Started By
Message
re: Auburn fans. I will admit that it WAS Targeting.
Posted on 11/10/15 at 4:30 pm to KaiserSoze99
Posted on 11/10/15 at 4:30 pm to KaiserSoze99
quote:
disagree, but even if you are correct, you also forgot this one:
It must be nice to disagree with reality. And your next example didn't occur either.
1
Posted on 11/10/15 at 4:39 pm to NYCAuburn
Pause the video and click it to 11 seconds.
Player #24 is nearly vertical.
How is that not a "forward thrust" at a player who is already on the ground? It is that very action that this stupid rule is supposed to prevent. Murray, in that situation, is the very player the rule is trying to protect. #24 hit Murray IN THE HEAD with his head or shoulder while Murray was on the ground. The fact that #24 had to drop his body to go down to make contact indicates that he was deliberately thrusting and attacking Murray.
Like I said, the only reason the RSJ call was overturned was because the replay official got a front-row view of #24's targeting on Murray, which also should have been flagged.
Player #24 is nearly vertical.
How is that not a "forward thrust" at a player who is already on the ground? It is that very action that this stupid rule is supposed to prevent. Murray, in that situation, is the very player the rule is trying to protect. #24 hit Murray IN THE HEAD with his head or shoulder while Murray was on the ground. The fact that #24 had to drop his body to go down to make contact indicates that he was deliberately thrusting and attacking Murray.
Like I said, the only reason the RSJ call was overturned was because the replay official got a front-row view of #24's targeting on Murray, which also should have been flagged.
Posted on 11/10/15 at 4:51 pm to KaiserSoze99
Just stfu and quit being a retard arse.
Posted on 11/10/15 at 4:52 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
What? I admitted it was targeting.
Posted on 11/10/15 at 4:54 pm to KaiserSoze99
looks like 24 missed him or it would have been targeting...
Posted on 11/10/15 at 5:00 pm to KaiserSoze99
So Ricky Seals jones' hit on Brandon Bryant WAS targeting?
Posted on 11/10/15 at 5:01 pm to KaiserSoze99
neither hit satisfies the requirement for targeting. neither player was defenseless and contact was not initiated with the crown of the helmet above the shoulders. if a player is not considered defenseless contact can be made above the shoulders provided you do not lead with the crown of the helmet.
you cannot lead with the crown of the helmet and have your shoulder make contact first.
you cannot lead with the crown of the helmet and have your shoulder make contact first.
This post was edited on 11/10/15 at 5:05 pm
Posted on 11/10/15 at 5:28 pm to bmy
quote:
you cannot lead with the crown of the helmet and have your shoulder make contact first.
quote:
• A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with
contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on
the ground
It does not have to be with the crown of the head. It simply says contact above the other player's shoulder.
#24 make contact with Murray's head. (@11 seconds).
RSJ made contact with Dinson's head. (@10 seconds).
If one was targeting, they both were.
Posted on 11/10/15 at 5:30 pm to KaiserSoze99
quote:
It does not have to be with the crown of the head. It simply says contact above the other player's shoulder.
you are confusing the rule for "defenseless player" with the rule that prevents ALL hits initiated with the crown of the helmet. it's two separate rules.
quote:
Rule 9-1-3: Targeting and initiating contact with the crown of the helmet. No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.
Rule 9-1-4: Targeting and initiating contact to head or neck area of a defenseless player. 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.
This post was edited on 11/10/15 at 5:37 pm
Posted on 11/10/15 at 5:52 pm to bmy
Nothing you just typed rebuts anything I just typed.
The rule states:
Defenseless Opponent is defined as:
Examples, include, but are not limited to:
This is Interpreting Statutes 101. The elements are met:
1. contact
2. with helmet or shoulder
3. to head or neck area
4. of a defenseless player
There was clear contact to Murray's head by #24's head and/or shoulder (or hands/arms). Murray had slid to his butt, and was a player on the ground, which is one of the non-exclusive, non-exhaustive examples.
But there is more:
Examples of Targeting include, but are not limited to:
So, not making contact, but simply leading with the helmet, which #24 clearly did, is an example of Targeting, even though it is unclear whether #24's head hit Murray, or whether is was his shoulder, arms or hands. The guy was clearly Launching at Murray when Murray was attempting to slide and could have pulled up, just like his teammate #18 did.
The rules and commments can be found here.
The rule states:
quote:
Targeting and Initiating Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player (Rule 9-1-4)
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)
Defenseless Opponent is defined as:
quote:
Defenseless player—a player not in position to defend himself.
Examples, include, but are not limited to:
quote:
Examples (Rule 2-27-14):
A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
A receiver attempting to catch a pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return.
A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick.
A player on the ground.
A player obviously out of the play.
A player who receives a blind-side block.
A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped.
A quarterback any time after a change of possession.
This is Interpreting Statutes 101. The elements are met:
1. contact
2. with helmet or shoulder
3. to head or neck area
4. of a defenseless player
There was clear contact to Murray's head by #24's head and/or shoulder (or hands/arms). Murray had slid to his butt, and was a player on the ground, which is one of the non-exclusive, non-exhaustive examples.
But there is more:
Examples of Targeting include, but are not limited to:
quote:
Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make contact in the head or neck area
A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with contact at the head or neck area—even though one or both feet are still on the ground
Leading with helmet, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with contact at the head or neck area
Lowering the head before attacking by initiating contact with the crown of the helmet
So, not making contact, but simply leading with the helmet, which #24 clearly did, is an example of Targeting, even though it is unclear whether #24's head hit Murray, or whether is was his shoulder, arms or hands. The guy was clearly Launching at Murray when Murray was attempting to slide and could have pulled up, just like his teammate #18 did.
The rules and commments can be found here.
Posted on 11/10/15 at 6:20 pm to KaiserSoze99
I'm sorry that you're wrong. The ball carrier was not on the ground.
Posted on 11/10/15 at 6:37 pm to bmy
Pause the video and click to 11 seconds. There are three frames at 11 seconds. Murray is on the ground when contact was made. #24 launched at him and made contact with Murray's head. Go to 10 seconds and you can see how far away #24 is when Murray's butt hits the ground. It's about 4 yards. #24 is barely in the frame.
Either they are both targeting or they are both NOT targeting. One thing we can all agree on is that target sucks arse and has screwed up the game. There is way too much subjectivity for the rule to be evenly and fairly administered.
Either they are both targeting or they are both NOT targeting. One thing we can all agree on is that target sucks arse and has screwed up the game. There is way too much subjectivity for the rule to be evenly and fairly administered.
This post was edited on 11/10/15 at 6:38 pm
Posted on 11/10/15 at 6:40 pm to KaiserSoze99
Why was he trying to block a player behind the ball carrier when there was another player in front?
Posted on 11/10/15 at 6:58 pm to KaiserSoze99
I hate the targeting rule. However, the hit was targeting by definition. Normally, the reviewed calls get it right. They didn't this time.
Posted on 11/10/15 at 7:15 pm to TheJones
quote:
I can't take you idiots seriously with those avi's
Damn good reason right there to never take part in a sig bet!
Posted on 11/10/15 at 7:18 pm to KaiserSoze99
quote:
#1 was clearly on the ground.
Just stop. He was hit before he hit the ground. You think his cut towards the end zone at the 5 was a start to a non-slide, so why shouldn't anybody believe this isn't a troll?
Posted on 11/10/15 at 7:45 pm to jsmoove
Look, everybody already agrees that Blake Countless is a tPOS. We don't even need to debate it.
Posted on 11/10/15 at 7:55 pm to KaiserSoze99
I know I'm older than the average poster here but I don't see anything wrong with these hits. It was the norm when I played granted that wasn't at the collegiate level. What lineman didn't love to pick off a backside linebacker who didn't have his head on a swivel.
I hate the kid was hurt but I don't think that was Seals intent either.
I hate the kid was hurt but I don't think that was Seals intent either.
Posted on 11/10/15 at 8:35 pm to Tiguar
quote:
I guarantee the aggot originally flagged would have been thrown out had the auburn player not made that hit.
they prolly said if that isn't targeting, then this isnt targeting
I don't have a problem with the no call. I would prefer the rule be totally done away with so there's no more confusion or room for subjective error.
but, factually, they were both targeting by letter of the rule and should have both been flagged.
this is the most honest and accurate take on it I have seen. probably the most fair way to handle it as well.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News