What did we learn? Purdue edition

[Mavric]

1 minute ago, Born N Bled Red said:

I learned targeting is not a thing if it's done against a 6'5" QB wearing red. 

 

I mean .... I'm usually a decent defender of the guys in stripes.

 

But there were a bunch of really questionable decisions there.  I was at the game so I probably didn't get all the replay angles.  But it sure didn't look like there was enough to overturn either of the fumbles that they did.  And the trargeting call looked to be straight out of the definition but they tossed it.  Seems like there was another one that seemed really odd...

[Born N Bled Red]

2 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

I mean .... I'm usually a decent defender of the guys in stripes.

 

But there were a bunch of really questionable decisions there.  I was at the game so I probably didn't get all the replay angles.  But it sure didn't look like there was enough to overturn either of the fumbles that they did.  And the trargeting call looked to be straight out of the definition but they tossed it.  Seems like there was another one that seemed really odd...

 

The ones that seemed odd were probably the holding calls that went against Purdue. I saw Satan in Scheels picking out a Columbia coat shortly after. 

[Mavric]

10 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

The ones that seemed odd were probably the holding calls that went against Purdue. I saw Satan in Scheels picking out a Columbia coat shortly after. 

 

Ha!  Wasn't there like two holding calls in the first five minutes or something?  Definitely not the typical B1G game...

[Enhance]

7 hours ago, ColoradoHusk said:

On his podcast this week, Rob Zatechka explains that it’s tough to change something like turnovers which has been a glaring problem for many years and multiple coaches. That turnover problem is a program issue, which is tough to change for a first year coach.

 

I would also say that the injuries and the lack of depth are also having an impact on turnovers for NU this year. We are starting an inexperienced QB in Haarberg, who is getting beat up physically. His backup is even more turnover prone. The RB room has been riddled with injuries and now relying on a 4th string I-back. The punt returner against Purdue was replacing Kemp, who has never had issues fielding punts. The fumbled kickoff was almost a fluke play, caused by Purdue going after an up back fielding a kickoff.  Teams are also going to be more likely to try for turnovers more aggressively against NU because how turnover-prone we have been. 

Thanks for sharing this.

I tend to think offensive turnovers are largely a biproduct of experience, discipline, and knowledge. I think the same reasons Nebraska has struggled to win are largely the same reasons they've turned the ball over. If a team is undisciplined and perhaps even lacking in confidence, they're going to put themselves in positions to have turnovers. So, I would agree with Rob's view on the matter. I think it was always going to be a really, really tough task for any new head coach at Nebraska to fix it quickly. But, if Rhule and his staff can continue to build upon the groundwork they've laid, the turnovers will fix themselves. The players just need to keep growing in their understanding of their jobs and continue to improve upon their discipline.
 

38 minutes ago, Mavric said:

And the trargeting call looked to be straight out of the definition but they tossed it.  Seems like there was another one that seemed really odd...

Do we know if there's a clip of this anywhere? I don't have a game replay and couldn't find anything on Twitter.

During the broadcast, I vaguely remember hearing the broadcasters say Haarberg wasn't defenseless and that's why the targeting wasn't held up, which would mean that the contact didn't satisfy the other elements of targeting (again, only if they're right. I don't remember the play now).

[Mavric]

7 hours ago, ColoradoHusk said:

On his podcast this week, Rob Zatechka explains that it’s tough to change something like turnovers which has been a glaring problem for many years and multiple coaches. That turnover problem is a program issue, which is tough to change for a first year coach.

 

I guess there could be some truth to this.  But it seems pretty hard to believe when we have a new HC, new OC and new QB (at the start of the year) and still have the same issues.  Even HH had barely played before.  

 

I could see it more if it was the same players year-to-year.  But I don't really buy that for this year.

 

7 hours ago, ColoradoHusk said:

I would also say that the injuries and the lack of depth are also having an impact on turnovers for NU this year. We are starting an inexperienced QB in Haarberg, who is getting beat up physically. His backup is even more turnover prone. The RB room has been riddled with injuries and now relying on a 4th string I-back. The punt returner against Purdue was replacing Kemp, who has never had issues fielding punts. The fumbled kickoff was almost a fluke play, caused by Purdue going after an up back fielding a kickoff.  Teams are also going to be more likely to try for turnovers more aggressively against NU because how turnover-prone we have been. 

 

I do think there is something to this.

[Enhance]

Nevermind - found it. Took a screenshot.

 

So, the four qualifiers for targeting are:

• 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

I mean, maybe I don't understand the rule, but IMO he clearly led with his helmet 'to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area.' Haarberg wasn't defensele

 

Now, technically, he didn't lead with the crown of his helmet... at least the crown as identified by the NCAA. It really is the tippy top portion of the helmet, which the defender uses more of the front upper portion. So, I guess I get that part. But, if targeting is defined as the bolded above, I'm not sure I understand why it was overturned.

[Mavric]

6 minutes ago, Enhance said:

Do we know if there's a clip of this anywhere? I don't have a game replay and couldn't find anything on Twitter.

During the broadcast, I vaguely remember hearing the broadcasters say Haarberg wasn't defenseless and that's why the targeting wasn't held up, which would mean that the contact didn't satisfy the other elements of targeting (again, only if they're right. I don't remember the play now).

 

You beat me to the screen shot.  Here's another.

 

You don't get the same protections as a runner.  But you still can't lead with the crown of the helmet, especially to the head/neck area.  No idea how they overturned this.

 

[Enhance]

2 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

But you still can't lead with the crown of the helmet, especially to the head/neck area.  No idea how they overturned this.

 

The broadcasters made a big deal of 21 apparently not using the crown of the helmet (they kept saying that the crown is only like a 3x3 inch area or something like that right on the top of the head, whereas 21 was using more of the upper/front portion slightly away from the crown).

So, that was the logic they went by, and when it was overturned, they were like 'yep makes sense.'

But, even if he did/didn't use the crown, I would think he very clearly led 'with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area.' That's the part I don't get.

[huskerfan74]

Scott Frost really hurt us. Look at what coach White has been able to do in less than a year with our defense even with average talent. Can’t believe the state paid that hack millions to drag us to irrelevance. Let us hope those dark days are behind us. Hope we keep recruiting good talent on offense and God willing we get an actual QB. 

[Lorewarn]

imo the contact wasn't forcible - it was the crown, and it was to the head or neck area but it was mostly incidental or rather a glancing hit, based on the live look and the replay look (i don't hold this opinion strongly, just my gut vibe perspective). I didn't think that the crown of the helment portion of the rule included forcible contact, but enhance's breakdown of the rules makes me realize I either haven't ever fully understood them or that they've since reworded the ruling.

[UniversalMartin]

9 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

I guess there could be some truth to this.  But it seems pretty hard to believe when we have a new HC, new OC and new QB (at the start of the year) and still have the same issues.  Even HH had barely played before.  

 

I could see it more if it was the same players year-to-year.  But I don't really buy that for this year.

 

If it is something (turnovers) that has spanned different coaching staffs,  what do you see being the culprit other than it truly being a cognitive awareness by a group that "we fumble alot (program issue)?

[knapplc]

There's almost zero difference between the hit on Haarberg and this hit by Ty Robinson against Minnesota. Robinson was ejected for targeting, and missed the first half against Colorado.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If ANYTHING, the Purdue hit was much more forceful. Both hit with the crown of the helmet in the head/neck area of the QB. But only one was an ejection. 

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Husker in WI]

2 minutes ago, knapplc said:

There's almost zero difference between the hit on Haarberg and this hit by Ty Robinson against Minnesota. Robinson was ejected for targeting, and missed the first half against Colorado.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Minnesota QB was not a runner, which as I understand it is also a factor and widens the criteria. It's dumb, but a QB in the pocket/receiver in mid air are treated differently than a ballcarrier pushing through a pile.

[Red Five]

30 minutes ago, UniversalMartin said:

If it is something (turnovers) that has spanned different coaching staffs,  what do you see being the culprit other than it truly being a cognitive awareness by a group that "we fumble alot (program issue)?

 

My newest theory is the Adidas footballs.  For as long as this has gone on, that is the one constant.  Is there something different in their design that makes them more fumbley?

[Hilltop]

The targeting rule is way too subjective.  It is a good rule in principal but they really need to figure out how to enforce it fairly and consistently.