Started By
Message
re: I’m sure I’m beating a dead horse but that targeting ejection rule...
Posted on 1/14/20 at 9:04 am to Oilfieldbiology
Posted on 1/14/20 at 9:04 am to Oilfieldbiology
quote:
Do you have any proof other than being butt hurt about the call two weeks ago to prove this?
Heads Up themselves admitted they were working with false data. This stuff isn't hidden.
quote:
I’ve not once heard that tackling with the face down is safe.
No one said that, sport.
0
Posted on 1/14/20 at 9:06 am to Oilfieldbiology
quote:
other than being butt hurt about the call two weeks ago
And nice fricking try. I've been calling this targeting BS what it is from day one, including when Devin White was ejected.
Posted on 1/14/20 at 9:08 am to piggilicious
Nah. I was rooting for Clemson, but that was targetting and deserves to be.
Posted on 1/14/20 at 9:18 am to piggilicious
I like the targeting rule but not the way its written.That should not have been targeting. IMO
Posted on 1/14/20 at 9:21 am to piggilicious
It's a dangerous play. They have to do something to protect these kids' necks.
Perhaps a two series ejection or something if any change at all? Don't know if that's enough.
Perhaps a two series ejection or something if any change at all? Don't know if that's enough.
Posted on 1/14/20 at 9:22 am to Wtxtiger
quote:
One for malicious contact with intent where the rule remains as is and one for inadvertent contact with a 15 yard personal foul and no ejection.
So let me lay out the problem with this for you.
Are you telling me that Skalski's (sp) hit on Jefferson was inadvertent? We've already established that it was targeting but now we are trying to apply your rule. It wasn't inadvertent at all....based on what his job is there was malicious intent behind the hit.
So the burden of the decision to make your rule work just doesn't make sense most of the time when targeting exists. Although I'm not sure what the answer is (the rule sucks)...I do know that letting a human determine malicious intent vs inadvertent contact of guys that are trying to forcibly take other guys to the ground all while the action is happening at 100mph isn't going to work.
ETA Honestly in my opinion probably the best way to handle it is to keep the rule the way it is but remove completely the ejection from the penalty. If you want to increase the yardage from 15 to something that is unprecedented then maybe we can talk about that...but the ejection sucks.
This post was edited on 1/14/20 at 9:24 am
Posted on 1/14/20 at 9:23 am to piggilicious
I honestly thought it was a bad call. He hit the shoulder/neck area. Is that targeting?
Posted on 1/14/20 at 9:32 am to piggilicious
What is so difficult to understand that leading with the crown of your helmet risks your own life? What happened last night wasn't about protecting the LSU player, it was about protecting the Clemson player.
Its so very simple: don't tackle with the top of your head. Intent is so very irrelevant; the rule is a very simple ban on tackling with extremely dangerous (to the tackler) technique.
It was the right call last night. It's been the right call for years.
Its so very simple: don't tackle with the top of your head. Intent is so very irrelevant; the rule is a very simple ban on tackling with extremely dangerous (to the tackler) technique.
It was the right call last night. It's been the right call for years.
Posted on 1/14/20 at 9:37 am to piggilicious
quote:
but the rule itself sucks and is ridiculous.
I bet Chucky Mullins would disagree today if he were here.
It's a good rule.
Posted on 1/14/20 at 9:48 am to piggilicious
You're that good at lb, you mean a lot to your team, you've made many tackles,you've been coached for years head up when you tackle,you know the rule, YOU DONT DROP YOUR HEAD! Until the rule is changed...
Posted on 1/14/20 at 10:01 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
They said they "weren't playing Clemson ball."
Posted on 1/14/20 at 10:13 am to piggilicious
Why are you whining about it? The kid literally lowered his head and thrust the crown of his helmet into the head of another player. That was why the rule exists and merited ejection. It’s not like the plays where the offensive player lowers his head leading to it.
Posted on 1/14/20 at 10:14 am to southpawcock
quote:
Is that targeting?
Yes. It's not about where he hits. He led with the crown of the helmet.
Here's a pretty good explanation from SI. LINK
Posted on 1/14/20 at 11:17 am to LSU316
I guess I would determine intent with like the hit by OU on Clyde where the guy launched.
Non intent would be where the player was just trying to make a tackle and the person being hit moved in a way that caused helmets to hit without intent to launch.
Non intent would be where the player was just trying to make a tackle and the person being hit moved in a way that caused helmets to hit without intent to launch.
Posted on 1/14/20 at 7:10 pm to PanhandleDawg
quote:
It's a good rule.
Not in its current form.
Posted on 1/14/20 at 7:12 pm to YrNucoach
quote:
You have to realize that this rule is to protect both players. If the defensive player keeps lowering his head and using the crown as a bludgeon then he risks serious Permanent damage. Have you ever seen any of those old players who can’t walk and shake and tremble?
I think few people have a problem with the rule, but most have a problem with the penalty coming with an ejection. Call a 15 yard penalty, but ejecting a kid from a game without ill-intent has always been overkill and ridiculous
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News