Started By
Message
re: Was the targeting call against RSJ (TAMU) the correct call?
Posted on 10/6/15 at 9:25 am to Cockopotamus
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.
2
Posted on 10/6/15 at 9:52 am to spytiger
That was a shite call.
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
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News