Started By
Message
re: Was the targeting call against RSJ (TAMU) the correct call?
Posted on 10/6/15 at 12:17 am to ryanthe4aces
Posted on 10/6/15 at 12:17 am to ryanthe4aces
Terrible call
Posted on 10/6/15 at 12:33 am to ryanthe4aces
Terrible call. That wasn't even penalty-worthy, let alone targeting. He blocked an active player moving toward the ball-carrier from an angle that the player could have easily avoided had he been paying attention.
Posted on 10/6/15 at 12:35 am to tLSUtiger93
quote:
Anyone receiving a blindside block is by definition, defenseless
Blindside? Unless the sides of the guy's facemask were filled in with Play-Do, he wasn't remotely blindsided.
Posted on 10/6/15 at 12:37 am to randomways
I think what we all learned today is that states defenders are defenseless.
Posted on 10/6/15 at 12:55 am to ryanthe4aces
quote:
Was the targeting call against RSJ (TAMU) the correct call?
Yes. Two officials threw a flag, the color commentator called it right away, and the replay was "confirmed", not just "stands"
quote:
Most Aggies I know say that this was NOT the correct call.
No shite. Can't imagine why
quote:
What does The Rant think?
Flag football is imminent
quote:
IMO it was a bad call, but I do not know the intricacies of the rule.
Its not that intricate
Posted on 10/6/15 at 1:10 am to Cockopotamus
quote:
IMO it was a bad call, but I do not know the intricacies of the rule.
Its not that intricate
Then you should probably read it before forming an opinion.
It's posted in this thread.
Posted on 10/6/15 at 1:41 am to ryanthe4aces
That's a close call these days...doesn't surprise me they threw the flag...should it be a penalty absolutely not....
Posted on 10/6/15 at 2:09 am to AggieLandman
Pretty sure helmet to helmet contact is the foundation of the rule and though brief there is obvious helmet to helmet contact.
So not that intricate
So not that intricate
Posted on 10/6/15 at 2:18 am to Cockopotamus
What happened to the language about leading with the "crown" of the helmet? They used to use those words ALL the time. Now, if your earhole grazes someone's helmet, you've targeted them.
First off, targeting has a definition. RSJ turns his head away and puts his shoulder into the other guy's shoulder. Because he did that, targeting can no longer be called for helmet to to helmet contact. Because, he didn't target shite. He went out of his way to not hit the dude with his helmet.
Question, is helmet to helmet contact illegal? I hear those words used during calls. Is helmet to helmet contact that same rule as targeting?
The words used and the way it's enforced is downright embarrassing.
First off, targeting has a definition. RSJ turns his head away and puts his shoulder into the other guy's shoulder. Because he did that, targeting can no longer be called for helmet to to helmet contact. Because, he didn't target shite. He went out of his way to not hit the dude with his helmet.
Question, is helmet to helmet contact illegal? I hear those words used during calls. Is helmet to helmet contact that same rule as targeting?
The words used and the way it's enforced is downright embarrassing.
This post was edited on 10/6/15 at 2:20 am
Posted on 10/6/15 at 2:30 am to ReauxlTide222
quote:
What happened to the language about leading with the "crown" of the helmet? They used to use those words ALL the time
Yea. Before the targeting rule went into effect in 2013.
Targeting only requires helmet to helmet contact
quote:
Question, is helmet to helmet contact illegal? I hear those words used during calls. Is helmet to helmet contact that same rule as targeting?
Yea. Where have you been the past two years?
Posted on 10/6/15 at 7:18 am to ryanthe4aces
Awful call and even worse rule to begin with. Ejection should only be if an illegal hit is blatant.
Posted on 10/6/15 at 7:34 am to ryanthe4aces
shite call and shite rule.
At least the players won't have headaches while they're in crutches.
At least the players won't have headaches while they're in crutches.
Posted on 10/6/15 at 7:48 am to CoachDon
Defenseless...the guy had every opportunity to survey the field for blockers. If the ball carrier runs with his eyes closed can he not be tackled?
Posted on 10/6/15 at 9:07 am to CoachDon
I thought it was very borderline where he hit the guy. But that he was blindsided is BS. This was not the same as warren sapp destroying Clifton. This was a defender not at aware of what is going on around him when he's in the middle of trying to make a tackle. He wasn't out of the play.
Posted on 10/6/15 at 9:25 am to Cockopotamus
quote:
Targeting only requires helmet to helmet contact
It doesn't even require that:
"forcible contact to head/neck area"
Helmets don't even have to touch.
It's borderline, but once called there is nothing in the video to overturn it.
Posted on 10/6/15 at 10:26 am to spytiger
Serious question here.
Hypothetical. That defender is doing EXACTLY what he was actually doing in the game ... totally focusing on the WR and paying ZERO attention to anything else on the field. Let's say for the sake of argument that this inattentiveness renders him "defenseless" (A BS assumption, but let's make it arguendo).
Remember that this was a "crack-back" block, but that RSJ did NOT "blindside" this guy. They were running at one another "face-to-face." The contact was to the back of the defender's shoulder ONLY because of a change in their relative angles immediately before contact.
Pretend that RSJ is a few inches shorter and is able to plant his facemask in the middle of the defender's chest. Textbook "form tackle" or perfect block. The sort of thing that once got you a sticker for the back of your helmet.
The hit is so hard that the defender is driven backward and his head snaps forward. The facemask of his helmet hits the back of RSJ's helmet (the front of which is buried in his chest.
Penalty?
The defender is "defenseless." The hit involves head-to-head contact (albeit unintentional & collateral to the chest-plant). RSJ hits him hard enough to drive him backwards and snap his head forward, so it certainly seems "forcible."
I cannot see a penalty in this hypo. And the only difference is that RSU hit the shoulder first ... rather than the chest ... before the head snapped into inadvertent contact.
Hypothetical. That defender is doing EXACTLY what he was actually doing in the game ... totally focusing on the WR and paying ZERO attention to anything else on the field. Let's say for the sake of argument that this inattentiveness renders him "defenseless" (A BS assumption, but let's make it arguendo).
Remember that this was a "crack-back" block, but that RSJ did NOT "blindside" this guy. They were running at one another "face-to-face." The contact was to the back of the defender's shoulder ONLY because of a change in their relative angles immediately before contact.
Pretend that RSJ is a few inches shorter and is able to plant his facemask in the middle of the defender's chest. Textbook "form tackle" or perfect block. The sort of thing that once got you a sticker for the back of your helmet.
The hit is so hard that the defender is driven backward and his head snaps forward. The facemask of his helmet hits the back of RSJ's helmet (the front of which is buried in his chest.
Penalty?
The defender is "defenseless." The hit involves head-to-head contact (albeit unintentional & collateral to the chest-plant). RSJ hits him hard enough to drive him backwards and snap his head forward, so it certainly seems "forcible."
I cannot see a penalty in this hypo. And the only difference is that RSU hit the shoulder first ... rather than the chest ... before the head snapped into inadvertent contact.
This post was edited on 10/6/15 at 10:36 am
Posted on 10/6/15 at 10:33 am to AggieHank86
quote:
The hit is so hard that the defender is driven backward and his head snaps forward. The facemask of his helmet hits the back of RSJ's helmet (the front of which is buried in his chest.
Penalty?
Nope. The blocker neither hits with the crown of the helmet nor targets the head/neck area.
Easy call.
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News