Moving On to ECU

[bcoach]

That whole deal with a half suspension for targeting is awful. If they are going to continue with the focus on the rule then there needs to be degrees of punitive punishment. If a dude literally launches his body and spears a defenseless player in the head then he deserves both the penalty and I would say a full game suspension. If a player simply lowers his head a bit and doesn’t launch himself that should not equate to a half suspension. The referee needs to consider the speed of the play and the reaction of the ball carrier. I’d have to believe it’s extremely difficult to adjust the angle of a helmet while flying at a guy to make a play.

Too many variables. You target or you don’t.

The attempt to reduce targeting to a formula is the issue (in my opinion). They want to say that any contact with the "crown" of the helmet is targeting, but in the heat of the moment, incidental contact happens. Neither of the tackles on Saturday seemed to contain the "vicious" component nor did they seem to demonstrate the weaponizing of the helmet or an intent to injure. The third case (which was finally ruled not targeting) was hard to take because the announcers were talking about whether he had started to run or was "defenseless". That hit was nowhere near the hits that our receivers were taking at Clemson as soon as their finger tips touched the ball. There just seems to be no consistency to the calls. In the end, the hit was either unnecessarily vicious or it isn't. God forbid refs have to use judgement. To be clear, I do understand the intent of the "targeting" call is player safety and that is good. The attempt to make it formula driven is the thing driving the problem. Refs spend all their time looking for components rather than evaluating the overall event.

In my opinion both were good calls. It is an attempt to stop some of these more serious injuries. That will not happen if we need to try and figure out intent. The solution is to train against using the crown of the helmet. I will leave out my opinion of how guys "tackle" now days.

[Saint3333]

Teach form tackling at young ages.

[Yosef84]

That whole deal with a half suspension for targeting is awful. If they are going to continue with the focus on the rule then there needs to be degrees of punitive punishment. If a dude literally launches his body and spears a defenseless player in the head then he deserves both the penalty and I would say a full game suspension. If a player simply lowers his head a bit and doesn’t launch himself that should not equate to a half suspension. The referee needs to consider the speed of the play and the reaction of the ball carrier. I’d have to believe it’s extremely difficult to adjust the angle of a helmet while flying at a guy to make a play.

Too many variables. You target or you don’t.

The attempt to reduce targeting to a formula is the issue (in my opinion). They want to say that any contact with the "crown" of the helmet is targeting, but in the heat of the moment, incidental contact happens. Neither of the tackles on Saturday seemed to contain the "vicious" component nor did they seem to demonstrate the weaponizing of the helmet or an intent to injure. The third case (which was finally ruled not targeting) was hard to take because the announcers were talking about whether he had started to run or was "defenseless". That hit was nowhere near the hits that our receivers were taking at Clemson as soon as their finger tips touched the ball. There just seems to be no consistency to the calls. In the end, the hit was either unnecessarily vicious or it isn't. God forbid refs have to use judgement. To be clear, I do understand the intent of the "targeting" call is player safety and that is good. The attempt to make it formula driven is the thing driving the problem. Refs spend all their time looking for components rather than evaluating the overall event.

In my opinion both were good calls. It is an attempt to stop some of these more serious injuries. That will not happen if we need to try and figure out intent. The solution is to train against using the crown of the helmet. I will leave out my opinion of how guys "tackle" now days.

They were good calls in that they met the specifications of the rule as it is currently written. I just don't think either was particularly violent or vicious. It's fine if we disagree though. I don't disagree with the intent or the targeting rule. It just isn't implemented well or consistently.

[Rekdiver]

I try to avoid comments until the 4th quarter..that way I avoid looking stupider

Stupider isn’t a word…

I only jumped on because I was at the game and figured people would want to know when the next targeting review that happens 10 minutes after the play ended was initiated.

Favors ejection was egregious and should be overturned.

It is a word…FYI

[AppSt94]

Well, yesterday's game confirms that my decision to stay off this board during games is a good one.

My theory: The App team was caught in traffic and that substitute team from last week had to play the first quarter. Fortunately, the team got there in time for the rest of the game. Seriously, horrible start (duh) but App dominates the rest of the game.

ECU is not a bad team. This was a good win. Yes, we have mistakes that need to be addressed and I am sure they will. Joey made some bad decisions but also got us back into the game. I think Castle deserved more carries than he has gotten in the past, but maybe an over correction. Ponce needs to include some mid-direction or some sort of creativity into the running game. Lining up and running into the teeth of the D to the short side just doesn't seem to work well. Marshall and Castle are both solid. Kanye needs to protect the ball so his athleticism isn't wasted. Great adjustments on D. Hope we get some guys back healthy and off penalty suspensions so we can take care of business on Thursday.

I was pissed during the first quarter too, but don't understand the guys who want to turn it off. If that's your mentality then just turn if off and stop talking. Geez.

Good hard fought win! This team will get better week to week.

10/10 therapists would support this statement.

[CoachRob]

I thought the targeting calls were bogus.
Football is a violent sport. There's going to be contact that's violent. I believe we are smart enough to know the difference between a tackle intended to lower the head, leave the feet, and target the offense player vs coming down hill or off the edge fast to make a play. Some of these calls seem to be getting close to threatening the integrity of the game. But that's just my 2 cents

[T-Dog]

There was a targeting that stood in the Florida game where the WR jumped high and the DB lowered his helmet to hit the WR in the butt, which in this instance was nowhere near the helmet. By the letter of the rule, yes, it was targeting.

We don't see a lot of the spearing targeting hits anymore (rule has been in place since 2013), but more of the accidental crown-lowering hits. So the rule has done a lot of good even if it's still inconsistent. I'm still mad about that ODU targeting overturn from last year.

[ericsaid]

I try to avoid comments until the 4th quarter..that way I avoid looking stupider

Stupider isn’t a word…

I only jumped on because I was at the game and figured people would want to know when the next targeting review that happens 10 minutes after the play ended was initiated.

Favors ejection was egregious and should be overturned.

It is a word…FYI

No, no, no. Ain’t also isn’t a word.

[ericsaid]

That whole deal with a half suspension for targeting is awful. If they are going to continue with the focus on the rule then there needs to be degrees of punitive punishment. If a dude literally launches his body and spears a defenseless player in the head then he deserves both the penalty and I would say a full game suspension. If a player simply lowers his head a bit and doesn’t launch himself that should not equate to a half suspension. The referee needs to consider the speed of the play and the reaction of the ball carrier. I’d have to believe it’s extremely difficult to adjust the angle of a helmet while flying at a guy to make a play.

Too many variables. You target or you don’t.

The attempt to reduce targeting to a formula is the issue (in my opinion). They want to say that any contact with the "crown" of the helmet is targeting, but in the heat of the moment, incidental contact happens. Neither of the tackles on Saturday seemed to contain the "vicious" component nor did they seem to demonstrate the weaponizing of the helmet or an intent to injure. The third case (which was finally ruled not targeting) was hard to take because the announcers were talking about whether he had started to run or was "defenseless". That hit was nowhere near the hits that our receivers were taking at Clemson as soon as their finger tips touched the ball. There just seems to be no consistency to the calls. In the end, the hit was either unnecessarily vicious or it isn't. God forbid refs have to use judgement. To be clear, I do understand the intent of the "targeting" call is player safety and that is good. The attempt to make it formula driven is the thing driving the problem. Refs spend all their time looking for components rather than evaluating the overall event.

In my opinion both were good calls. It is an attempt to stop some of these more serious injuries. That will not happen if we need to try and figure out intent. The solution is to train against using the crown of the helmet. I will leave out my opinion of how guys "tackle" now days.

They were good calls in that they met the specifications of the rule as it is currently written. I just don't think either was particularly violent or vicious. It's fine if we disagree though. I don't disagree with the intent or the targeting rule. It just isn't implemented well or consistently.

The one on Favors was garbage. He was blocked, and had been stumbling with his head down for a good 7 yards. It was not targeting by the spirit of the rule.

[Stonewall]

Learn to tackle with your head up.

[Rekdiver]

I try to avoid comments until the 4th quarter..that way I avoid looking stupider

Stupider isn’t a word…

I only jumped on because I was at the game and figured people would want to know when the next targeting review that happens 10 minutes after the play ended was initiated.

Favors ejection was egregious and should be overturned.

It is a word…FYI

No, no, no. Ain’t also isn’t a word.

Yep….got to check your Thesaurus

[AppSt94]

If smarter is a word, why isn’t stupider?

[APPdiesel]

There needs to be 2 degrees of targeting. Essentially intentional and incidental. One should be a personal foul and ejection for a game. The other should be…idk, 15 yds and a quarter.

[Bootsy]

Still felt like we were holding on to a few offensive plays tonight… you can see at the end with the pulls to quick throws to the TE.. curious to see what we can do to help the run game. Seems very stagnant and stale at the moment. But also not sure the revolving door at RB works. Just wanna see some App State run it down your throat football again.

So you think App should win every game by 3 scores? Bro, A WIN IS A WIN. Seasons are more often defined by tough wins than by blowing out the other team. And this was a tough win for our program.

And for those who couldn’t make it yesterday, DFS was loud and hostile yesterday. App was coming off our worst loss in, well, forever. Key defensive players were missing before the game. Questionable targeting calls led to ejections of other key players. We quickly found ourselves down to an improved team with a lot of momentum.

Why do I say all of this? Adversity reveals character. Our players and coaches answered the call. And got it done. So y’all stop living in 2007 and celebrate how this team responded to the adversity and got the job done.

I’m not saying we need to win by 3 TD’s.. although it would lower my heart beat during the games lol all I’m saying is I’m curious to see if we have showed our whole play book.. also I’m not convinced about the rotating RB’s. I agree a win is a win and that game got chippy, dirty and we still came up on top.

All good, fam. We’d all be happier if 2024 provides fewer nail biters than 2023 did.

[AppSt94]

There needs to be 2 degrees of targeting. Essentially intentional and incidental. One should be a personal foul and ejection for a game. The other should be…idk, 15 yds and a quarter.

How do you discern between the two? Leaving intent versus incidental up to interpretation seems like a risky proposition for officials influencing the game.

[Black Saturday]

I try to avoid comments until the 4th quarter..that way I avoid looking stupider

Stupider isn’t a word…

I only jumped on because I was at the game and figured people would want to know when the next targeting review that happens 10 minutes after the play ended was initiated.

Favors ejection was egregious and should be overturned.

It is a word…FYI

No, no, no. Ain’t also isn’t a word.

Yep….got to check your Thesaurus

For all the butchering of the English language that has happened since I spent time in Sanford Hall back in the day, using ain't or stupider is mighty small potatoes, when the F-Bomb and the like has become accepted as ok to use most everywhere in our culture. F-Bomb might not even be considered a Bomb anymore?

[Saint3333]

There needs to be 2 degrees of targeting. Essentially intentional and incidental. One should be a personal foul and ejection for a game. The other should be…idk, 15 yds and a quarter.

There used to be a 5 yard and 15 yard facemask. Seems reasonable.

[Black Saturday]

There needs to be 2 degrees of targeting. Essentially intentional and incidental. One should be a personal foul and ejection for a game. The other should be…idk, 15 yds and a quarter.

There used to be a 5 yard and 15 yard facemask. Seems reasonable.

The last ejection targeting is saw was Venebles launch at Clemson, severity needs to be considered in the punishment, damn AAC refs were quick to deplete our ranks, glad we survived it.

[AppContrarian]

Eric - here’s a little secret if you disagree with me 94 will like your post. It’s personal for him.

Plenty of even sets, watch a third time. 80 yards is not the standard at App, hope we get our timing right and quickly.

When you throw for the third-most passing yards in program history there are fewer yards to be had on the ground. To suggest that we should "be better running because it's the standard" means that we should go away from our strengths through the air. It's silly. Why does it matter the run/pass splits if we're racking up 500+ yards a game?

[asumba95]

The RB rotation under Haines and Clark remains baffling.

Castle is not an RB1. He doesn't move his feet when hit on these stretch run plays. He's the back you bring in after getting those dirty runs and bashes holes running downhill, like he did in the fourth quarter. Especially when ball security is paramount.

If not Kanye, then Ahmani Marshall should start. Experience in big games and gets good dirty yards.

It seemed Kanye was in the doghouse either for those two kickoff mistakes versus Clemson or for something else. Didn't see the field until late second quarter and then only saw limited action, plus Haywood was taking kickoff. I felt this could have been a good game for him given his skill set. Clark and Haines love making RBs dissappear after a mistake. They did it to Peoples, Noel and now Kanye.

At one point we had Castle in to run for nothing, subbed in Kanye and had him pass pro, then brought back Castle for a play designed for him. That made no sense. Castle is the better pass pro RB.

Agreed…100%