Targeting?

[Loogis]

Makes me sad the direction football is heading...
http://www.sbnation.com/college-foo...g-foster-farms-bowl?ref=yfp&hl=1&noRedirect=1

 

[Ancient Reptile]

Bad call. Don't know how it could be reviewed and upheld.

 

[NavetG8r]

Might as well start strapping flag belts onto them I guess.

 

[NVGator]

Horrible call.

 

[rogdochar]

That was a textbook tackle, not a penalty at all.

 

[TN G8tr]

Wow.

 

[Loogis]

The receiver clearly turned toward the tackler and lowered his head.
Stop with the ejections already. Just tack on 15 yards if this is now an emphasis.

 

[MidwestChomp]

I was watching the game. I couldn't believe they upheld the call. Total BS. Ncaa needs to review this rule.

 

[Jenny On The Railroad]

Bad call. Don't know how it could be reviewed and upheld.

When the replay review decisions are so obviously contradicting the video, the obvious and about the only viable answer to your question is that it is upheld because of corruption.. Sorry state of affairs for college football.

 

[Swamp Donkey]

You guys act like flying around like harpoons has always been in the game. It hasnt, it is a product of the helmet and body armor era. If he were wearing a leather belmet or no helmet, think hed hit face to face like that? Of course not.

It isnt a textbook tackle, its a poor tackle. He could have gone low and wrapped up around the waist and or legs. That would have been a textbook tackle.

If that receiver hadnt been otherwise occupied due to the pass taking him out of stride, he would have run right through that.

The rules are the rules. No hitting to the head and neck at least on a defenseless player. Id be all for it changing to now intentional hits to the head.

Go low instead of trying to knock them out. The players will appreciate it when less of them are invalids getting fed jello in a nursing home at age 50 dus to head injuries.

 

[maheo30]

I lean with Law on this. However, the question is, is it still a helmet to helmet if the receiver doesn't lower his head at the last second?

 

[Swamp Donkey]

The receiver clearly turned toward the tackler and lowered his head.
Stop with the ejections already. Just tack on 15 yards if this is now an emphasis.

I dont know what youre watching. I didnt see the receiver lower his head any imperceptible amount.

The safety initiated contact to the receivers head. That much is crystal clear. I guess the only arguable point is whether the receiver is defenseless. That seems also pretty clear until he sets his feet and starts heading upfield.

This has been a point of emphasis. Remember Mac having our guys doing the tackle the big tire drills? Right actually wrapping up and tackle not just fly around like a crossbow bolt hitting things. Part of that was to correct por form taught by Chimp but it was also rule compliance. I guess Nebraska didnt get them memo.

 

[TN G8tr]

I can see where a helmet to helmet is when the offensive player makes a "football move" then lowers to brace for impact of the hit. Yes this hit was helmet to helmet to the player's head/neck area. As a prior HS coach we always taught to keep you head up facemask first. Crown of the helmet would lead to injuries no matter where you hit the ball carrier. I thought that targeting was all about trying to reduce injuries and intentional actions. Perhaps that is where the rule needs to be updated. But by the letter of the rule, yes it was helmet to helmet. I also remember something like McCallister's hit (I think it was him) when he was ejected. The QB clearly bent down and lowered himself. There is no way that a player can alter their trajectory while attempting the tackle. Another instance where to modify the rule. Maybe still give the 15 yards but not issue the ejection if proved as such by video evidence.

 

[Swamp Donkey]

I lean with Law on this. However, the question is, is it still a helmet to helmet if the receiver doesn't lower his head at the last second?

The rule doesnt ban only helmet to helmet contact and he wasnt called for that. He would have been tossed if he led with his shoulder BUT INITIATED CONTACT TO THE RECEIVERS HEAD/NECK. Look at the second oart of the rule in the article.

Leading with your own helmet no matter where you hit is always targeting and hitting the defenseless players head is always targetting no matter what you lead with. Two parts, sabes?

 

[Go Gata]

Not sure which video some of watched but I thought it was clearly perceptible that the ball carrier was bracing for the hit. Following the definition that is often used by broadcasters, this guy wasn't a "defenseless" player. Its asking a lot of a defender to run full speed at person and then make sudden adjustments to his aim a split second before making contact when tackling a ball carrier. Football is a contact sport. You're going to get hit in the head every once in a while.

If this keeps up, look for YACs to go up tremendously in coming years. Before you know it, they'll be using flags to protect collar bones and shoulders.

 

[Swamp Donkey]

If this keeps up, look for YACs to go up tremendously in coming years. Before you know it, they'll be using flags to protect collar bones and shoulders.

I actually see the opposite. Just as happened with our defense this year, a return to tackling fundamantals, in lieu of the former emphasis by the last staff on big (high) hits, led to fewer missed tackles and less yac. Even less penalties.

I agree that the argument is over whether or not he was defenseless. I think the interpretation is that they have their head around, feet under them and are able to make a football move, notnjust flinching or bracing before impact.

The fact is if the defender aims for the head and neck, he will likely be flagged inbthese situations and wont get any of the close calls.

 

[Ancient Reptile]

Did you guys not hear the ex-nfl ref flounder pathetically trying to justify this call by his former colleagues? He totally conceded the lack of helmet to helmet and tried mumbling about the shoulder. Admitted that the tackler did not launch, ran thru the tackle, wrapped up, and turned his head to the side attempting to avoid helmet to helmet contact. Geez.

 

[NavetG8r]

Did you guys not hear the ex-nfl ref flounder pathetically trying to justify this call by his former colleagues? He totally conceded the lack of helmet to helmet and tried mumbling about the shoulder. Admitted that the tackler did not launch, ran thru the tackle, wrapped up, and turned his head to the side attempting to avoid helmet to helmet contact. Geez.

You have to understand Law is low on funds. His pot busting income has taken a significant hit in recent years so he's hedging for concussion based business now. A guy's gotta make a living man.

 

[Loogis]

You guys act like flying around like harpoons has always been in the game. It hasnt, it is a product of the helmet and body armor era. If he were wearing a leather belmet or no helmet, think hed hit face to face like that? Of course not.

Not true. Ask Frank Gifford...

 

[Swamp Donkey]

Did you guys not hear the ex-nfl ref flounder pathetically trying to justify this call by his former colleagues? He totally conceded the lack of helmet to helmet

Im going to type this REAL SLOW because I know you do not think real fast. The rule DOES NOT REQUIRE HEAD TO HEAD contact. Here is the rule:

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.

Was that slow enough for you? It DOES NOT matter if he hit him in the head with something other than his helmet. The morons have been told for several years now not to hit the other guys head or neck. They will either figure it out or watch from the lockerroom.