Started By
Message
re: Deshazor Everett Suspended for Targeting
Posted on 9/2/13 at 3:13 pm to tmc94
Posted on 9/2/13 at 3:13 pm to tmc94
quote:
But it's honestly a close call.
Yes, it was and the rule clearly states that when in question, it is a foul.
There wasn't enough video evidence for replay to overturn the ejection portion so the call stood.
I look for Redding to issue an editorial and a few A.R.'s after reviewing a couple of weeks' videos of the calls.
1
Posted on 9/2/13 at 3:14 pm to Aggie Dynasty
Just following Johnny's lead
Posted on 9/2/13 at 3:14 pm to BamaScoop
By rule the play was not over. The receiver himself could have made a move on the ball, another offensive player could have or the ball could have been intercepted when the hit was made.
Posted on 9/2/13 at 3:18 pm to arrakis
quote:
There wasn't enough video evidence for replay to overturn the ejection portion so the call stood.
no, I think there was. Ejection is a different criteria than foul. Every personal foul is not targeting. Ejection should result from targeting from the neck up only. The point of the rule is to reduce concussions and it's clearly stated that way. That's why this is such a controversial call as no part of Everett hit any part of Kubiak above the shoulder.
However, both the officials at the game and a few others thought it was correct. The former head of officials on ESPN thought the ejection was a terrible call. I really don't understand how officials reviewing a play can have such varied interpretations. It's like the Clowney hit. I heard the ACC guy say it's ejection but others said no. IMO they need to make firm rules that are not subjective and so everyone is on the same page.
Posted on 9/2/13 at 3:18 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Just following Johnny's lead
what I find most funny about that is the ESPN commentator literally said that.
Posted on 9/2/13 at 3:34 pm to tmc94
quote:
tmc94
Mike Pereira is the former NFL VP and hasn't been associated, in any form, with the NCAA since the new rule came into effect. Rogers Redding is the editor of the NCAA Rule Book and has been for years. It's *HIS* opinion that counts, not Perreira's.
Read the rule, inform yourself of the facts, or remain ignorant...it's your choice.
Posted on 9/2/13 at 3:41 pm to arrakis
I've read the rule. Not sure why you are thinking I haven't. It's even been quoted in this thread (or anther just like it). And btw, Mike Pereira works for fox not espn and was not who I was referring to.
If you think that Everett's hit should be an ejection, then you feel there should be 2-3 ejections per game in SEC games. Literally. I think last year's Bama-A&M game should have had 3 off the top of my head (one on Lacy wasn't called a foul so it wouldn't have resulted but it should have been).
You have consistently shown yourself to be heavily biased. The rule has a purpose. Ignoring that because it doesn't affect your team is incredibly ignorant. And unfortunately for you it doesn't seem to be a choice.
quote:
According to the Big Ten Network, the new targeting rule is worded as follows:
• No player shall target and initiate contact vs. opponent with the crown of his helmet.
• No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent.
If you think that Everett's hit should be an ejection, then you feel there should be 2-3 ejections per game in SEC games. Literally. I think last year's Bama-A&M game should have had 3 off the top of my head (one on Lacy wasn't called a foul so it wouldn't have resulted but it should have been).
You have consistently shown yourself to be heavily biased. The rule has a purpose. Ignoring that because it doesn't affect your team is incredibly ignorant. And unfortunately for you it doesn't seem to be a choice.
Posted on 9/2/13 at 3:46 pm to tmc94
and to add to that
quote:
According to a handout produced by College Football Officiating, LLC, if officials see the following things, the risk of a targeting foul is high:
• Launching toward an opponent to make contact in the head or neck area.
• A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust with contact at the head or neck area.
• Leading with the helmet, forearm, fist, hand or elbow into the head or neck area.
• Lowering the head before attacking and initiating with the crown of the helmet.
According to that same handout, the following factors would indicate less risk of a targeting penalty being called:
• A heads-up tackle where the crown of the helmet does not strike above the shoulders.
• A wrap-up tackle.
• The head is to the side rather than used to initiate contact.
• Incidental helmet contact due to players changing position during the play.
Posted on 9/2/13 at 3:49 pm to Aggie Dynasty
Such chode shite this is. As soon as the refs see all the coaches yelling and making the motion to throw the flag, then they panicked and threw it. They assumed it was a targeting hit because the dude obviously didn't catch the ball, and got creamed for it. frick that man.
Posted on 9/2/13 at 3:55 pm to tmc94
If you note, it's a "high risk" vs "low risk" information sheet. 
Not sure what you are trying to accomplish with the bolding of the text as most of that has no bearing on the ruling.
Read the actual rule in the book and then review the criteria for review via replay. I can point you to the information, but I cannot help you comprehend the information.
It's that simple
Not sure what you are trying to accomplish with the bolding of the text as most of that has no bearing on the ruling.
Read the actual rule in the book and then review the criteria for review via replay. I can point you to the information, but I cannot help you comprehend the information.
It's that simple
Posted on 9/2/13 at 3:56 pm to arrakis
uh, sure buddy. I bolded that because it didn't happen. Let me ask you this, in your mind, what makes this hit targeting?
Posted on 9/2/13 at 3:57 pm to arrakis
and again, all of the low-risk for targeting involve hits to the head and are essentially exceptions. They all assume a hit to the head which is the fricking point. I mean do you really think they need to say that a wrap up tackle is low-risk for targeting otherwise? Or are you just that dumb?
This post was edited on 9/2/13 at 3:59 pm
Posted on 9/2/13 at 4:02 pm to Jon Ham
quote:
he turned his body into a missile
His feet never left the ground.
I don't think it deserves a suspension.
Posted on 9/2/13 at 4:20 pm to tmc94
quote:
They all assume a hit to the head which is the fricking point.
Thanks for proving my point that you are fricking ignorant. Here is the actual rule:
quote:
ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4- I-VI)
Note the bold text. You are taking the frickwit approach of selecting text to support your opinion instead the actual text in it's entirety. After reading your posts, it's no surprise.
Posted on 9/2/13 at 4:35 pm to BamaScoop
Play wasn't over. The Rice player had tipped the ball a mere instant before the hit (real time, not slow motion). Play was still live, hit was on the numbers and he used mostly shoulder. That's as clean as it gets. The call and ejection were both terrible and wrong.
But at this point in the [long] weekend, I've learned that most folks around here don't care about anything other than becoming angry and TAMU bitter.
But at this point in the [long] weekend, I've learned that most folks around here don't care about anything other than becoming angry and TAMU bitter.
This post was edited on 9/2/13 at 4:45 pm
Posted on 9/2/13 at 4:36 pm to EKG
Posted on 9/2/13 at 4:37 pm to arrakis
quote:
ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4- I-VI)
This is a hit to the chest, not the head or neck area. This is self-evident from viewing the play. It is not in question and thus should not be a foul.
This post was edited on 9/2/13 at 4:40 pm
Posted on 9/2/13 at 4:44 pm to EKG
quote:
Play wasn't oer. The Rice player had tipped the ball a mere instant before the hit. Play was still live, hit was on the numbers and he used mostly shoulder. That's as clean as it gets. The call and ejection were both terrible and wrong.
You are right, the play wasnt over but the WR was not going to catch the ball and Everett wanted the hit instead of the pick. He got flagged for hitting a defenseless WR ...the hit was unnecessary in my opinion. He had time to pull up. So I agree with the flag but not suspension however
Posted on 9/2/13 at 4:46 pm to DWag215
he trolls on and on about how others haven't read the rule and then posts it to completely blow up his whole trolling
Posted on 9/2/13 at 4:47 pm to MrBiriwa
I don't agree with you, but I'm fully willing to admit that my viewpoint is probably skewed a tad.
Slow motion/non-real game footage is much easier to second guess--frame by frame--than is live action.
Thanks for the rational response.
Slow motion/non-real game footage is much easier to second guess--frame by frame--than is live action.
Thanks for the rational response.
Page 3 of 4
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News