re: Harrison Hit

quote:

---

Harrison Hit
To the objective fans... what ya got, targeting or not?

---

frick no. It was a clean hit with shoulder. In fact, it was a fantastic play by the defender. IMO - it was a game saver.

quote:

---

don't believe it was targeting but someone using a still image as proof that the helmets never touched is hilarious.

---

You have an odd sense of humor

I agree on one thing. It's ridiculous to have a penalty where one person can look at it and think it's obviously not targeting and another can see it and think that it is obvious targeting.

I happen to think that's exactly what the rule intended and was a perfect big hit. Looks like exactly what they want the defender to do to me.

quote:

---

I don't believe it was targeting but someone using a still image as proof that the helmets never touched is hilarious.

---

A very good video of the shoulder to shoulder contact is literally right below that image in the link.

quote:

---

But you are NOT 100% certain

---

You make my point. You are not either based on the video.

It is all about interpretation of what launching is, and what forcible contact is to “the head/neck area”. My argument, and what I see, is he left his feet as he hit the guy, and he knocked him unconscious from helmet to helmet contact.

It was called targeting. This was not one of those after the fact, let’s review it and see if it was targeting reviews. It was called targeting on the field.

There is obviously NOT a consensus on what it was. Nor clear evidence on what it was. It is all interpretation. And by rule, in that case, the call on the field is supposed to stand.

But they weren’t going to make that call in such a high profile game.

Was it the right thing to do? Yeah. Was it by the rule book? No.

This isn’t a knock against Georgia. But since it was called targeting the call should have stood.

The video replay from the sideline (although backline also shows this) CLEARLY shows the helmets actually NEVER met. Bullard ended up going over Harrison's back behind his helmet after he hit him shoulder to shoulder as Harrison fell.

His foot is also literally on the ground at the hit. Then again if there is anything the modern world has taught me is people will only believe what they want to believe.

quote:

---

His foot is also literally on the ground at the hit

---

You keep talking about his foot being on the ground. This is literally what the rule book says about that.

quote:

---

A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground

---

This thread has become about whether people like the targeting rule, not whether this actually was targeting as the rule is spelled out.

This is a bad rule, one that can take a player out of a game, based on a judgement call. I have seen MANY less violent, less obvious hits that did not knock the opposing player unconscious, or out of the game for a single play, called targeting and confirmed.

My final thoughts on this are that he knocked the guy unconscious on the hit. If getting knocked unconscious isn’t “forcible contact to the head and neck” I don’t know what is. Maybe beheading them with a sword? Harrison was limp as he hit the ground, so the whole “the ground caused it” are false. This is exactly the type of hit this rule was supposed to prevent. But it didn’t. And while it was initially enforced on the field, the powers that be reversed the call without clearcut evidence.

quote:

---

My final thoughts on this are that he knocked the guy unconscious on the hit. If getting knocked unconscious isn’t “forcible contact to the head and neck” I don’t know what is.

---

Well that part is obvious


Sincere question: did you ever play football?

I ask because you’re supposed to drop your butt/hips to make a tackle, putting you in a crouched position.


Also, he dropped his head—still didn’t lead with the crown—because your head is connected your shoulder. And he planted his shoulder right into Harrison’s.


ETA: and you can definitely get a concussion without any contact whatsoever to your head or neck. I’ve seen it hundreds of times in my line of work

It was clearly shoulder to shoulder and contact helmet to helmet, if any, was incidental. I am sure the cumulative effect of a violent hit shoulder to shoulder, the subsequent whiplash, incidental helmet to helmet contact, and his head hitting turf caused a concussion. If we want to mitigate the concussion risk to zero, let’s just play two hand touch in bubble wrap. A concussion is not evidence of targeting. That’s commie thinking.

quote:

---

and you can definitely get a concussion without any contact whatsoever to your head or neck. I’ve seen it hundreds of times in my line of work

---

No doubt. But something has to make the brain bang around inside the skull like a pinball. A car wreck is the normal cause.

I would argue that the hit is what caused the concussion in this case. I do not think it was a case of Immaculate Concussion. That hit knocked him unconscious. Consider it a car wreck without the car, even though in this case there was helmet to helmet contact.

They told us the whole purpose of the targeting rule was to prevent concussions and CTE.

It didn’t work here. Ol boy still got knocked out.

Everyone loves big hits. Except the guy receiving it. And often times the guy delivering it.