July 14, 2013 · 9:04 AM

”When in doubt, throw him out.“

The Big Ten’s catch phrase for how its officials are expected to handle the new targeting rule is almost as catchy as “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.”

Whatever happened to the once popular “do your effing job”?

11 Comments

Filed under Big Ten Football

11 responses to “”When in doubt, throw him out.“”

  1. eethomaswfnc
    July 14, 2013 at 9:08 AM

    Can we send Penn Wagers to the B1G?

    Like

  2. Cojones
    July 14, 2013 at 10:35 AM

    Pome ‘D Rue! Guilty until proven innocent? Don’t think that will fly. Think they have found a way to negate great, hard-hitting players who play aggressive.

    Crap! Really appreciate the story on Matthews; now we can just wait to see him yhrown out by any ref who lays money on our opponents. Senator, sending us Dawg porn on Matthews while running this rule change by our noses is foul; – I tell you foul! Now all we inherit is angst when reading the good news. Like Ole Blue, somebody ought to take you out and shoot you!

    Like

    • Cojones
      July 14, 2013 at 10:47 AM

      Seriously, we need to turn the replay interpretation used to confirm targeting into the opposite: prove that he didn’t target. Confirming guilt only instead of guilt or innocence is a Faustian setup for refs while the NCAA plays the part of Mephisto.

      “If you sin, leave him in.” should be the watchword.

      Like

  3. Hogbody Spradlin
    July 14, 2013 at 10:40 AM

    Correction request: “If it DON”T fit, you must acquit.”

    Like

  4. Cojones
    July 14, 2013 at 10:57 AM

    It would be interesting to review old film of Blue and other D greats and determine in which games they would have been ejected by applying this rule.

    Like

  5. Macallanlover
    July 14, 2013 at 12:56 PM

    This new rule has me very concerned; there is so much room for interpretation and you just know it is going to detrmine the outcome of seasons. No one is opposed to improvements in the game that improve the safety of players but this approach seems destined for abuse and continual charges of favortism for teams that represent the economic opportunities for the conference. I feel there should be a high bar set for suspension that includes review beyond the field crew for hits they have only seen at full speed.

    Like

  6. uglydawg
    July 14, 2013 at 5:07 PM

    It’s undeniable that we Georgia fans are paranoid concerning biased officiating against Georgia. I wonder if this is commmonplace amongst college football fans, or if it is a deservedly concern limited to UGA and maybe a handful of other teams. I wonder if it shows up on other teams blogs like it does on Georgia’s football blogs. I know I remember every time the Dawgs got screwed by the refs, but I also know it’s easy to forget that it works both ways….Just wondering if this whole thing is peculiar to us.

    Like

    • Cojones
      July 14, 2013 at 5:39 PM

      I forget when it works against our opponents, especially the NATS. Gee, why do I keep remembering Green? I know! Colors stick in my mind. The reason they didn’t throw them on Jarvis was because he confused the zebras by pickin’ players up after he hit’em. No animas to guide the judgement that will enter the minds of those throwing the flag

      Yeah, you’re correct Ug.

      Like

    • Macallanlover
      July 15, 2013 at 12:38 AM

      Don’t know if your post was meant for me, but my concern wasn’t about UGA getting screwed any more than anyone else. I think the harm will hit everyone at one time or another. Replays and reviews give time and perspective that cannot happen on the field. All teams had better be wary of this, we have already seen how decisions vary widely.

      The only time I think favortism will be shown is if it is a key player on a conference’s top team. Like the SEC not taking action against Dial’s hit on Murray in the SECCG. Middle of the season, or in another game not involving the two top rated SEC teams, you can bet that gets him suspended.

      Like