He should be more upset about Penn State's performance against Northwestern.Are you gonna be ok? You seem really upset
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
He should be more upset about Penn State's performance against Northwestern.Are you gonna be ok? You seem really upset
He did but Rutgers could also played contain and not allowed him a free lane. Just because Rutgers failed doesn’t mean he has to punt or deserves a cheap shot out of bounds.He had plenty of room to kick the ball.
He wouldn’t have been ejected if he had lowered his shoulder and made the hit. He had time to pull up. He may have still made contact but and flagged but he wouldn’t have been ejected.I never said it was a fake punt. But the announcers did several times, and I will take Joshua Perry's words over anybody's here.
Here is the sequence. Cruickshank was flying up the sidelines and the punter had just stepped out. As an aside, if he did not want to get hit, he could have slid after he got the first down, but he decided to go for it.
Slide 1: Where was Cruickshank supposed to go? He was boxed in.
Slide 2 when contact is made:
Slide 3:
At this point, the punter and Cruickshank both lost their footing from the collision. Doesn't appear to be flagrant. Cruickshank did not have time to go right with #21 closing in.
Why are you here? If this board was live I would tackle you two yards out of bounds. Go to the the PSU board and say whatever you want over there.It wasn’t a fake punt. Rutgers failed to maintain contain on punt block and he did exactly what every rugby style punter is coached to do.
Explain to me why he is missing the first half of next week? It was a flagrant penalty with ejection not a targeting penalty. Nowhere does it state that flagrant will result in next game penalties.It happens to all teams but I wouldn’t be celebrating a player getting ejected and missing the first half of a crucial bowl game as this thread is doing. Some here actually think it was good that he did it. I am sure the coaches aren’t happy and celebrating it. It is a costly penalty.
So he had a choice. He should have kicked the ball up 39 points with less than 10 minutes left in the game.He did but Rutgers could also played contain and not allowed him a free lane. Just because Rutgers failed doesn’t mean he has to punt or deserves a cheap shot out of bounds.
If you look at slide 1 and slide 2 you will see that Cruickshank has not moved while the Ohio St player has moved forward into Cruickshank. In slide 3 the Ohio St player has moved even more forward into Cruickshank.I never said it was a fake punt. But the announcers did several times, and I will take Joshua Perry's words over anybody's here.
Here is the sequence. Cruickshank was flying up the sidelines and the punter had just stepped out. As an aside, if he did not want to get hit, he could have slid after he got the first down, but he decided to go for it.
Slide 1: Where was Cruickshank supposed to go? He was boxed in.
Slide 2 when contact is made:
Slide 3:
At this point, the punter and Cruickshank both lost their footing from the collision. Doesn't appear to be flagrant. Cruickshank did not have time to go right with #21 closing in.
Zapruder thanks you!! I agree.If you look at slide 1 and slide 2 you will see that Cruickshank has not moved while the Ohio St player has moved forward into Cruickshank. In slide 3 the Ohio St player has moved even more forward into Cruickshank.
We'll find someone else who can fair catch every kickoff & punt for a half.Was losing him for the first half of a winnable game against Nebraska worth “sending a message” to a punter who just reacted to a complete collapse by the punt return team? How is exploiting a complete undisciplined punt block disrespect? Now Rutgers has to play an entire half without arguably you best offensive player in a must win game if you hope to get a bowl game. Do you think it actually changed anything?
Break an unwritten rule, you eat turf.He did but Rutgers could also played contain and not allowed him a free lane. Just because Rutgers failed doesn’t mean he has to punt or deserves a cheap shot out of bounds.
I could be wrong, but to me it looked like AC saw the punter run out of bounds with enough time to choose another option besides lowering his shoulder and making a hard, out of bounds hit.I never said it was a fake punt. But the announcers did several times, and I will take Joshua Perry's words over anybody's here.
Here is the sequence. Cruickshank was flying up the sidelines and the punter had just stepped out. As an aside, if he did not want to get hit, he could have slid after he got the first down, but he decided to go for it.
Slide 1: Where was Cruickshank supposed to go? He was boxed in.
Slide 2 when contact is made:
Slide 3:
At this point, the punter and Cruickshank both lost their footing from the collision. Doesn't appear to be flagrant. Cruickshank did not have time to go right with #21 closing in.
Hes right though. We had terrible contain discipline. We sent two guys into the same gap. No matter the score the punter should do what he is coached to do.Why are you here? If this board was live I would tackle you two yards out of bounds. Go to the the PSU board and say whatever you want over there.
Greg terminated the ST coach, who is now in the same role at Temple. There are only assistants in charge of special teams.Hes right though. We had terrible contain discipline. We sent two guys into the same gap. No matter the score the punter should do what he is coached to do.
Zero contain, zero pressure, and he can see the sticks. Run for a first down.
All punt block schemes have contain players. Someone on Rutgers ST screwed up.
You have it right. Only targeting and fighting ejections are two half suspensions. All other ejections only pertain to that game. He got a flagrant personal foul so it's not subject to the two half suspension.Explain to me why he is missing the first half of next week? It was a flagrant penalty with ejection not a targeting penalty. Nowhere does it state that flagrant will result in next game penalties.