Started By
Message
How was this not targeting?
Posted on 1/3/15 at 6:07 am
Posted on 1/3/15 at 6:07 am
I don't understand how this is not targeting. Everyone is talking about the hit, but I've heard no one bring up this blatant targeting. As much as I hate the rule, I thought this was the kind of hit they are trying to eliminate. If they call this, Michigan State starts pretty far back and probably doesn't win the game. I've seen hits in the grey area being called and discussed as targeting, but why not this one? It's a defenseless player and the Michigan State player launches himself into the head of Baylor's kicker.
4
Posted on 1/3/15 at 6:17 am to Shockley03
This hit is as legal as it gets. The kicker was going to try to make a play ( I'm assuming he would tell him a joke or bite him or something, tackling was never an option). But the hit was with the shoulder and he got in front.
Posted on 1/3/15 at 6:20 am to Shockley03
He may have been a defenseless player, that's up for interpretation.
I do not think he led with the crown of his helmet or targeted the head or neck area. It looked like shoulder to shoulder contact.
I do not think he led with the crown of his helmet or targeted the head or neck area. It looked like shoulder to shoulder contact.
Posted on 1/3/15 at 6:21 am to 3rddownonthe8
quote:
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)
quote:
Contact to the head or neck area—not only with the helmet, but also with the forearm, fist, elbow, or shoulder—these can all lead to a foul.
Defenseless player—a player not in position to defend himself.
LINK
Posted on 1/3/15 at 6:30 am to Shockley03
If you freeze frame it, the Mich State player launches himself and hits the kicker in the head with his forearm. The kicker is also in no position to defend himself.
Posted on 1/3/15 at 7:39 am to Shockley03
the kid is defenseless only because he's clueless...
looks like a clean hit to me..
looks like a clean hit to me..
Posted on 1/3/15 at 7:55 am to Shockley03
The better question is how was this not pass interference. 
Posted on 1/3/15 at 8:03 am to davesdawgs
I don't know what you're talking about. Nothing to see there
Posted on 1/3/15 at 8:18 am to Leghumper
quote:
the kid is defenseless only because he's clueless...
Posted on 1/3/15 at 8:25 am to gatorhata9
quote:
I don't know what you're talking about. Nothing to see there.
That was a common theme throughout the Oregon/FSU game. Oregon has mastered the art of holding when the refs aren't looking.
Posted on 1/3/15 at 8:35 am to VADawg
quote:
quote:
I don't know what you're talking about. Nothing to see there.
That was a common theme throughout the Oregon/FSU game. Oregon has mastered the art of holding when the refs aren't looking.
Most of the national media got what the wanted: basically a Rose Bowl NC game between the Pac12 and the Big10. Another factor is the refs were letting Oregon snap the ball before the dang chains were even set. In addition to the advantage in pace this gives their offense it also means that the refs are rushed and not in position to make calls. I personally think its fricked up an not good for football. The offense already has the advantage of knowing the play/point of attack and are having to expend less effort accordingly. Frankly I think there should be mandatory time for the defense to substitute regardless of whether the offense subs or not.
Posted on 1/3/15 at 8:40 am to davesdawgs
quote:
Frankly I think there should be mandatory time for the defense to substitute regardless of whether the offense subs or not.
You get 6 timeouts per game, use whenever you want. If your defense is on the rails and you need to make some adjustments, you call a time out. If a defensive player gets hurt, and you need to sub, the refs stop the clock for you, and it doesn't count against your time outs.
Duuuuuuuuh
Posted on 1/3/15 at 10:23 am to Shockley03
quote:
The kicker is also in no position to defend himself.
Now see...I would disagree. To me a defenseless player is one with his feet off the ground or he is laying on the ground. This guy was chasing the ball and could have easily defended himself. I guess it is another judgement call...who is defenseless and who is not.
Posted on 1/3/15 at 11:35 am to DawgsLife
In the rulebook, it says a blindside block would be considered hitting a defenseless player. The kicker had no clue he was coming. I'm just trying to find an explanation other than "well hail this is football"
Posted on 1/3/15 at 11:37 am to Shockley03
quote:
In the rulebook, it says a blindside block would be considered hitting a defenseless player.
Are you sure about that?
Posted on 1/3/15 at 11:45 am to Shockley03
Bell got flagged for this one...
Is that not the same thing?
Is that not the same thing?
Page 1 of 1
Latest Georgia News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News