When I heard Barham's targeting call had not been reversed, I was about to write a scatling post on the Big Ten and its commissioner. That would've been a mistake as the Big Ten agreed the tackle wasn't targeting and the commissioner and VP both appealed to the NCAA head of officials Steve Shaw to reverse the call. He of course did not.
Who is Steve Shaw?: (written by AI) Steve Shaw is the College Football Officiating (CFO) National Coordinator of Officials and the NCAA Football Secretary-Rules Editor, overseeing officiating and rules for college football. He also serves as the secretary-rules editor for the NCAA Football Rules Committee, a role critical to the sport's competition rules and policies. Shaw assumed the national role in March 2020 after working as the coordinator for the Southeastern Conference (SEC) and Sun Belt Conference.
Steve, I'm sure you don't ever take questions on your decision and hide behind your NCAA wall, but I have a few for you:
1.Targeting was not called on the field and the booth decided it was targeting after a review. Do you believe that inconsistency is a reason the tackle wasn't a clear targeting call?
2. Would you agree the proper call would have been roughing the passer and not targeting? But since roughing the passer is not something you can review, your officials made the targeting call instead?
3. Would you agree the hit was ruled targeting on the impact of the collison and not the rules of targeting? For example, he did not lead with the crown of his helmet, he did not "launch", yes it was a face mask to face mask hit.
4. Are you protecting your officials with not over turning a bad call? The obvious answer is yes.
5. Do you have a ruling on the blatantly missed review of the New Mexico WR dropping the ball on the sideline but the review officials did not stop the game?
6. Would you agree that your officials gave New Mexico a free drive and 7 points and was way too involved or not involved at all in the game during that drive?
7. Did anyone above you at the NCAA ask you not to approve the appeal on targeting?
The NCAA and its Mob like ways of doing business are at it again.
- Speaking of the NCAA and Mob like ways, there continues to be a lot of smoke around a former Michigan player lying to the NCAA and gathering evidence in a non-legal way and sending it to the NCAA and reporters in the NCAA's case against Michigan. Of course the NCAA doesn't care how it gets evidence to rule on any matter, but the legal system sure does.
- A quick look back at how former Michigan players did at their new school after entering the transfer portal: Joey Velazquez is a former Wolverine, who played both Baseball and Football at Michigan before entering the transfer portal before Michigan's trip to the Rose Bowl to play Alabama. Later Joey transferred to Ohio State and played in all 16 games that next year on special teams. At Michigan he was a LB and was coached by former Michigan coach Chris Partridge.
6 comments:
Upholding the targeting call is the NCAAs way to getting back at UofM for all the Harbaugh bullshit. They really couldn't do much to the school for the "shenanigans" that happened under Harbaugh as Harbs won his Naty and rode off to the NFL flipping off the NCAA on the way out the door. so the NCAA will resort to being petty with bullshit like this.
I'm tired off the targeting BS. it seems every year, a handful of players get suspended for questionable calls that weren't made on the field, but rather because a questionable booth review. just make it an unnecessary roughness penalty and play ball. you want to punish repeat offenders, fine. that Barham play was a football play by both Barham and Lane. the fact that Lane was falling back on his back foot was as much the cause of the helmet to helmet. not Barham launching himself. which in my opinion didn't happen.
Steve Shaw is also an Alabama grad. I don't know what to make of the first two comments here.
SEC officials helping the SEC and Oklahoma this week, by calling targeting.
Post a Comment