Head Scratching

[Glad Cougar]

I just haven't been exposed to Duck Nation the way others have as I haven't lived in SEA for more than a decade, but I'm starting to understand why they are so reviled even outside of Montlake. Oregon was largely a bum program that was catapulted into national relevance overnight with Chip Kelly. I wish I could track down the article I found years ago showing that their application admissions 10x'd as the football program grew, and of course all the roach-burning slackers started attending games as it became a quasi-required student activity, which created a really low quality/knowledge average fan.

I bring that up because the things I was reading from Oregon fans even after the game made it sound like this was a start-to-finish Skull & Bones payola screwjob. I'm not talking about a couple posters here and there, I'm talking about dozens of fans expressing majority sentiment across several boards who believe that virtually every call was a personal attack directly tied to Vegas betting, and that WSU was victimized not even once. "We had to beat WSU **AND** the refs!" I sense that as the average fan becomes more of a football dunce, the sensationalist hot takes on games just get worse and worse.

Good observation, Chip. Having lived in Oregon for nearly my entire life (sans the last 1.5 years), I have found a majority of Duck fans as insufferable. Probably much like what Seattle area Cougs experience with Husky fans. In fact, one of the best zingers you can throw a Duck fan's way is to tell them they have become the Husky fans of the 80s and 90s....entitled & arrogant (maybe still the case for UW fans?) They don't like to hear that, but it's true. There are exceptions. Every school has good & reasonable fans, every school has jerk fans....but my experience is a higher % of the jerk fans can be found among the UO faithful. Believe me, I'm hoping someone takes them down and soon. Pac-12 pride be damned, I do not want to see them in the national playoffs. You think Duck fans are difficult to like now, just wait until they "get back into the national elite" they think they are entitled to.

Seriously, who storms the field after a 2-point win over WSU?

Glad Cougar

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Good observation, Chip. Having lived in Oregon for nearly my entire life (sans the last 1.5 years), I have found a majority of Duck fans as insufferable. Probably much like what Seattle area Cougs experience with Husky fans. In fact, one of the best zingers you can throw a Duck fan's way is to tell them they have become the Husky fans of the 80s and 90s....entitled & arrogant (maybe still the case for UW fans?) They don't like to hear that, but it's true. There are exceptions. Every school has good & reasonable fans, every school has jerk fans....but my experience is a higher % of the jerk fans can be found among the UO faithful. Believe me, I'm hoping someone takes them down and soon. Pac-12 pride be damned, I do not want to see them in the national playoffs. You think Duck fans are difficult to like now, just wait until they "get back into the national elite" they think they are entitled to.

Seriously, who storms the field after a 2-point win over WSU?

Glad Cougar

Its because they are scared.

The curtain has been pulled back and the wizard has been shown to be the midget. Their vaunted D, what was supposed to entertain a 14 point spread, gave up season highs to a "gimmick" offense. Borghi could have easily run for 100+ had they given him the ball more.

But since their duck sized brains can't process the fact that they have been smoking their own pole the whole season and they have duck squizz in their eyes, then IT MUST BE THE REFS.

Couldn't be the Cougs are scary good at times.

Couldn't be that they are incredibly over hyped.

Nope, the fix was in. For sure. Because they won.

 

[dgibbons]

I just haven't been exposed to Duck Nation the way others have as I haven't lived in SEA for more than a decade, but I'm starting to understand why they are so reviled even outside of Montlake. Oregon was largely a bum program that was catapulted into national relevance overnight with Chip Kelly. I wish I could track down the article I found years ago showing that their application admissions 10x'd as the football program grew, and of course all the roach-burning slackers started attending games as it became a quasi-required student activity, which created a really low quality/knowledge average fan.

I bring that up because the things I was reading from Oregon fans even after the game made it sound like this was a start-to-finish Skull & Bones payola screwjob. I'm not talking about a couple posters here and there, I'm talking about dozens of fans expressing majority sentiment across several boards who believe that virtually every call was a personal attack directly tied to Vegas betting, and that WSU was victimized not even once. "We had to beat WSU **AND** the refs!" I sense that as the average fan becomes more of a football dunce, the sensationalist hot takes on games just get worse and worse.

The under 35 segment of their fan base is basically extras from a Harry Potter movie. The one girl dramatically sinking into her seat did make me laugh though.

Oregon started to get nationally relevant in the late 90s early 2000s while Bellotti was still the coach, then took the next step under Kelly.

 

[fingerdisco]

Bro... this board is the home of snark. That was about as friendly as snark gets around here, and it was sincere to boot. Tell me which data you think would be relevant and I'll see what I can find.

Fair enough.

I doubt the data exists at this point, not only because the rule hasn’t been around long enough to have the sample size but also because they can’t currently parse out the additive effects of sub-clinical hits versus full-on concussions. You could potentially compare spinal injuries pre-post rule, but my contention is the rule will have subtle changes over time as its progressively enforced and tackling technique slowly evolves.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Fair enough.

I doubt the data exists at this point, not only because the rule hasn’t been around long enough to have the sample size but also because they can’t currently parse out the additive effects of sub-clinical hits versus full-on concussions. You could potentially compare spinal injuries pre-post rule, but my contention is the rule will have subtle changes over time as its progressively enforced and tackling technique slowly evolves.

The biggest issue with the data is there is going to be more reporting the last 10 years sure to the focus on it

Still, I'll see what i can find.

 

[fingerdisco]

The biggest issue with the data is there is going to be more reporting the last 10 years sure to the focus on it

Still, I'll see what i can find.

That’s a valid point as well—we are looking for CTE now. However, Without having a legitimate sample of actual clinical data, it would be virtually impossible to evaluate whether one less (or multiple if the rule truly changes tackling technique) non-concussion causing hits to the head results in a lower frequency of brain injury or degeneration. Regardless, it also can’t hurt anybody to not allow tackling with your head. I’m ok seeing that leave the game.

 

[chipdouglas]

Good observation, Chip. Having lived in Oregon for nearly my entire life (sans the last 1.5 years), I have found a majority of Duck fans as insufferable. Probably much like what Seattle area Cougs experience with Husky fans. In fact, one of the best zingers you can throw a Duck fan's way is to tell them they have become the Husky fans of the 80s and 90s....entitled & arrogant (maybe still the case for UW fans?) They don't like to hear that, but it's true. There are exceptions. Every school has good & reasonable fans, every school has jerk fans....but my experience is a higher % of the jerk fans can be found among the UO faithful. Believe me, I'm hoping someone takes them down and soon. Pac-12 pride be damned, I do not want to see them in the national playoffs. You think Duck fans are difficult to like now, just wait until they "get back into the national elite" they think they are entitled to.

Seriously, who storms the field after a 2-point win over WSU?

Glad Cougar

I do like about the Mutts that they try to lord their disputed half-title season over Oregon or “0regon” as they like to spell it. As if getting a single trophy with an asterisk THIRTY YEARS AGO is the highest aspiration any football program could have. Seems like Alabama and Clemson aren’t in the business of sharing trophies

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Your moral outrage is still misplaced. If the RB takes out Brown's knee and he misses a season and a half in recovery, what does your all mighty moral compass tell you?

My moral compass tells me that you didn't learn jack sh!t from Tyler Hilinski's death. It's incredibly important that we take the whole head trauma thing seriously and you think it's more important to be clever. At some point....you'll get it.

 

[dgibbons]

My moral compass tells me that you didn't learn jack sh!t from Tyler Hilinski's death. It's incredibly important that we take the whole head trauma thing seriously and you think it's more important to be clever. At some point....you'll get it.

I learned something you don’t understand. That you should use your moral outrage when it’s deserved.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

I learned something you don’t understand. That you should use your moral outrage when it’s deserved.

To each their own. The play was reviewed and upheld. You don't have to like it......but you're wrong. I know that you think you're sticking up for our boys, but if it was an Oregon player hitting a WSU player in the same fashion, you'd be losing your sh!t if they had overturned the targeting call. It's called intellectual integrity and it's ok to practice it.

Think back to a couple years ago when our fans were bitching about UCLA players hitting Luke Falk when he was sliding to the ground. Were they headhunting him or was it just guys trying to make a football play on a guy who was low to the ground? I'd say that they every penalty called on UCLA was legit and they probably should have called more. By the logic that you are applying to Brown, none of them should have been called because what can you do when you're making a split second choice....right?

 

[dgibbons]

To each their own. The play was reviewed and upheld. You don't have to like it......but you're wrong. I know that you think you're sticking up for our boys, but if it was an Oregon player hitting a WSU player in the same fashion, you'd be losing your sh!t if they had overturned the targeting call. It's called intellectual integrity and it's ok to practice it.

Think back to a couple years ago when our fans were bitching about UCLA players hitting Luke Falk when he was sliding to the ground. Were they headhunting him or was it just guys trying to make a football play on a guy who was low to the ground? I'd say that they every penalty called on UCLA was legit and they probably should have called more. By the logic that you are applying to Brown, none of them should have been called because what can you do when you're making a split second choice....right?

I have no problem with the call. Your moral outrage is the subject of my posts.

 

[etowncoug]

To each their own. The play was reviewed and upheld. You don't have to like it......but you're wrong. I know that you think you're sticking up for our boys, but if it was an Oregon player hitting a WSU player in the same fashion, you'd be losing your sh!t if they had overturned the targeting call. It's called intellectual integrity and it's ok to practice it.

I realize we live in a world where these things get called, so I'm not outraged by the call. Still, it's a bad application of the rule. Dye was six inches off the ground and trying to get up and get extra yards. Brown's eyes are on the defender and the contact happened. There is no launch, no malicious intent, and the contact was unavoidable. Super slow motion makes it look like he could have done more to avoid contact, but in reality if anyone should get the blame for the contact it should be Dye.

 

[CougEd]

I realize we live in a world where these things get called, so I'm not outraged by the call. Still, it's a bad application of the rule. Dye was six inches off the ground and trying to get up and get extra yards. Brown's eyes are on the defender and the contact happened. There is no launch, no malicious intent, and the contact was unavoidable. Super slow motion makes it look like he could have done more to avoid contact, but in reality if anyone should get the blame for the contact it should be Dye.

Sure looked like helmet to helmet contact. I thought hitting with crown of your helmet was definition of targeting .

 

[etowncoug]

Sure looked like helmet to helmet contact. I thought hitting with crown of your helmet was definition of targeting .

Thank you Capt. Obvious. No one is arguing the helmets collided. But it was incidental contact.

 

[kougkurt]

Thank you Capt. Obvious. No one is arguing the helmets collided. But it was incidental contact.

How many people dive into a pool with their head up. It was a weird, downward tackle-dive.

 

[OrangeGravy]

No need to be a snarky ass because I disagree that the rule has no potential to reduce brain/spine trauma.

I'm much more pessimistic when it comes to these things. These rules are only ever put in to cover "their" collective asses. The leagues don't give 2 shits about safety. It's all window dressing to give the appearance of doing something. They're just protecting the bottom line.

 

[etowncoug]

Here is the game footage. Similar to the targeting on Skyler against Utah last year, I'm not sure what you can do to avoid the helmet to helmet other than to take yourself out of the play.

 

[ATACFD]

How many people dive into a pool with their head up. It was a weird, downward tackle-dive.

Thank you Capt. Obvious. No one is arguing the helmets collided. But it was incidental contact.

I agree with both of these posters. This is the problem I have with the rule as it is enforced. It was not an egregious case of targeting even if by the letter of the law it fits because the crown of the helmet hit. But other aspects of the rule didn't fit, and it clearly wasn't intentional.
Call a personal foul if you want but don't eject him in this situation. The punishment in more minor cases often doesn't fit the crime.
When you are that low to the ground and on a downward trajectory at speed, it is nearly impossible to rear your head up. In fact, ironically it wouldn't be safe at that angle to have his head potentially snap back on contact.
I understand the intent of the rule and am all for reducing CTE but there should be consideration of the circumstances/situation.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

I agree with both of these posters. This is the problem I have with the rule as it is enforced. It was not an egregious case of targeting even if by the letter of the law it fits because the crown of the helmet hit. But other aspects of the rule didn't fit, and it clearly wasn't intentional.
Call a personal foul if you want but don't eject him in this situation. The punishment in more minor cases often doesn't fit the crime.
When you are that low to the ground and on a downward trajectory at speed, it is nearly impossible to rear your head up. In fact, ironically it wouldn't be safe at that angle to have his head potentially snap back on contact.
I understand the intent of the rule and am all for reducing CTE but there should be consideration of the circumstances/situation.

Your post highlights the problem with the discussion. You say it wasn’t an “egregious” case of targeting and you are 100% correct. Nobody is saying that Brown approached Dye thinking, “F#ck this guy, Imma knock his @ss out of the game!” and then lowered his head with the intent to harm.

It was a natural instinct to drop his head as he attempted to stop his progress. 10 years ago, he would have been praised for his willingness to sacrifice himself to lay that hit. The thing is, it ain’t 10 years ago and it’s a penalty now. Targeting penalties are there to protect both players. I don’t want Dye or Brown writing a suicide note saying, “Please check my brain because something is wrong”. BTW, at least two former NFL players did just that.

In your burning desire to see WSU win, you are willing to overlook the fact that our players occasionally make hits that are considered targeting. It doesn’t matter if it’s egregious or not. If it’s forceful contact with the crown of the helmet.....it’s targeting.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

I have no problem with the call. Your moral outrage is the subject of my posts.

This post is a prime example of why social media sucks. I’m having a discussion about targeting and you feel like it’s got to be personal. You don’t give a shit about the truth, you are worried about trying to find a way to be clever and discredit the truth with some f#cking random bullish!t like “moral outrage”.

You can bet that every time that there is a legit targeting call, regardless of the team jersey involved, I’m going to say that it was targeting. If you want to call that “moral outrage”.....knock yourself out. I don’t give one sh!t if it bothers you that I’m willing to accept that it was appropriate for Brown to be ejected from the game.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

I realize we live in a world where these things get called, so I'm not outraged by the call. Still, it's a bad application of the rule. Dye was six inches off the ground and trying to get up and get extra yards. Brown's eyes are on the defender and the contact happened. There is no launch, no malicious intent, and the contact was unavoidable. Super slow motion makes it look like he could have done more to avoid contact, but in reality if anyone should get the blame for the contact it should be Dye.

Brown’s eyes must be on the ends of stalks, because his head was down when he hit Dye. Feel free to take a look at the video posted above at the 0:27 mark and tell me that Brown's eyes are on the defenders when contact happened. Again, I agree 100% that there was no malicious intent. What many people don't understand is that the NCAA rules were modified to remove the word "defenseless" when it comes to hitting with the crown of the helmet and targeting. Here are a couple excerpts from the NCAA rulebook:

ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 9-6) (A.R. 9-1-3-I)

Note 1: “Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:

• Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area
• A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground
• Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
• Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet​

Instinctive or not.....if you watch the video shared above, the initial contact between Brown and Dye is crown of helmet to crown of helmet. Brown's hit was a textbook case of lowering the head and initiating forcible contact with the crown of his helmet. There is nothing in Article 3 that says that there needs to be egregious or malicious intent. It says that you can't do it. There are instances where running backs lower their heads right as defenders are getting ready to hit where I'd agree that the rule can be misapplied....but that simply isn't the case here.

Finally, here is the link to the NCAA rulebook: http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/FR19.pdf Check out page 91 if you want to learn more about targeting.

 

[dgibbons]

This post is a prime example of why social media sucks. I’m having a discussion about targeting and you feel like it’s got to be personal. You don’t give a shit about the truth, you are worried about trying to find a way to be clever and discredit the truth with some f#cking random bullish!t like “moral outrage”.

You can bet that every time that there is a legit targeting call, regardless of the team jersey involved, I’m going to say that it was targeting. If you want to call that “moral outrage”.....knock yourself out. I don’t give one sh!t if it bothers you that I’m willing to accept that it was appropriate for Brown to be ejected from the game.

I don’t need to have a discussion with you about CTE, or targeting. That’s part of your problem.

Where is your moral outrage over helmet to helmet contact that wasn’t called in that game?

 

[ATACFD]

In your burning desire to see WSU win, you are willing to overlook the fact that our players occasionally make hits that are considered targeting. It doesn’t matter if it’s egregious or not. If it’s forceful contact with the crown of the helmet.....it’s targeting.

You assume a lot about me. I'm not overlooking anything. I said it's a complex issue.
I could just as easily say, In your "burning desire" to argue an either/or position you are willing to overlook what my argument actually was: Targeting is a complex issue and should perhaps be seen and punished on a continuum to represent that reality. More flagrant targeting gets an ejection. Instances like Brown's get an unsportsmanlike conduct only.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

You assume a lot about me. I'm not overlooking anything. I said it's a complex issue.
I could just as easily say, In your "burning desire" to argue an either/or position you are willing to overlook what my argument actually was: Targeting is a complex issue and should perhaps be seen and punished on a continuum to represent that reality. More flagrant targeting gets an ejection. Instances like Brown's get an unsportsmanlike conduct only.

Targeting doesn't need to be a complex issue. You are still making the mistake of assuming that intent matters. What's interesting is you are saying that Brown was guilty of unsportsmanlike conduct. I'm saying that he inadvertently committed the mistake of lowering his head and made helmet to helmet contact. In the interest of saving the sport (and lives), the NCAA has deemed that hits involving the crown of the helmet warrant an ejection. It's about changing the way that players hit in games......and frankly, too many coaches and players are willing to accept a 15 yard penalty if it knocks out an opposing player. It sucks that Brown got ejected....but he needs to keep his freakin' head up. FWIW, here's a quote from the coachup.com website about proper tackling technique:

Proper Tackling Technique​

1. 1. Slow Down.
   2. Watch Their Torso Once you're mirroring the ball carrier, get in a positive, ready position. Watch his hips when attempting a tackle. ...
   3. Get Low.
   4. Keep Your Head Up.
   5. Use Your Legs.
   6. Wrap It Up.
   7. Huddle Up.
   8. Be prepared for the biggest moments by mastering the small ones off the field.

There's no way to sell Brown's hit as good nowadays and the rules are set to discourage what he did. You don't have to like it because it happened to one of our players....but again.....if it was Max Borghi heading to the locker room because an Oregon linebacker made that hit......you'd be pissed if they didn't call targeting.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

I don’t need to have a discussion with you about CTE, or targeting. That’s part of your problem.

Where is your moral outrage over helmet to helmet contact that wasn’t called in that game?

If you don't want to have the discussion.....quit watching this thread. As far as other calls, I'm sure that there were other calls that were missed. I'm not talking about those. I'm focusing on the issue at hand and not making straw man arguments to distract from the discussion. You're the one making a lame ass attempt at wagging the dog to distract people.

 

[dgibbons]

If you don't want to have the discussion.....quit watching this thread. As far as other calls, I'm sure that there were other calls that were missed. I'm not talking about those. I'm focusing on the issue at hand and not making straw man arguments to distract from the discussion. You're the one making a lame ass attempt at wagging the dog to distract people.

Or you can quit lecturing everyone.

 

[Glad Cougar]

Targeting doesn't need to be a complex issue. You are still making the mistake of assuming that intent matters. What's interesting is you are saying that Brown was guilty of unsportsmanlike conduct. I'm saying that he inadvertently committed the mistake of lowering his head and made helmet to helmet contact. In the interest of saving the sport (and lives), the NCAA has deemed that hits involving the crown of the helmet warrant an ejection. It's about changing the way that players hit in games......and frankly, too many coaches and players are willing to accept a 15 yard penalty if it knocks out an opposing player. It sucks that Brown got ejected....but he needs to keep his freakin' head up. FWIW, here's a quote from the coachup.com website about proper tackling technique:

Proper Tackling Technique​

1. 1. Slow Down.
   2. Watch Their Torso Once you're mirroring the ball carrier, get in a positive, ready position. Watch his hips when attempting a tackle. ...
   3. Get Low.
   4. Keep Your Head Up.
   5. Use Your Legs.
   6. Wrap It Up.
   7. Huddle Up.
   8. Be prepared for the biggest moments by mastering the small ones off the field.

There's no way to sell Brown's hit as good nowadays and the rules are set to discourage what he did. You don't have to like it because it happened to one of our players....but again.....if it was Max Borghi heading to the locker room because an Oregon linebacker made that hit......you'd be pissed if they didn't call targeting.

I don't have a quarrel on the Brown hit, but, in fact, Borghi was hit with the crown of the helmet TWO times that I saw. Thankfully, he didn't suffer the kind of injury Dye did and was able to bounce back up on his feet. But that's what upsets me– if protecting players from these types of injuries is important, then there needs to be better detection of the targeting and application of the rules. If we could see it happening to Borghi on TV, somebody on the officiating crew (including replay booth) should have seen it.

Glad Cougar

 

[fingerdisco]

View embedded media

Here is the game footage. Similar to the targeting on Skyler against Utah last year, I'm not sure what you can do to avoid the helmet to helmet other than to take yourself out of the play.

Well he was not “super low”, or “6 inches off the ground” as some have stated—he was a full arms length above the ground, and Brown squares up and drops his heads and initiates the tackle with his helmet. Some have stated you have to do that, but’s that’s simply untrue—watch rugby and you’ll see how to tackle in that situation without putting your spine at risk.

 

[fingerdisco]

I'm much more pessimistic when it comes to these things. These rules are only ever put in to cover "their" collective asses. The leagues don't give 2 shits about safety. It's all window dressing to give the appearance of doing something. They're just protecting the bottom line.

I don’t disagree, but ultimately if covering their asses results in fewer neurological injuries than it’s a win for the kids.

 

[fingerdisco]

How many people dive into a pool with their head up. It was a weird, downward tackle-dive.

How many people ram their head/neck into a 200-plus pound object coming at them at high speed? Not really a good analogy.

 

[cougarhawk1]

yes he was super low , watch the video

Most people that ever played any high school football have rammed their head into a 200 pound object going full speed

 

[Flatlandcoug]

I don't have a quarrel on the Brown hit, but, in fact, Borghi was hit with the crown of the helmet TWO times that I saw. Thankfully, he didn't suffer the kind of injury Dye did and was able to bounce back up on his feet. But that's what upsets me– if protecting players from these types of injuries is important, then there needs to be better detection of the targeting and application of the rules. If we could see it happening to Borghi on TV, somebody on the officiating crew (including replay booth) should have seen it.

Glad Cougar

I agree 100% that there are targeting calls that are missed. And there are certainly instances where targeting should not be called. As mentioned above, it’s pretty damned aggravating to lose a key defensive starter because a running back lowered his helmet at the exact same moment that the defensive player starts to hit him. It sucks that helmet technology isn’t such that we could avoid this discussion altogether

 

[dgibbons]

I agree 100% that there are targeting calls that are missed. And there are certainly instances where targeting should not be called. As mentioned above, it’s pretty damned aggravating to lose a key defensive starter because a running back lowered his helmet at the exact same moment that the defensive player starts to hit him. It sucks that helmet technology isn’t such that we could avoid this discussion altogether

So you're only morally outraged when one of WSU's players gets called for targeting. I'm shocked, shocked I say.

 

[CougEd]

View embedded media

Here is the game footage. Similar to the targeting on Skyler against Utah last year, I'm not sure what you can do to avoid the helmet to helmet other than to take yourself out of the play.

Thank you Capt. Obvious. No one is arguing the helmets collided. But it was incidental contact.

Oh I didn’t realize there was an incidental component to the rule.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Your post highlights the problem with the discussion. You say it wasn’t an “egregious” case of targeting and you are 100% correct. Nobody is saying that Brown approached Dye thinking, “F#ck this guy, Imma knock his @ss out of the game!” and then lowered his head with the intent to harm.

It was a natural instinct to drop his head as he attempted to stop his progress. 10 years ago, he would have been praised for his willingness to sacrifice himself to lay that hit. The thing is, it ain’t 10 years ago and it’s a penalty now. Targeting penalties are there to protect both players. I don’t want Dye or Brown writing a suicide note saying, “Please check my brain because something is wrong”. BTW, at least two former NFL players did just that.

In your burning desire to see WSU win, you are willing to overlook the fact that our players occasionally make hits that are considered targeting. It doesn’t matter if it’s egregious or not. If it’s forceful contact with the crown of the helmet.....it’s targeting.

Stop with the strawman " youre such a wsu homer, thats why Brown being flagged is an issue" garbage.

Is the issue highlighted because it happened during a game that one if our guys was in, thus we all saw it? Yes?

Has the rule and its enforcement sucked from day one? Again yes. No one calls it the same, its enforcement is different game to game, hell.. play to play. One game its called by the letter of the law, the next they stick closer with the spirit of the rule.

Also, gfy with your other strawman "if you dont like the broke ass targeting rule then youre spitting on THs grave" bullshit. I mean seriously, are you capable of having a rational conversation or is everything histrionics with you? (Rhetorical, dont answer...)

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

That’s a valid point as well—we are looking for CTE now. However, Without having a legitimate sample of actual clinical data, it would be virtually impossible to evaluate whether one less (or multiple if the rule truly changes tackling technique) non-concussion causing hits to the head results in a lower frequency of brain injury or degeneration. Regardless, it also can’t hurt anybody to not allow tackling with your head. I’m ok seeing that leave the game.

Just to be thorough, tackling with your head has always been against the rules. It was called "spearing", as I'm sure you know, and refs didn't call it, and they especially didn't call it against the #1 offenders, which are RBs. That's why adding yet another rule was stupid in the first place.

The second part of the rule, which covers forceable contact to the head with any part of the body (but we mostly see the helmet to helmet called) with the intent to put some stank on the hit, used to be a personal foul under the defenseless player rule. Again, unnecessary to legislate what already had been addressed.

I'm good (of course) with trying to prevent preventable injuries to the head and neck, but they way they have gone about addressing it is stupid, confusing, and hypocritical.

 

[etowncoug]

14.45 per 100,000 people between the age of 15-24 committed suicide in 2017. It's easy to blame Tyler's decision to kill himself on what may have been early stage CTE because it ignores a larger societal epidemic. Statistically, football players are less likely to kill themselves than the general population.
However, Tyler was part of a demographic which statistically more likely to kill themselves to off themselves: 15-24, white, male, upper middle class.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Stop with the strawman " youre such a wsu homer, thats why Brown being flagged is an issue" garbage.

Is the issue highlighted because it happened during a game that one if our guys was in, thus we all saw it? Yes?

Has the rule and its enforcement sucked from day one? Again yes. No one calls it the same, its enforcement is different game to game, hell.. play to play. One game its called by the letter of the law, the next they stick closer with the spirit of the rule.

Also, gfy with your other strawman "if you dont like the broke ass targeting rule then youre spitting on THs grave" bullshit. I mean seriously, are you capable of having a rational conversation or is everything histrionics with you? (Rhetorical, dont answer...)

You're the dude playing "what about?" in this conversation. "What about some other hit that happened?" It might be targeting, it might not be. I'm not going to try to argue about a different call that I have no specific recollection of. You want to deflect to that so we can pretend that Brown didn't lower his helmet and make a direct helmet to helmet hit on Dye. So yeah, total f'ing strawman argument.

And if you don't like the implication that defending a targeting call is bullsh!t on your part.....quit defending it. You act like you're trying to be rational when all you are is fuggin' homer that pulls sh!t out of their ass and flings it at the screen to see if it will stick. You seem awful concerned with my moral compass and how I feel about every other fuggin' tackle in the game. I don't really feel like it's worth analyzing every hit but hey, if you've got a beef with another hit, find the video, post it on here and go through a detailed analysis of why YOU feel that we got screwed on a targeting call. You guys can spend four pages talking about that if you want. I'm fine with sticking with the discussion at hand and not playing, "What about?"

And if you don't like the implication that it's disrespectful to Hilinski and his family for you to pretend that targeting is ok as long as it's our players doing it.........that's on you. I don't care if it pisses you off. Hitting with the crown of your helmet is just bad football and you know it.

 

[fingerdisco]

Just to be thorough, tackling with your head has always been against the rules. It was called "spearing", as I'm sure you know, and refs didn't call it, and they especially didn't call it against the #1 offenders, which are RBs. That's why adding yet another rule was stupid in the first place.

The second part of the rule, which covers forceable contact to the head with any part of the body (but we mostly see the helmet to helmet called) with the intent to put some stank on the hit, used to be a personal foul under the defenseless player rule. Again, unnecessary to legislate what already had been addressed.

I'm good (of course) with trying to prevent preventable injuries to the head and neck, but they way they have gone about addressing it is stupid, confusing, and hypocritical.

It may have been a foul, but they've now added the ejection part of it, which gives it some teeth. Guys don't want to miss the better part of a game. As for the running back hitting with his head, I see your point, but as the ballcarrier the only way you can take that out of the game is if you tell them they can't dive for yardage. You can at least control the defender's tackling technique, because as much as been said to the contrary, they do have options beside leading with their head. At the end of the day though, given the emerging science of brain injuries, they had to do something to address the problem, and the targeting rule may actually be a relatively insignificant rule relative to what they could potentially change (e.g., no tackling above the waist or something like that, which would have major changes on the game as we know it). Time will tell if it a) reduces the number of head crunching hits, and b) that reduction results in less long term effects.

 

[CougEd]

14.45 per 100,000 people between the age of 15-24 committed suicide in 2017. It's easy to blame Tyler's decision to kill himself on what may have been early stage CTE because it ignores a larger societal epidemic. Statistically, football players are less likely to kill themselves than the general population.
However, Tyler was part of a demographic which statistically more likely to kill themselves to off themselves: 15-24, white, male, upper middle class.

It isn't just about suicide it is about quality of life when they are 40/50/60/70. Mark Rypien for example.

Early on it was about the NFL not being honest with the players, and thus the lawsuit that guys like Bledsoe signed on to against the NFL.

And in terms of Tyler, do we know if he had depression and suicidal issues before hand?