menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Football Topic
Topic: Blair Brown
Page: 1 of 1
mail
Paul Graham
10/1/2016 10:39 PM
The most underrated player I can remember to wear an Ohio uniform. The guy is an absolute beast!
mail
OhioCatFan
10/1/2016 10:42 PM
Paul Graham wrote:expand_more
The most underrated player I can remember to wear an Ohio uniform. The guy is an absolute beast!
+1 He's very good.
mail
person
L.C.
10/1/2016 10:57 PM
He definitely can play. His career also includes some untimely penalties, too. I'm hoping that he can avoid those this year.
mail
person
ytownbobcat
10/1/2016 11:08 PM
He plays with a lot of intensity and has great speed and strength. The intensity has resulted in a few personal fouls which I assume he regrets after the fact.
mail
person
colobobcat66
10/2/2016 8:30 AM
Agree with Paul here. May end up being the best of our current LB.
mail
person
MonroeClassmate
10/2/2016 8:34 AM
colobobcat66 wrote:expand_more
Agree with Paul here. May end up being the best of our current LB.
Perhaps, but I thought Moore was the best on the field yesterday from the TV viewing perspective.
mail
person
colobobcat66
10/2/2016 9:13 AM
MonroeClassmate wrote:expand_more
Agree with Paul here. May end up being the best of our current LB.
Perhaps, but I thought Moore was the best on the field yesterday from the TV viewing perspective.
Moore has been terrific. I can't argue with you there.
Last Edited: 10/2/2016 9:14:58 AM by colobobcat66
mail
person
Deciduous Forest Cat
10/2/2016 10:11 AM
He is definitely really really good but he also almost cost Ohio the game yesterday with that targeting shot on the Miami quarterback. I have no idea how that call got overturned as he went straight down with his helmet while the QB was still on the ground. The mac office is going to be taking a long look at that one, and Chuck Martin was more than in his right to be pissed off
mail
person
Pataskala
10/2/2016 10:56 AM
A couple TV angles showed that his helmet never hit above the QB's shoulders. He got him more in the pads. I thought it was a good reversal. I also thought Martin should've gotten flagged for his tirade afterwards.
mail
person
Deciduous Forest Cat
10/2/2016 11:51 AM
Pataskala wrote:expand_more
A couple TV angles showed that his helmet never hit above the QB's shoulders. He got him more in the pads. I thought it was a good reversal. I also thought Martin should've gotten flagged for his tirade afterwards.
even if the targeting was questionable, it easily could have and should have been called a late hit. it was a very undisciplined play. Ohio got very VERY lucky.
mail
person
Doc Bobcat
10/2/2016 12:25 PM
Speaking of calls...it seems that Frank thought on his challenge that the pass nicked the ground before the Fiami receiver made the catch...it also seemed to me that when the call was upheld that Frank offered the ref some glasses and the other ref was laughing.
mail
Joe McKinley
10/2/2016 12:33 PM
Deciduous Forest Cat wrote:expand_more
A couple TV angles showed that his helmet never hit above the QB's shoulders. He got him more in the pads. I thought it was a good reversal. I also thought Martin should've gotten flagged for his tirade afterwards.
even if the targeting was questionable, it easily could have and should have been called a late hit. it was a very undisciplined play. Ohio got very VERY lucky.
Totally disagree with you, DFC. The officials got the call exactly right with the review. It was a disciplined play by Brown. Watch it from start to finish, if you didn't and focus on Brown. He was forced wide by the tackle and that changed the pursuit angle a bit. The QB was spun a bit and live late in the play. He's a pretty strong kid and the defender is correct on that play to not ease up. On plays like that one there is more latitude by officials. That's why it wasn't a late hit. The QB's helmet came off and on replay it looks like that came from Basham's legal hit.From the flag throwing official's angle that lost helmet and Brown's leaping contact may have looked like targeting. Legit to throw the flag for sure. The backside camera angle showed clearly there was no targeting. Therefore, no penalty.
Last Edited: 10/2/2016 12:35:09 PM by Joe McKinley
mail
Paul Graham
10/2/2016 12:56 PM
Joe McKinley wrote:expand_more
A couple TV angles showed that his helmet never hit above the QB's shoulders. He got him more in the pads. I thought it was a good reversal. I also thought Martin should've gotten flagged for his tirade afterwards.
even if the targeting was questionable, it easily could have and should have been called a late hit. it was a very undisciplined play. Ohio got very VERY lucky.
Totally disagree with you, DFC. The officials got the call exactly right with the review. It was a disciplined play by Brown. Watch it from start to finish, if you didn't and focus on Brown. He was forced wide by the tackle and that changed the pursuit angle a bit. The QB was spun a bit and live late in the play. He's a pretty strong kid and the defender is correct on that play to not ease up. On plays like that one there is more latitude by officials. That's why it wasn't a late hit. The QB's helmet came off and on replay it looks like that came from Basham's legal hit.From the flag throwing official's angle that lost helmet and Brown's leaping contact may have looked like targeting. Legit to throw the flag for sure. The backside camera angle showed clearly there was no targeting. Therefore, no penalty.
+1
mail
Paul Graham
10/2/2016 12:58 PM
BTW, I can count at least 3 (maybe 4) threads on BA debating whether or not a Blair Brown hit was targeting or deserved a 15 yard penalty. :)
Last Edited: 10/2/2016 1:00:21 PM by Paul Graham
mail
person
Victory
10/2/2016 1:01 PM
Joe McKinley wrote:expand_more
A couple TV angles showed that his helmet never hit above the QB's shoulders. He got him more in the pads. I thought it was a good reversal. I also thought Martin should've gotten flagged for his tirade afterwards.
even if the targeting was questionable, it easily could have and should have been called a late hit. it was a very undisciplined play. Ohio got very VERY lucky.
Totally disagree with you, DFC. The officials got the call exactly right with the review. It was a disciplined play by Brown. Watch it from start to finish, if you didn't and focus on Brown. He was forced wide by the tackle and that changed the pursuit angle a bit. The QB was spun a bit and live late in the play. He's a pretty strong kid and the defender is correct on that play to not ease up. On plays like that one there is more latitude by officials. That's why it wasn't a late hit. The QB's helmet came off and on replay it looks like that came from Basham's legal hit.From the flag throwing official's angle that lost helmet and Brown's leaping contact may have looked like targeting. Legit to throw the flag for sure. The backside camera angle showed clearly there was no targeting. Therefore, no penalty.
Since when is a Targeting call allowed to be reduced to no penalty at all? The last few years a 15 yard personal foul stood no matter what the review said. You can't review an ordinary unnecessary roughness penalty. I'm surprised that part can be taken away on review.
mail
Joe McKinley
10/2/2016 1:15 PM
Victory wrote:expand_more
A couple TV angles showed that his helmet never hit above the QB's shoulders. He got him more in the pads. I thought it was a good reversal. I also thought Martin should've gotten flagged for his tirade afterwards.
even if the targeting was questionable, it easily could have and should have been called a late hit. it was a very undisciplined play. Ohio got very VERY lucky.
Totally disagree with you, DFC. The officials got the call exactly right with the review. It wwas a disciplined play by Brown. Watch it from start to finish, if you didn't and focus on Brown. He was forced wide by the tackle and that changed the pursuit angle a bit. The QB was spun a bit and live late in the play. He's a pretty strong kid and the defender is correct on that play to not ease up. On plays like that one there is more latitude by officials. That's why it wasn't a late hit. The QB's helmet came off and on replay it looks like that came from Basham's legal hit.From the flag throwing official's angle that lost helmet and Brown's leaping contact may have looked like targeting. Legit to throw the flag for sure. The backside camera angle showed clearly there was no targeting. Therefore, no penalty.
Since when is a Targeting call allowed to be reduced to no penalty at all? The last few years a 15 yard personal foul stood no matter what the review said. You can't review an ordinary unnecessary roughness penalty. I'm surprised that part can be taken away on review.
I think the rule was revised this year to allow a targeting call to be overturned on review. The officials can also now call a targeting penalty on review.

The call on Blair Brown was targeting. There was no late hit or unnecessary roughness call on him. DFC said in his view a late hit could've been called, but I agree with the officials.
Last Edited: 10/2/2016 1:15:46 PM by Joe McKinley
mail
person
mf279801
10/3/2016 10:25 AM
Joe McKinley wrote:expand_more
A couple TV angles showed that his helmet never hit above the QB's shoulders. He got him more in the pads. I thought it was a good reversal. I also thought Martin should've gotten flagged for his tirade afterwards.
even if the targeting was questionable, it easily could have and should have been called a late hit. it was a very undisciplined play. Ohio got very VERY lucky.
Totally disagree with you, DFC. The officials got the call exactly right with the review. It wwas a disciplined play by Brown. Watch it from start to finish, if you didn't and focus on Brown. He was forced wide by the tackle and that changed the pursuit angle a bit. The QB was spun a bit and live late in the play. He's a pretty strong kid and the defender is correct on that play to not ease up. On plays like that one there is more latitude by officials. That's why it wasn't a late hit. The QB's helmet came off and on replay it looks like that came from Basham's legal hit.From the flag throwing official's angle that lost helmet and Brown's leaping contact may have looked like targeting. Legit to throw the flag for sure. The backside camera angle showed clearly there was no targeting. Therefore, no penalty.
Since when is a Targeting call allowed to be reduced to no penalty at all? The last few years a 15 yard personal foul stood no matter what the review said. You can't review an ordinary unnecessary roughness penalty. I'm surprised that part can be taken away on review.
I think the rule was revised this year to allow a targeting call to be overturned on review. The officials can also now call a targeting penalty on review.

The call on Blair Brown was targeting. There was no late hit or unnecessary roughness call on him. DFC said in his view a late hit could've been called, but I agree with the officials.
Correct, as the rule was initially written the Targeting penalty would be reviewed to decide whether or not the player was ejected; however, even if the ejection was reversed the penalty stood. Now the call is reviewed and, if upheld, the player is ejected. Otherwise, the entire flag is waved off.
mail
person
BillyTheCat
10/3/2016 2:18 PM
Not really
mail
Kinggeorge4
10/3/2016 2:27 PM
Did they call another penalty? I only heard targeting.
mail
person
GoCats105
10/3/2016 2:47 PM
See now I'm confused. Because it sounds like Brown led with the head but didn't hit the QB in the head, so it wasn't targeting. Complete opposite happened late in the Indiana/Michigan State game. Michigan State defender led with the crown of the helmet and hit the QB square in the sternum, no where near the head, yet he was ejected. What's the rule?
mail
person
Pataskala
10/3/2016 4:18 PM
GoCats105 wrote:expand_more
See now I'm confused. Because it sounds like Brown led with the head but didn't hit the QB in the head, so it wasn't targeting. Complete opposite happened late in the Indiana/Michigan State game. Michigan State defender led with the crown of the helmet and hit the QB square in the sternum, no where near the head, yet he was ejected. What's the rule?
According to the American Football Coaches Assn., targeting can be called if a player leads with the crown of the helmet (anything above the facemask) when tackling a player, no matter where the contact occurs. Also, any hit to the neck or head of a defenseless player is targeting. Here's the rule:

Targeting and Initiating Contact With the Crown of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3)

No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.

Targeting and Initiating Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player (Rule 9-1-4)

No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 2-27-14)

More info can be found here: http://www.afca.com/article/article.php?id=2342

I haven't seen the play since Saturday (ESPN shows Martin's tirade, but not the play that caused it and I haven't gone back through the entire broadcast), but as I remember it Blair didn't lead with the crown of his helmet. I don't remember it as being a late hit, either. The only call made was for targeting, so once that was overturned, the flag was picked up.
Showing Messages: 1 - 21 of 21
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)