the turnover based on an illegal hit. All he could rule on was whether or not it was a turn over and could not, I don't think, consider the hit. I believe that should be changed to something to the effect of "if, in reviewing a turnover, it is determined that the turnover was caused by an illegal play by the opposing team, the official may, at that time, penalize the opposing team for the illegal play, negating the turnover" or something to that effect.

I agree 100%

 

[CSU Husker]

Making penalty calls via replay will open a whole new, GIGANTIC can of worms tho.

It was an unfortunate no-call.

 

[dply]

Making penalty calls via replay will open a whole new, GIGANTIC can of worms tho.

It was an unfortunate no-call.

I don't want penalties to be reviewable just if a penalty results in a turnover when the play was being reviewed.

 

[FlatironsBuff]

To me it looks like he hit McKnights shoulder first, but he did lead with his helmet. Tough being a safety and walking that fine line between being aggressive and not drawing laundry.

Should have been a penalty and CU's ball plus penalty yardage. But I don't think suspension is warranted. Besides, what does that do for CU now?

Here is the thing. I'm not going to call it a "dirty" play, because that implys "intent." I don't know if you can go that far here. And I don't think the kid should be suspended.

What bugs me is that the official had no choice, under the rules as I understand them, to disallow the turnover based on an illegal hit. All he could rule on was whether or not it was a turn over and could not, I don't think, consider the hit. I believe that should be changed to something to the effect of "if, in reviewing a turnover, it is determined that the turnover was caused by an illegal play by the opposing team, the official may, at that time, penalize the opposing team for the illegal play, negating the turnover" or something to that effect.

Yes, if they review a turnover, but the team that got the turnover committed a foul to cause the turnover, you CANNOT give them the ball!! That is total bull****!! And yes, that is exactly how the rules read right now. If you can use review to determine a turnover, you should be able to use the replay to decide if a penalty caused it. Period.

I don't want penalties to be reviewable just if a penalty results in a turnover when the play was being reviewed.

That is a agreeable thing, until the first comeback drive is killed and we have to punt it away and lose the game. Then we will want all penalties to be reviewable.:lol:

But is that a bad thing? Maybe keep the allowable number of challenges, but allow that coaches to dispute a penalty too. Isn't the idea of reviews to take the human error out of the equation? And isn't this a case of the refs making an error that killed all momentum CU had?

 

[SuperiorBuff]

Making penalty calls via replay will open a whole new, GIGANTIC can of worms tho.

It was an unfortunate no-call.

The NFL does it.

 

[DBT]

The NFL does it.

Are you sure about that? I thought they could only rule on posession plays.

 

[somebody]

That's your opinion, there are 50% that see it the opposite way. If you are going to lead with your shoulder, you have to bend you body forward. The laws of physics make it impossible for your head not to follow. I'm done - think what you want.

Wow, you have not only counted all the opinions, you have defined a new law of physics, cuz that one wasn't covered in my physics classes. And one that players that don't get flagged for tackles must be breaking on almost every play. Maybe you meant laws of biology? :lol:

 

[77buff]

Hey Internet Tough Guy [tm], I'm a man! I'm 40!

Dude, you're saying the play was "a good hard play" when the guy lead with the crown of his helmet. Now you're saying that you never said you should lower your head and hit with the crown of the helmet. Keep backpedaling.

Show my quotes where I say to disregard the rules?
Show my quotes where I say to lead with your helmet?
If you can't stfu.
It wasn't intentional, that's the bottom line. If it was the kid would have been suspended.

 

[77buff]

Here is the thing. I'm not going to call it a "dirty" play, because that implys "intent." I don't know if you can go that far here. And I don't think the kid should be suspended.

What bugs me is that the official had no choice, under the rules as I understand them, to disallow the turnover based on an illegal hit. All he could rule on was whether or not it was a turn over and could not, I don't think, consider the hit. I believe that should be changed to something to the effect of "if, in reviewing a turnover, it is determined that the turnover was caused by an illegal play by the opposing team, the official may, at that time, penalize the opposing team for the illegal play, negating the turnover" or something to that effect.

Exactly, my point

 

[CarolinaBuff]

To me it looks like he hit McKnights shoulder first, but he did lead with his helmet. Tough being a safety and walking that fine line between being aggressive and not drawing laundry.

That's your opinion, there are 50% that see it the opposite way. If you are going to lead with your shoulder, you have to bend you body forward. The laws of physics make it impossible for your head not to follow. I'm done - think what you want.

That's the part I've always had a hard time understanding - that you're not supposed to lower your helmet, yet you're supposed to lead with your shoulder. That seems like a very fine line that would be tough to control.

 

[77buff]

My gut feeling about this whole thread is sour grapes on the part of many CU fans. For Christ sake, stop picking on a CSU player that was involved in an unfortunate play for McKnight. If you really want to vent some anger or point a finger - why don't you do it at Dan Hawkins? He lost the game for CU. He was totally unprepared and out coached. He lost the game, not the CU players.

 

[13Buff]

They can look at every game every week played and suspend players all the time.....it is football, dont want to get hit, run cross country

You apparently never ran 3A Cross-Country

 

[Sexton Hardcastle]

My gut feeling about this whole thread is sour grapes on the part of many CU fans. For Christ sake, stop picking on a CSU player that was involved in an unfortunate play for McKnight. If you really want to vent some anger or point a finger - why don't you do it at Dan Hawkins? He lost the game for CU. He was totally unprepared and out coached. He lost the game, not the CU players.

I don't have any issues with him being a CSU player. They kicked our ass that day. They deserved to win.

 

[Scotch]

I don't have any issues with him being a CSU player. They kicked our ass that day. They deserved to win.

:yeahthat:

Like someone already said in this thread, it was an unfortunate no call and nothing more. Cody was still missing open receivers, receivers were still dropping balls, the O-Line still looked like swiss cheese, the D was still giving up big plays, the secondary forgot what it meant to keep the receiver in front of them, etc. etc. etc. etc........

It was a momentum killer, but it's our own fault that a play like that was as big of a momentum killer as it was. Also like to point out the Rams punted on that next possession. We get the ball back and it was just more of the same. :huh:

 

[Buffnik]

I've finally gotten past the "hot anger" phase from Sunday night and am more on a "slow boil" at this point. So this post isn't venting steam like a lot of the past couple days was for me. I just wanted to preface this to make sure no one thought I was piling on or taking a pot shot. So, here goes.

Of all the things that bothered me about Sunday night and the public statements that have since been made by Coach Hawkins, the thing that bothers me the most is the way the hit on Scotty was handled. Most of the other issues are correctable (or even self-correcting as the team gets used to playing together this year, the coordinators get a feel for their units, and some of the younger/newer guys get used to the speed and intensity of D1 football).

But the fact that Hawkins did not get angry when a CSU player headhunted Scotty, knocked him out, celebrated the play, and the refs failed to make a call... is inexcusable in my book. That is not having your player's back when it is a safety issue. That is not having the right level of intensity as a head coach when witnessing a referee error on a potentially game changing play. That is projecting an attitude of "que sera sera" (or in Hawkspeak, "flush it"). It goes to why this team is soft. It is something that is part of Hawkins' core philosophy. It's who he is. Therefore, it's something that cannot be changed. And it's why I don't have any faith that we will ever be more than a soft, finesse team under Hawkins and never be more than a team that turns in seasons at varying levels of mediocrity.

Ok. I think I'm done now.

 

[Deleted member 807]

McKnight was listed with a mild concussion.

The TV announcer said that the trainer took his helmet away to keep him from checking back in. That didn't last.

I hope he's okay and ready for Friday night. Without McKnight, there goes a big chunk of the offense.

 

[Costa Rica Buff]

But the fact that Hawkins did not get angry when a CSU player headhunted Scotty, knocked him out, celebrated the play, and the refs failed to make a call... is inexcusable in my book. That is not having your player's back when it is a safety issue. QUOTE]

Agreed 100%. Hawk's lack of reaction was very telling IMHO. It could have been used as a rallying point for CU rather than allowing it to become one for the other team.

 

[AustinTxBuff]

It has nothing to do with anger. You lower your head and lead with the crown of your helmet, then it's a dirty play.

You target a receiver's head, it's a dirty play.

The defender did both. He needs to sit out a game.

 

[BuffMania]

He needs to sit out a game.

Disagree 100%. He won't sit a game, by the way.

How did you feel about the hit put on Neb's WR just before halftime last year?

 

[CSU Husker]

The NFL does it.

Im almost positive that they DO NOT do this.

 

[Buffnik]

The NFL fines players based on review of the tapes. Punishment could even be as severe as a suspension. It doesn't matter whether the referees called a penalty during the game or not.

But during an NFL game, they most certainly do not assess an uncalled penalty based on instant replay.

 

[El Gringo]

what is going to send me through the roof is when, Friday night, Polk, Jalil or maybe J.Smith, get called for the exact same play and get suspended.

 

[B1Buff]

But the fact that Hawkins did not get angry when a CSU player headhunted Scotty, knocked him out, celebrated the play, and the refs failed to make a call... is inexcusable in my book. That is not having your player's back when it is a safety issue. QUOTE]

Agreed 100%. Hawk's lack of reaction was very telling IMHO. It could have been used as a rallying point for CU rather than allowing it to become one for the other team.

Hawk looked stoned out there, he did not even raise an eyebrow during the game. Even Jim Tressel shows more emotion during a game than he did. Have some fire coach, react, players play off that kind of intensity. If they see in your attitude (and playcalling) that you don't care...why would they?

 

[DBT]

Hawk looked stoned out there, he did not even raise an eyebrow during the game. Even Jim Tressel shows more emotion during a game than he did. Have some fire coach, react, players play off that kind of intensity. If they see in your attitude (and playcalling) that you don't care...why would they?

There are different styles and they all can work. I remember seeing Tom Landry on the sideline of a game Dallas was playing horribly in. He just sat there with his arms crossed, no change in expression. He was a decent coach.

 

[Buffnik]

There are different styles and they all can work. I remember seeing Tom Landry on the sideline of a game Dallas was playing horribly in. He just sat there with his arms crossed, no change in expression. He was a decent coach.

Agreed. And all sorts of different leadership styles work. The most important thing in a leader is that his style is genuine and not trying to be someone he's not.

That said, I believe the stoic thing only works well when the guy's an uncompromising, carved out of wood, old school tough guy. New age-y and unemotional in a combination I haven't seen work. Coaches from the new school that win seem to all be rah-rah types (prime example: Pete Carroll).

 

[FChairbanks]

There are different styles and they all can work. I remember seeing Tom Landry on the sideline of a game Dallas was playing horribly in. He just sat there with his arms crossed, no change in expression. He was a decent coach.

tom landry never publicly and vehemently derided intramurals either...

...did you just compare tom landry's style of coaching to dan hawkins'...?

 

[FChairbanks]

:huh:

 

[DBT]

tom landry never publicly and vehemently derided intramurals either...

...did you just compare tom landry's style of coaching to dan hawkins'...?

:lol: I hope not. Just making the point that there are different styles of coaching.

In observing Hawkins this week, does it seem to you that something has changed in the guy? I think he has gone from smug confidence, born of a career of nothing but success, to the realization that he is on the precipice of coaching oblivion. He almost seems in shock.

 

[SuperiorBuff]

Im almost positive that they DO NOT do this.

It happened to the Broncos a couple of years back. I don't recall the exact play or game but after the review a penalty was added. They did not review specifically for a penalty but decided a penalty was committed during the review and assessed it.

 

[The Guest]

It happened to the Broncos a couple of years back. I don't recall the exact play or game but after the review a penalty was added.

I don't think that a penalty should be added in review, however, I agree with the previous post which essentially stated that a turnover shouldn't be granted as the result of a penalty during a review.

EDIT: Which is to say that while I don't think that CSU should have been penalized for a hit that the officials couldn't spot when it happened, I certainly don't think they should have been rewarded for it either.