luton apparently ok

[brettcraycraft51]

according to espn, he was moving his arms and legs fine and has been discharged from the hospital.

http://www.espn.com/college-footbal...gon-state-beavers-moving-extremities-hit-head

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Ok is relative. His long term prognosis is good but I read that he is done for the season with a fractured spine.

 

[brettcraycraft51]

Ok is relative. His long term prognosis is good but I read that he is done for the season with a fractured spine.

jesus. i hadn't heard that.

 

[YakiCoug]

Ok is relative. His long term prognosis is good but I read that he is done for the season with a fractured spine.

Just read that. He's done for the year.

 

[MRICoug]

Hos dad tweeted that out, apparently T spine fracture. Hopefully just pedicle or spinous process, or perhaps transverse process. Anything eith the vertebral body is long term issue leading to alignment problems.

 

[GrayOnGray]

Thats rough. For Luton of course, but also the entire team. It was looking like Anderson had finally found a QB.

Wishing the Luton family, and the Beaver Nation, all the best during this difficult time.

 

[How_did_this_happen?]

Scary injury. So glad Thompson did nothing wrong.

 

[Coug90]

That sucks. Unfortunate byproduct of kids flying around. Wish the kid a full recovery

 

[kayak15]

I am very very relieved to hear that Luton's injury is not of the life-altering variety. The amount of time that he spent on the turf surrounded by medical staff had me quite concerned and fearing the worst. Any injury to the spinal column raises the specter of a para- or quadriplegic prognosis, a future that we would not wish on anyone. If, as I am reading it, the injury involves a fracture with no damage to the cord then stabilization and natural healing could well result in an almost complete return to full health. Not without problems as MRI points out but surely better than what could have been the outcome.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Scary injury. So glad Thompson did nothing wrong.

I'm not sold that Thompson "did nothing wrong" but I thought it was the right move to remove the targeting penalty. Last year, we heard a lot of bitching and moaning about UCLA targeting Falk and trying to take him out.

Thompson launched himself at a QB that was already down by contact while being tackled by two other WSU players. He wasn't fighting for yardage and he was in no danger of breaking loose. If Falk took the hit that Luton took......this board would be enraged. So, while I don't think it was targeting, I don't think that Thompson did the right thing when he threw his shoulder into the mix. Plays like that (and the result of it) are things that create new rules that drive up the pussification of college football. Good hard hits that put opposing players on the ground are one thing, being the third guy to hit a player while he's already on the ground is another.

Thompson should not have made that hit.

EDIT: I've watched the replay a couple more times and I do think that Thompson was right to hit Luton in that situation. However, the nature of the hit where he launched his shoulder into Luton with no intent to tackle was still a bad choice. Longer explanation below.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

I'm not sold that Thompson "did nothing wrong" but I thought it was the right move to remove the targeting penalty. Last year, we heard a lot of bitching and moaning about UCLA targeting Falk and trying to take him out.

Thompson launched himself at a QB that was already down by contact while being tackled by two other WSU players. He wasn't fighting for yardage and he was in no danger of breaking loose. If Falk took the hit that Luton took......this board would be enraged. So, while I don't think it was targeting, I don't think that Thompson did the right thing when he threw his shoulder into the mix. Plays like that (and the result of it) are things that create new rules that drive up the pussification of college football. Good hard hits that put opposing players on the ground are one thing, being the third guy to hit a player while he's already on the ground is another.

Thompson should not have made that hit.

You're never going to be able to make a defender NOT hit a qb that isn' sliding. What you can do is train your qbs to stop making stupid plays by trying to get extra yards in a game that is all but over. Slide early.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Listening to the post game, Bob Rob started making Mike Utley references...

All I could think was "Geezus Bob, really? Can we keep it a little more optimistic?" Why didn't his co-host save it?

 

[rufffrider]

Thompson should not have made that hit.

I disagree. The QB is obviously going down, but also in a position to stretch forward for a better spot and closer to the first down marker. I thought Thompson's hit was intended to stop any forward momentum. How do you instruct a tackler to make that kind of judgement call if the whistle hasn't blown?

 

[brettcraycraft51]

I'm not sold that Thompson "did nothing wrong" but I thought it was the right move to remove the targeting penalty. Last year, we heard a lot of bitching and moaning about UCLA targeting Falk and trying to take him out.

Thompson launched himself at a QB that was already down by contact while being tackled by two other WSU players. He wasn't fighting for yardage and he was in no danger of breaking loose. If Falk took the hit that Luton took......this board would be enraged. So, while I don't think it was targeting, I don't think that Thompson did the right thing when he threw his shoulder into the mix. Plays like that (and the result of it) are things that create new rules that drive up the pussification of college football. Good hard hits that put opposing players on the ground are one thing, being the third guy to hit a player while he's already on the ground is another.

Thompson should not have made that hit.

honestly, i think this is a case with multiple factors. i agree w/ you that the hit was unnecessarily rough given the circumstances. but it's also clear that thompson made a specific effort to lead with his shoulder and not his head, and also seemed to be targeting luton's body and not his head. those are big factors in my opinion, because you can only expect so much from a player moving at game speed, especially a defensive player who is trained mostly to react instead of think.

it's an unfortunate result, and, while i think you're right that the intensity of the hit was uncalled for, i don't think it's really fair to say that thompson did something wrong there.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

My main point is that you can bet that the video of this hit will get reviewed at the end of the year when they are looking at targeting rules and they will be trying to decide if they need to further complicate the rulebook to protect players, and quarterbacks specifically, from hits of this nature. I don't think anyone can get mad at Thompson for making the play he made and I don't think it was done with any malicious thought of injuring Luton. Hits like this, and the resulting injury, force the NCAA to think about rules changes. In general, those changes just make things murkier instead of clearer. The fact that a player suffered a broken neck on the play dramatically increases the chances that this video will get looked at again.

My main criticism of Thompson on this play is that he made no attempt to tackle Luton. He was just throwing a shoulder at him. How many times have we seen players fail to knock down an opposing ball carrier because they went for the big "hit" instead of a good tackle? Thompson should take a look at the tackle that Luvu laid on Rypien the week before. That was a textbook form tackle that I can buy into. Unfortunately, Thompson isn't alone in the idea of tackling with his right shoulder and nothing else. We see dozens of examples per game where players forget their fundamentals and go for the flashy hit. Nothing illegal about the hit, but that doesn't mean in it wasn't stupid on several levels.

 

[fingerdisco]

My main point is that you can bet that the video of this hit will get reviewed at the end of the year when they are looking at targeting rules and they will be trying to decide if they need to further complicate the rulebook to protect players, and quarterbacks specifically, from hits of this nature. I don't think anyone can get mad at Thompson for making the play he made and I don't think it was done with any malicious thought of injuring Luton. Hits like this, and the resulting injury, force the NCAA to think about rules changes. In general, those changes just make things murkier instead of clearer. The fact that a player suffered a broken neck on the play dramatically increases the chances that this video will get looked at again.

My main criticism of Thompson on this play is that he made no attempt to tackle Luton. He was just throwing a shoulder at him. How many times have we seen players fail to knock down an opposing ball carrier because they went for the big "hit" instead of a good tackle? Thompson should take a look at the tackle that Luvu laid on Rypien the week before. That was a textbook form tackle that I can buy into. Unfortunately, Thompson isn't alone in the idea of tackling with his right shoulder and nothing else. We see dozens of examples per game where players forget their fundamentals and go for the flashy hit. Nothing illegal about the hit, but that doesn't mean in it wasn't stupid on several levels.

The kid was going low with his shoulder trying to make a play and knock the ball loose, just like he's been asked by Grinch, who emphasizes takeaways. Part of the game, nothing malicious that I saw with it. Unfortunate, but it's a dangerous game at times.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

The kid was going low with his shoulder trying to make a play and knock the ball loose, just like he's been asked by Grinch, who emphasizes takeaways. Part of the game, nothing malicious that I saw with it. Unfortunate, but it's a dangerous game at times.

Really? That's what you're going with? He was trying to use his shoulder to generate a takeaway? The comment above about hitting him to keep him short of the first down makes sense. Trying to generate a turnover? Ummmm......no.

 

[fingerdisco]

Really? That's what you're going with? He was trying to use his shoulder to generate a takeaway? The comment above about hitting him to keep him short of the first down makes sense. Trying to generate a turnover? Ummmm......no.

Maybe you can elaborate and give us another one of your long-winded explanations as to why I'm wrong and you're right.

 

[How_did_this_happen?]

Really? That's what you're going with? He was trying to use his shoulder to generate a takeaway? The comment above about hitting him to keep him short of the first down makes sense. Trying to generate a turnover? Ummmm......no.

It did not appear to be malicious. That was really the thrust of my comment.

 

[dgibbons]

My main point is that you can bet that the video of this hit will get reviewed at the end of the year when they are looking at targeting rules and they will be trying to decide if they need to further complicate the rulebook to protect players, and quarterbacks specifically, from hits of this nature. I don't think anyone can get mad at Thompson for making the play he made and I don't think it was done with any malicious thought of injuring Luton. Hits like this, and the resulting injury, force the NCAA to think about rules changes. In general, those changes just make things murkier instead of clearer. The fact that a player suffered a broken neck on the play dramatically increases the chances that this video will get looked at again.

My main criticism of Thompson on this play is that he made no attempt to tackle Luton. He was just throwing a shoulder at him. How many times have we seen players fail to knock down an opposing ball carrier because they went for the big "hit" instead of a good tackle? Thompson should take a look at the tackle that Luvu laid on Rypien the week before. That was a textbook form tackle that I can buy into. Unfortunately, Thompson isn't alone in the idea of tackling with his right shoulder and nothing else. We see dozens of examples per game where players forget their fundamentals and go for the flashy hit. Nothing illegal about the hit, but that doesn't mean in it wasn't stupid on several levels.

Well, the flag was waived off. It is a contact sport.

 

[Coug90]

Really? That's what you're going with? He was trying to use his shoulder to generate a takeaway? The comment above about hitting him to keep him short of the first down makes sense. Trying to generate a turnover? Ummmm......no.

Agree with disco. Nothing wrong with the hit, QB was still up and going down, hit him with his shoulder and certainly wouldn't say he "launched". You can't teach rallying to the ball, speed D, forcing turnovers, etc., then expect a guy to back off when the opposing player is being tackled but is still upright. At that point the QB is no different than a RB. How many times have you seen a RB roll off a guys back who is spinning him down and run for another 20 yards, While other guys are standing around assuming he's down.

Unfortunate result, but that's football.

 

[random soul]

I'm just glad that kid's going to be walking again after what we saw on Saturday. Whatever happens after that is gravy. This is good news, even if the immediate road ahead for him is going to be difficult.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Agree with disco. Nothing wrong with the hit, QB was still up and going down, hit him with his shoulder and certainly wouldn't say he "launched". You can't teach rallying to the ball, speed D, forcing turnovers, etc., then expect a guy to back off when the opposing player is being tackled but is still upright. At that point the QB is no different than a RB. How many times have you seen a RB roll off a guys back who is spinning him down and run for another 20 yards, While other guys are standing around assuming he's down.

Unfortunate result, but that's football.

Ok.....I wasn't going to say anything else about this but it's total bullshit to say that he didn't launch himself at the QB. Watch the video. He leaves his feet leading with his shoulder without making any attempt to wrap up the QB.

ESPN video

Watch the video at 0:45 above and tell me he didn't blindly launch himself at Luton. To be fair, our defender was tackling Luton to the ground so he was lower to the ground than anticipated so he ended up hitting Luton higher than he may have intended, but he wouldn't know that because he was too busy launching himself for a big hit instead of tackling the ball carrier.

If Luke Falk's career ended on a hit like this, you guys would be losing your freaking minds about how cheap you thought the hit was. You'll never admit that of course......but that's ok. For the record, I don't think that Thompson took a cheap shot at Luton. I think he demonstrated the piss poor, "big hit", lack of fundamentals "tackling" that is rampant in football right now.

If Thompson would have tackled Luton facing him head on and tried wrapping him up as he hit him......I wouldn't be posting on this. Instead, he launches himself sideways at the QB and almost misses him completely because he's trying to make a highlight hit.

 

[Coug1990]

Ok.....I wasn't going to say anything else about this but it's total bullshit to say that he didn't launch himself at the QB. Watch the video. He leaves his feet leading with his shoulder without making any attempt to wrap up the QB.

ESPN video

.

That is not launching. At time of impact, both feet are firmly on the ground. To launch, you have to have both feet off the ground launching yourself at the ball carrier. Thompson did nothing wrong. Luton undercut him. That is why he was in the air, not because he launched himself.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

That is not launching. At time of impact, both feet are firmly on the ground. To launch, you have to have both feet off the ground launching yourself at the ball carrier. Thompson did nothing wrong. Luton undercut him. That is why he was in the air, not because he launched himself.

All BS aside.......did Thompson make an attempt to tackle Luton or was he just trying to lay a big hit?

EDIT: you can try to try to pull a Clinton and try and to deflect this by asking "what is is?", but Thompson launched himself at Luton. The hit was not against the rules, but that doesn't mean he should have done it. The fact that you are trying to pretend that a decision that resulted in a broken neck was a good idea just shows that you are willing to defend anything as long as it's your guy that you are defending.

 

[Fab5Coug]

Flat, you're just wrong on this. Here are screen shots just before the hit and at the point of contact. Looks like a guy making a pretty sound tackle to protect the first down.

He didn't go air born till after contact, so didn't really "launch himself" at the runner.

Pardon my crude pictures, they are photos of the paused video highlight.

https://ibb.co/j8Mqik
https://ibb.co/dteAik

 

[longtimecoug]

Ok.....I wasn't going to say anything else about this but it's total bullshit to say that he didn't launch himself at the QB. Watch the video. He leaves his feet leading with his shoulder without making any attempt to wrap up the QB.

ESPN video

Watch the video at 0:45 above and tell me he didn't blindly launch himself at Luton. To be fair, our defender was tackling Luton to the ground so he was lower to the ground than anticipated so he ended up hitting Luton higher than he may have intended, but he wouldn't know that because he was too busy launching himself for a big hit instead of tackling the ball carrier.

If Luke Falk's career ended on a hit like this, you guys would be losing your freaking minds about how cheap you thought the hit was. You'll never admit that of course......but that's ok. For the record, I don't think that Thompson took a cheap shot at Luton. I think he demonstrated the piss poor, "big hit", lack of fundamentals "tackling" that is rampant in football right now.

If Thompson would have tackled Luton facing him head on and tried wrapping him up as he hit him......I wouldn't be posting on this. Instead, he launches himself sideways at the QB and almost misses him completely because he's trying to make a highlight hit.

I saw no launching and no cheap shot, he ran in and put his shoulder down on the qb who was at the time a running back, Luton should have slid had he done so this would not have happened

 

[How_did_this_happen?]

Flat, you're just wrong on this. Here are screen shots just before the hit and at the point of contact. Looks like a guy making a pretty sound tackle to protect the first down.

He didn't go air born till after contact, so didn't really "launch himself" at the runner.

Pardon my crude pictures, they are photos of the paused video highlight.

https://ibb.co/j8Mqik
https://ibb.co/dteAik

Those clearly back up your point (and what I stated earlier...no intent to harm...not irresponsible by Thompson...just "football").

 

[brettcraycraft51]

Flat, you're just wrong on this. Here are screen shots just before the hit and at the point of contact. Looks like a guy making a pretty sound tackle to protect the first down.

He didn't go air born till after contact, so didn't really "launch himself" at the runner.

Pardon my crude pictures, they are photos of the paused video highlight.

https://ibb.co/j8Mqik
https://ibb.co/dteAik

to be honest, the difference in the force of the hit is not probably hugely different between the tackler leaving his feet in the split second before versus the split second after contact. it's probably a wash in terms of both force and intention.

however, the first picture reveals something i didn't know (or remember) that makes a pretty big difference. i had it in my head that the hit came at the end of a prolonged running start. looks to me as though he actually gathered himself and broke down before making the hit. that plus leading w/ his shoulder, plus targeting luton's body paint more of a picture of control to me than careless or malicious disregard.

honestly i was pretty much 50/50 on whether it was cheap at first, but i'm convinced at this point that it was clean.

 

[fingerdisco]

to be honest, the difference in the force of the hit is not probably hugely different between the tackler leaving his feet in the split second before versus the split second after contact. it's probably a wash in terms of both force and intention.

however, the first picture reveals something i didn't know (or remember) that makes a pretty big difference. i had it in my head that the hit came at the end of a prolonged running start. looks to me as though he actually gathered himself and broke down before making the hit. that plus leading w/ his shoulder, plus targeting luton's body paint more of a picture of control to me than careless or malicious disregard.

honestly i was pretty much 50/50 on whether it was cheap at first, but i'm convinced at this point that it was clean.

Maybe it was clean, just don't suggest he might have been trying to force a fumble, because coming in with the shoulder towards the ball is malicious and would never result in such a thing. And you would be wrong.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

It's fine....I get your point. Just don't bitch and moan when Luke gets hit.

 

[Fab5Coug]

It's fine....I get your point. Just don't bitch and moan when Luke gets hit.

Why are you so convinced people aren't being objective on this? If, "you guys would be pissed if Luke got hit like that" is the main crux of your argument, then you really have very little argument.

The hit was clean. You are wrong. If people were upset if the roles were reversed, then they would be wrong.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Why are you so convinced people aren't being objective on this? If, "you guys would be pissed if Luke got hit like that" is the main crux of your argument, then you really have very little argument.

The hit was clean. You are wrong. If people were upset if the roles were reversed, then they would be wrong.

And they will be. Hell, Luke didn't even get hit by a UCLA guy on one attempted hit last year and people spent a week bitching about what a cheap shot it was.

 

[Fab5Coug]

And they will be. Hell, Luke didn't even get hit by a UCLA guy on one attempted hit last year and people spent a week bitching about what a cheap shot it was.

You're losing this argument and losing it badly. I showed you screen shots showing Thompson did not launch himself at the runner and your response is to bring up a completely different play from last year?

And, just for reference, this is the play you are talking about.

Falk is clearly in his slide and the defender is clearly launching himself. That tackle attempt should, in no way, be compared to Thompson's hit last weekend. Please tell me you can see the difference between the two.

 

[Glad Cougar]

Good work, Fab5Coug.

Glad Cougar

 

[fingerdisco]

You're losing this argument and losing it badly. I showed you screen shots showing Thompson did not launch himself at the runner and your response is to bring up a completely different play from last year?

And, just for reference, this is the play you are talking about.

Falk is clearly in his slide and the defender is clearly launching himself. That tackle attempt should, in no way, be compared to Thompson's hit last weekend. Please tell me you can see the difference between the two.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

You're losing this argument and losing it badly. I showed you screen shots showing Thompson did not launch himself at the runner and your response is to bring up a completely different play from last year?

And, just for reference, this is the play you are talking about.

Falk is clearly in his slide and the defender is clearly launching himself. That tackle attempt should, in no way, be compared to Thompson's hit last weekend. Please tell me you can see the difference between the two.

The UCLA shot was definitely a cheap shot and targeting. The hit by Thompson was not nearly as egregious, but both were situations where players launched themselves at an opposing QB without any attempt to tackle and the intent was to hit them as hard as they could. If you look at both videos, both players launched themselves at the QB in almost exactly the same fashion, although Thompson was closer when he started the launch. I'm of the position that players need to quit thinking that it's a good idea to just throw themselves blindly into opposing players, particularly when it results in a broken neck.

You will argue that football is a contact sport and all I can say is that kind of attitude is what is going to kill the sport. Concussions and long term head trauma are serious issues that put the sport in danger of not existing. The kind of hit that Thompson laid on Luton is an example of the kind of macho stupidity that used to be expected back in the day but will not fly going forward.

 

[Fab5Coug]

The UCLA shot was definitely a cheap shot and targeting. The hit by Thompson was not nearly as egregious, but both were situations where players launched themselves at an opposing QB without any attempt to tackle and the intent was to hit them as hard as they could. If you look at both videos, both players launched themselves at the QB in almost exactly the same fashion, although Thompson was closer when he started the launch. I'm of the position that players need to quit thinking that it's a good idea to just throw themselves blindly into opposing players, particularly when it results in a broken neck.

You will argue that football is a contact sport and all I can say is that kind of attitude is what is going to kill the sport. Concussions and long term head trauma are serious issues that put the sport in danger of not existing. The kind of hit that Thompson laid on Luton is an example of the kind of macho stupidity that used to be expected back in the day but will not fly going forward.

No, I would argue Falk had clearly given himself up, was in a slide, was down, and was a defenseless player at that point, whereas Luton was falling forward towards the first down line, was not down and was not defenseless.

The comparison, quite frankly, is negligent on your part.

 

[fingerdisco]

No, I would argue Falk had clearly given himself up, was in a slide, was down, and was a defenseless player at that point, whereas Luton was falling forward towards the first down line, was not down and was not defenseless.

The comparison, quite frankly, is negligent on your part.

Almost Ed-like, that comparison

 

[YakiCoug]

That is not launching. At time of impact, both feet are firmly on the ground. To launch, you have to have both feet off the ground launching yourself at the ball carrier. Thompson did nothing wrong. Luton undercut him. That is why he was in the air, not because he launched himself.

It wasn't launching. It wasn't targeting. Flat is just being stubborn and stupid.