I am elated with the win over Duke as we needed something positive to happen but as I mentioned above the KO return was a penalty in motion at times. But as Terry mentioned there are major doubts that Duke actually scored the final TD because of the sorry officiating resulting in a form of poetic justice with our final score.
Frank Beamer is retiring at the end of the season. I don't think this is a shock to anybody. He really made that program, they've fallen off in the last few years but he was/is Mr. Va.Tech Football. I hope he has a nice retirement. Class Guy. Boy are there going to be some changes. With so many job openings, there will be a lot of coaches who get raises just to keep them at their current jobs and the schools looking will have to pay more than they should. I hope Tom Herman doesn't bail on UofH after only 1 season.
Terry I am hoping he bails to the Hurricanes to be honest I wonder if Bud Foster will retire or seek the head coaching job at V-Tech. There are going to be lots of job openings that's for sure
On Foster on one board i read, a couple of posters said he had some personal issues that will probably keep him from being a head coach. Maybe alcohol related they didn't give particulars
Hmmm, not much else to do in Blacksburg but drink is there....Hate to hear that because he was the coach in waiting a few years ago.
I am glad that Coach Beamer is going out on his own terms. I respect him for what he has given to Virginia Tech. Old time loyalty in my book.
There are not too many coaches who are going to have a tenure of 29 years at the same University, especially after watching the current coaching carousel. I joked about Blacksburg in an earlier post and I was wrong, Urban Meyer recently said he has never quite experienced the amazing environment such as Blacksburg. I had read where Beamer was thrilled about coaching at one of the race tracks where 150,000 people are expected to attend. I think that game is either next season or the year after.
That is the 2nd or third game next year year for Tennessee. The game is Tennessee vs Va Tech at Bristol speedway.
I didn't watch the Miami-Duke game, but according to this article, it may go down as the worst officiated game in history.....and the officials "only" get a 2-game suspension. My question: Why would you want to let this crew back on the field, ever? http://sports.yahoo.com/news/wild-week-had-wildest-possible-ending-miami-162337579--ncaaf.html
Good point Sid and I feel the same way. I can not imagine the grief that the Duke players are suffering at the moment.
That had to be the Swindle in the Swamp..... FSU's ACC reffed heist of the game vs. Florida in 2003.... a game which was one of the catalysts for replay review implementation in college football of questionable change of possession type plays. Always Crooked Conference was born that day.
I'm guessing all of our teams have been "robbed" by the refs more than once. Don't get ND fans talking about B10 refs or Pac12 refs when we play USC, several highway robberies from those crews. Maybe the most egregious that i've ever witnessed was that Oregon/OU game a few years ago. Pac10 refs literally stole that game from OU. B12 fans frequently complained in the past that Texas always got the calls, I did actually witness a Longhorn get credit for a TD vs either KSU or KU I forget which when he scored without the ball, fumbled it at the 2 yd line but the ref lost sight of the ball and credited him with the TD, the replay wouldn't overturn it because they couldn't see what happened to the ball after he fumbled it. Mangino when he was at KU felt like they were royally screwed by B12 refs to protect Texas run to the 2005 NC game, and I don't think Neb fans have ever gotten over the reseting of the clock to allow Texas to kick a FG and advance to the 2009 NC game. The interesting thing about that is that if they hadn't done that, the team most likely to have faced Alabama in 2009 was the undefeated Cincinnati team coached by Brian Kelly who then most likely doesn't take the ND job.
I witnessed two players being ejected Sat for targeting and IMHO neither of them should have been called. A player from A&M and a ND player, in both instances, the offensive player was as much at fault as anybody, IMHO both cases the hit was the fault of the offensive player. I really think the rule needs to be reviewed and the wording changed to not be so black and white. Not every blow to the head or above the shoulders is targeting by the defense, some times it's the offensive player who causes the end result.
A&M player? I don't recall that one...but I did point out to Scott one of the offensive players initiating helmet-to-helmet, asking why that isn't considered targeting. It's just as dangerous, no matter who causes that contact. Defenses are now being taught to tackle low (which brings in its own set of issues) but if the ball carrier lowers their head, why is the defense the one that gets the penalty, especially if they're already in the act of trying to tackle low?
Sorry it was a Texas Tech player who was ejected...but it was IMHO a bad call and he did not lower his head and leave his feet either...it was a good tackle.
3rd quarter of the Tennessee @ Kentucky game, one of our most active players in the defensive secondary was ejected for targeting. The replay showed that the receiver was not defenseless (he took three steps before the impact) and the defensive player led with his right shoulder planting it into the chest of the receiver. This caused a fumble which Tennessee recovered. After replay, they still called it targeting. If Butch Jones doesn't complain to the SEC office about this one, there will be a riot in Knoxville.
Looking at it on replay I can see why they confirmed the call rather than reversing it. These calls will always be close and controversial. I wish they would come up with a term other than "targeting", which kind of implies some deliberate effort to hurt or injure, rather than what most of these plays are; good hard football that would have been legal in the past but which now fall under rules designed to protect BOTH players from injury. Even Jones defends the play by saying "there isn't a better person than Emmanuel Moseley"...as if the call means some kind of deliberate evil intent occured. Leading with the shoulder does not void the targeting; The other point would be that the rule sort of doesn't give any benefit of the doubt to the defensive player; "when in question, it's a foul"...so they are not likely to be overturned. Having said that, I have seen a few overturned on replay, as have most of you (who probably watch more football than me anyway). Anyhow, not trying to start a fight. I just think that without any Orange colored glasses on, the hit looks at least pretty close to what the rule is talking about. The announcers don't agree with me; <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/N2qnZQtp0qI" frameborder="0"></iframe>
Where was the contact initiated with the crown of the helmet. The side of his helmet may have glanced off of the receivers body but the impact was with his shoulder pads. If that is targeting, we might as well outlaw contact and play two hand touch.
C'mon, Tom...we're hardly talking two handed touch here. I already quoted that the contact does NOT have to be initiated with the helmet. I really don't care. I'm done and not going to get into a big argument. I'm glad they are making an effort to protect the players.
I can see where the Tenn/UK tackle would be upheld, since the initial contact is helmet to helmet. I don't like it, but within the bounds of the rule, it fits. However, this: That is expressly NOT included in the rule, so how could that be targeting. Each part of the rule explicitly states INITIATING CONTACT. This means, the first contact. If you are initiating contact with the shoulder to the shoulder, then it is NOT targeting per the rule. In application, that has not been the case, which is where a lot of the consternation comes in.