Started By
Message
re: Harrison Hit
Posted on 1/1/23 at 1:12 pm to DawginSC
Posted on 1/1/23 at 1:12 pm to DawginSC
Yes, I looked at the picture. It took me a few tries to get the exact right screenshot that shows impact. And then to upload it to imgur. And then to zoom in since it seems some people have trouble seeing it and do it again. So, yes, I have looked at it.
Because of the angle he did make initial contact with his shoulder milliseconds before the helmet to helmet contact. But he was running straight ahead and lowered his head at the last second. That is by definition lead with the crown of the helmet. And no where in the rules does it say that also hitting the opposing player with the shoulder absolves the defender from targeting. In fact it says the opposite, a hit with a shoulder can result in targeting.
Here are the indicators that were present:
Lowered head and led with the crown of the helmet - check, he did that
Launched at opposing player - check, he did that
Made forcible contact with opposing players head/neck - check, he did that
And finally, after 6 pages, I would definitely say whether it was targeting or not is in question.
Because of the angle he did make initial contact with his shoulder milliseconds before the helmet to helmet contact. But he was running straight ahead and lowered his head at the last second. That is by definition lead with the crown of the helmet. And no where in the rules does it say that also hitting the opposing player with the shoulder absolves the defender from targeting. In fact it says the opposite, a hit with a shoulder can result in targeting.
quote:
ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting. When in question, it is a foul
Here are the indicators that were present:
Lowered head and led with the crown of the helmet - check, he did that
Launched at opposing player - check, he did that
Made forcible contact with opposing players head/neck - check, he did that
And finally, after 6 pages, I would definitely say whether it was targeting or not is in question.
quote:
When in question, it is a foul
1
Posted on 1/1/23 at 1:14 pm to captdalton
Seriously, dude. Watch that link I posted and tell us again he led with his helmet and I will tell you you are blind.
Posted on 1/1/23 at 1:23 pm to UGA40
Head looked like it hit the turf after the hit. No targeting. Georgia has just got very fortunate with injuries to their opponents in big games.
Posted on 1/1/23 at 1:24 pm to PassingThrough
I did watch it. Slowed it down and looked at it shot by shot. He did turn his head. He still launched and made forcible contact to Harrison’s head/neck area. Which by rule is still targeting. Is what it is. They picked the flag up.
I wonder if they would have in a regular season game of no particular importance? I suspect they would not.
Go back and find my comment that I think it was a good football play. But I think there is clear evidence it was actually targeting by rule.
I wonder if they would have in a regular season game of no particular importance? I suspect they would not.
Go back and find my comment that I think it was a good football play. But I think there is clear evidence it was actually targeting by rule.
Posted on 1/1/23 at 1:26 pm to captdalton
So you are blind. Nothing I can do with that.
Posted on 1/1/23 at 1:39 pm to PassingThrough
I will see if I can find a pair of red and black glasses to look at it through.
Posted on 1/1/23 at 1:49 pm to thelawnwranglers
quote:
Does shoulder to shoulder cause concussions?
quote:
”Concussions can also happen during a whiplash-type injury that causes your head and brain to shake quickly back and forth.”
If it was a hard shoulder to shoulder hit that caused his head to “whiplash” during the hit, then yes it can
This post was edited on 1/1/23 at 1:50 pm
Posted on 1/1/23 at 1:50 pm to borotiger
quote:
is completely irrelevant. Not sure why you keep repeating it.
Because it wasn’t any kind of flag, including pass int.
Posted on 1/1/23 at 2:09 pm to UGA40
It was a very hard clean hit.
It was shoulder to shoulder.
The other option was to just let him score.
It was shoulder to shoulder.
The other option was to just let him score.
Posted on 1/1/23 at 2:12 pm to captdalton
You're just incorrect about this.
I get you won't change your mind, but you're not seeing what's really there. It's in your head.
I get you won't change your mind, but you're not seeing what's really there. It's in your head.
Posted on 1/1/23 at 2:14 pm to PassingThrough
In the final analysis - which is to say, looking at the scoreboard and the after game stat sheet - targeting never happened. It wasn't called. Didn't happen. Georgia won the game. OSU is soaking their injuries in an ice bath. And GA is headed to the championship
Posted on 1/1/23 at 2:42 pm to PassingThrough
quote:
And yet UGA loses top guys as well and finds another. Sounds like another team issue
Yeah you don’t replace the chemistry MID-GAME of that caliber of WR who is lit in the game so easily.
This post was edited on 1/1/23 at 2:43 pm
Posted on 1/1/23 at 3:07 pm to Basura Blanco
quote:
Congrats on a great comeback win
Yeah!
quote:
good luck with TCU
Yeah!
quote:
and go frick yourself going into 2023.
Ye....huh?
Posted on 1/1/23 at 3:13 pm to Basura Blanco
quote:
Everything about that hit is what makes football great. It was a great recovery, the player led with his shoulder, he saw what he hit, it was violent, it was intimidating, it was clean, and it wouldve been a crime against the fabric of the game if it had been ruled illegal.
Well said
Posted on 1/1/23 at 3:19 pm to DawginSC
No, you won’t change my mind. My interpretation is that it was targeting by the letter of the law. He did launch, he did make forcible contact to the head and neck. Maybe he didn’t mean to, but the rule says nothing about that. There are others on here that say it is targeting too. Many say it wasn’t. And that is the problem with the rule, it is all a personal judgement. I stand by the statement that if this had been called in an out of conference game in September, it would have probably stood. And that is another issue. Enforcement of it definitely seems to be influenced by how big the game is.
The OP asked for non-biased opinions. Mine is that it was by rule targeting.
The OP asked for non-biased opinions. Mine is that it was by rule targeting.
Posted on 1/1/23 at 3:39 pm to UGA40
No targeting
Posted on 1/1/23 at 3:46 pm to yimbo
Truth be told Ohio State is a complete choke team they choked against Michigan with 14 point lead and you mfers, they would have found a way to lose no matter what
Posted on 1/1/23 at 3:48 pm to captdalton
quote:
No, you won’t change my mind. My interpretation is that it was targeting by the letter of the law.
And you're just wrong. Everyone here is telling you you're wrong. It's not us... it's you.
Posted on 1/1/23 at 3:55 pm to captdalton
He never left his feet until after the hit. Time to change the scrip for your glasses.
Posted on 1/1/23 at 4:00 pm to Crimson1st
quote:
Yeah you don’t replace the chemistry MID-GAME of that caliber of WR who is lit in the game so easily.
You don't think losing Washington was a big hit to how the offense was set up for UGA? You don't think UGA losing their backup OLBs who were already playing in place of Nolan didn't affect how much time Stroud had to throw and thus made it more difficult to cover very good receivers.
Just because UGA plans for possible losses of personnel with using different ways to both move the ball and defend, doesn't mean they aren't as affected as the other team with injuries. They simply overcame them.
This post was edited on 1/1/23 at 4:04 pm
Page 7 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News