HuskerThor Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 I thought he was just paying homage to Ndamukong Suh. Suh was my first thought while watching the Borland play too. People didn't get their panties in a bunch around here when he brought a lil excessive force, and like you (I think), I see no reason to get worked up by what Borland did. The difference is Suh could have only broken Gabberts leg, Borland could have broken Taylors neck. The differnce between not walking for a couple of weeks versus not walking ever again. Quote Link to comment
308_Husker Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Biggest problem with the TM play is not really the hit. It's that nobody from our team seemed to give a sh#t that it happened. 2 Quote Link to comment
H2h Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 I thought he was just paying homage to Ndamukong Suh. Suh was my first thought while watching the Borland play too. People didn't get their panties in a bunch around here when he brought a lil excessive force, and like you (I think), I see no reason to get worked up by what Borland did. The difference is Suh could have only broken Gabberts leg, Borland could have broken Taylors neck. The differnce between not walking for a couple of weeks versus not walking ever again. I just look at it like this, if that was Compton tackling some Wisconsin player in the same manner and he got flagged for it, I'd be mad. So when it happens the other way around, I can't be mad if there's no flag. As long as your consistent then I can agree to disagree. Quote Link to comment
HuskerThor Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 I thought he was just paying homage to Ndamukong Suh. Suh was my first thought while watching the Borland play too. People didn't get their panties in a bunch around here when he brought a lil excessive force, and like you (I think), I see no reason to get worked up by what Borland did. The difference is Suh could have only broken Gabberts leg, Borland could have broken Taylors neck. The differnce between not walking for a couple of weeks versus not walking ever again. I just look at it like this, if that was Compton tackling some Wisconsin player in the same manner and he got flagged for it, I'd be mad. So when it happens the other way around, I can't be mad if there's no flag. As long as your consistent then I can agree to disagree. And I agree with your disagreement. Didn't they flag a personal foul on the next play, to what it seemed to make up for missing that call? Quote Link to comment
default_28 Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Can you imagine if that had been a Husker player making the tackle, and Ed Cunningham was doing color and he said what Charles Davis said. This board would have blown up with how he was making a mountain out of a mole hill. Quote Link to comment
ILikeNUAlot Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 The non-call on Eric was blantant and a no brainer. It was right in front of the Back Judge. Coupled with the possible injury it also lost of e game. We were driving. Deffinatly going to score. Did that game also cost us the shot at the Big 12 CCG? Also this play is why I refuse to root for KSU ever. Also purple is ugly. Quote Link to comment
tschu Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Based on both the egregiousness of the act and the repercussions resulting from the no-call, Crouch's was decidedly much worse. Taylor's was pretty bad, but I'll never forget how pissed off I was watching that KSU play. In contrast, Taylor's had no impact on the outcome of the game. Quote Link to comment
Goal-line Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Both were cheap shots! Quote Link to comment
2ndNnine Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 that borland kid is a dirtbag and should have been ejected Quote Link to comment
knapplc Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 The only problem I have with the Borland play is that they flagged Kenny Bell for his perfectly legal block on Jamal's touchdown. You call one, you have to call the other. Quote Link to comment
EZ-E Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Can you imagine if that had been a Husker player making the tackle, and Ed Cunningham was doing color and he said what Charles Davis said. This board would have blown up with how he was making a mountain out of a mole hill. This this this and more this. Borland's play was bull sh#t. I've played sports in college and at various levels and understand that in the heat of the battle, you do things that you immediately regret and feel really bad about because when you step out of the heat of battle, and realize you are playing a game, you often realize that what you did was stupid. I hope that was the case here. I really do. Quote Link to comment
EZ-E Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 The only problem I have with the Borland play is that they flagged Kenny Bell for his perfectly legal block on Jamal's touchdown. You call one, you have to call the other. Sometimes we share the same mind Knapp. This was my exact next post. What Kenny did was well within the game. Like my status read the other day. Kenny made a block on the only guy that had a chance to make a play on Jamal. So you are punishing him for doing his job. There was no helmet to helmet contact. Every once in awhile, a guy gets laid out. It's a violent game. But what Borland did goes out of what we soccer guys call "the spirit of the game." No place in football for German Suplexes. Quote Link to comment
HUSKER FREAK Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Crouch's K-State facemask was much much worse than that. The one on Martinez really didn't look that bad I guess, but they have been calling those plays penalties all year and if they are going to call Kenny's hit unnecesary roughness than that definately should have been called. I Do Not think Borland is dirty, and we just plain ass got our asses handed to us because we were flat footed all game and just not prepared mentally. No Other excuses are neccesary IMO. Quote Link to comment
Ulty Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 I wonder if Borland's tackle of Martinez was just a perfect storm of Borland wrapping up well and popping his hips in order to take down the runner, along with Taylor standing up straight and still trying to move his feet. What turned into a suplex probably wasn't more than what every good tackler tries to do on every play, you just usually see the runner go down instead of on a high-flying ride. Even if Borland meant to do it this way, even in wrestling or judo, it's difficult to get such a perfect takedown, and I bet Borland never would have expected Matinez to actually fly up as he did. I bet he couldn't replicate this tackle on another runner if he tried, even with a smaller dude. Having said that, he still should have been flagged, based on the precedent of flagging other guys for cleaner, faster hits, that the tackler often has no way of controlling. From a football perspective, I'm not really concerned about the Borland tackle. But from a safety perspective, I don't know why the refs would look at this any differently than any number of other hits that get penalized. I do appreciate that Borland walked over to Martinez afterward, though. ...and Ochs grabbing Crouch's facemask was much worse than this. 3 Quote Link to comment
zoogs Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 The only problem I have with the Borland play is that they flagged Kenny Bell for his perfectly legal block on Jamal's touchdown. You call one, you have to call the other. At least the officials made up for it the next play. Taylor got corralled and Wisky got hit with an "enough is enough" flag. Still shoulda called it right the first time. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.