Should UT pull a "Houston" in the upcoming Bama game?

#28
#28
Volank said:
Yes. Not lead with the crown type but should have tackled him lower. Facemask to facemask type hit
Click to expand...

Thanks to you, It's time, and Bandit Vol. I appreciate y'all letting me know. I hate that for him though, if it wasn't a "true" targeting call but we'll see what he can do in the 2nd half then.
 
#29
#29
rockydoc said:
Some could make a case for resting the key players, spending two weeks preparing for USCjr and keeping our slim hopes of a bowl game alive. I think the media fall out would be devastating. However, if the game got out of hand early go to the bench and rest the starters.
Click to expand...
This shouldn't be a throw away game, imo. They are doing some positive things and need to keep working. The DLine had 7 TFLs and weren't looking stuck on interior blocks like prior games. Not as much anyhow. Fight off those blocks and make them hold to protect their QB. Plus, there was progress in the run game blocking today. Of course, they have to throw some to keep Bama honest. But keep working that run game blocking. And Tyler Byrd provided some yds after catch that was badly needed.

So I think there are helpful things about playing Bama that would benefit future games regardless. They have USC coming to Knoxville a week later and they can toughen up on playing #1 and USC won't seem too daunting. Even Mizzou doesn't look so awesome tonight. They are so thin at many positions that reserves are already playing a lot. Anyway, they competed hard against Ga and beat MSU today. Compete hard against Bama and let's see what happens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vols40
#31
#31
Other_Guy said:
Late hit yes. Targeting no IMO. Weak call, at least.
Click to expand...
I agree on this. Weak call for sure; he hit him with hands and arms in the chest first and then momentum brought them together, facemask to facemask. I saw it more as incidental collision than intentional targeting. JMO on what I remember seeing.
 
#32
#32
This team needs the extra bowl practices. It’s not winning versus Bama regardless of who starts at QB. I’d sit Maurer. You lose him in this game you have no chance versus Carolina or Missouri.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sbm362
#35
#35
rockydoc said:
Some could make a case for resting the key players, spending two weeks preparing for USCjr and keeping our slim hopes of a bowl game alive. I think the media fall out would be devastating. However, if the game got out of hand early go to the bench and rest the starters.
Click to expand...
No, this team needs to compete and get better. Only place I’d consider it is at QB where Maurer is in the concussion protocol and doesn’t need the physical beating that Bama will give our qb.
 
#37
#37
Ten_Titans said:
Probably the easiest targeting call of the year.

Wasn't malicious, but it was textbook targeting.
Click to expand...
Horribly disagree. Every 20 minute review of targeting we get descriptions of the rules and how targeting involves launching to the head or neck area. "Launching" and "forcible contact" are nauseatingly used to get the point across by retired refs working the broadcast. HT did neither of those things. No launch. No forcible contact. Their masks hit. Letter of the law? Perhaps...but it doesn't fit with their agenda.
 
#38
#38
rockydoc said:
Some could make a case for resting the key players, spending two weeks preparing for USCjr and keeping our slim hopes of a bowl game alive. I think the media fall out would be devastating. However, if the game got out of hand early go to the bench and rest the starters.
Click to expand...

H*LL NO!!! The reason you come to Tennessee is to play Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Auburn, etc. The players will be jacked for Bama. You bring this idea to the athletic building and you'll be in the concussion protocol for the foreseeable future! Lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolinMC
#39
#39
VOLNPA said:
Horribly disagree. Every 20 minute review of targeting we get descriptions of the rules and how targeting involves launching to the head or neck area. "Launching" and "forcible contact" are nauseatingly used to get the point across by retired refs working the broadcast. HT did neither of those things. No launch. No forcible contact. Their masks hit. Letter of the law? Perhaps...but it doesn't fit with their agenda.
Click to expand...
How was it not forcible contact? He ran right through him helmet to helmet.
 
#43
#43
You would send a bad message to your team, don't send the message that they don't belong on the field with another team. You motivate them to compete against the best in the conference and to improve their position skills against the best they will face the rest of the year.

As far as the QB, whoever plays could improve by playing under control. Guarantano looked more relaxed today and didn't force things. Instead he made the safer passes he was capable of making and not forcing things that weren't there. If Maurer had played under control, then he doesn't force passes into double coverage and they could have had points in place of those 2 redzone interceptions. I know they both want to make a play but it doesn't need to come off a play that really isn't there. Save it for the next play or a FG for points.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: NCFisher
#45
#45
OrangeSquid said:
I agree on this. Weak call for sure; he hit him with hands and arms in the chest first and then momentum brought them together, facemask to facemask. I saw it more as incidental collision than intentional targeting. JMO on what I remember seeing.
Click to expand...
The intent does not define the call. Henry made forcible contact to the head/neck area of a defenseless player (a QB making a pass) using his helmet. By definition, the hit was targeting. CJP even confirmed it in the post-game press conf. I don’t think Henry meant to do it, but it was the correct call.

NCAA targeting rule will never be perfect, but it’s worth reading
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnnyJava
#46
#46
rockydoc said:
Some could make a case for resting the key players, spending two weeks preparing for USCjr and keeping our slim hopes of a bowl game alive. I think the media fall out would be devastating. However, if the game got out of hand early go to the bench and rest the starters.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right. Some could make that case. But I would have to disagree with that strategy. This isn't the NFL. Tennessee plays to win every game it plays with our best guys out there. At least, that was the Tennessee I grew up with. Baptize our younger guys with fire, if they happen to be our best available. If it gets out of hand, you are wearing the orange and white and you still fight the guy in front of you to the very last snap. Play to win or don't play the game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NCFisher, VolinMC, LexVol71 and 1 other person
#47
#47
VolsFan-TX said:
The intent does not define the call. Henry made forcible contact to the head/neck area of a defenseless player (a QB making a pass) using his helmet. By definition, the hit was targeting. CJP even confirmed it in the post-game press conf. I don’t think Henry meant to do it, but it was the correct call.
NCAA targeting rule will never be perfect, but it’s worth reading
Click to expand...
No disagreement from me on the first two bold comments. My thoughts on targeting, and it's just my personal opinion; I think the targeting rule as used isn't perfect and incidental contact shouldn't be an ejection. I've seen players ejected due to last second changes in direction or dropping low causing the helmet to helmet by the defender when his original intent was aiming low, while others have launched from their feet, arms to the side, leading with the helmet not get a personal foul. It was called spearing when I was younger IIRC. I just hate seeing players ejected for incidental contact when there is no intent to actually drill the player in the face/head.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top