Started By
Message
Is this not the definition of targeting?
Posted on 11/14/22 at 12:05 pm
Posted on 11/14/22 at 12:05 pm
Helmet to helmet
This post was edited on 11/14/22 at 12:07 pm
24
Posted on 11/14/22 at 12:06 pm to Deacon Reds
Not defenseless, no launch. Looks like a football play to me.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 12:06 pm to Deacon Reds
Sure, but wasn’t that game 2 weeks ago? Who cares at this point
Posted on 11/14/22 at 12:07 pm to Deacon Reds
I guess? But how can we expect defensive players to completely avoid helmet to helmet contact on a play like that, where both players are putting their heads down?
Posted on 11/14/22 at 12:07 pm to The Albatross
quote:
Not defenseless,
Irrelevant to the penalty
Posted on 11/14/22 at 12:08 pm to The Albatross
I have felt like the crews have done a great job this year on determining if a hit was intentional compared to years past. Only question was 21 Omari Thomas vs Bama on his hit on Young. I thought that one should have been targeting but it worked out for the Vols.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 12:09 pm to Deacon Reds
It is.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 12:09 pm to djsdawg
It’s one of the indicators. Just because their helmets touch doesn’t mean it’s targeting.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 12:10 pm to Deacon Reds
quote:
“The targeting rule prohibits players from making forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of the helmet.”
Posted on 11/14/22 at 12:10 pm to Funky Tide 8
quote:
I guess? But how can we expect defensive players to completely avoid helmet to helmet contact on a play like that, where both players are putting their heads down?
This is my biggest issue with targeting. And I’ve seen it called before where both players lower their head right before they collide. Why is it ok for the offensive player to lower his head but not the defensive player?
Posted on 11/14/22 at 12:11 pm to HTX Bayou Bengal
quote:
Sure, but wasn’t that game 2 weeks ago? Who cares at this point
Yet you took time to read and reply.??
Posted on 11/14/22 at 12:11 pm to Deacon Reds
It could easily have been.
The sideline cameras showed all of the checkboxes for targeting.
The tight view behind the QB didn't look anywhere near as bad (lowered head and launching. But lots of contact away from the head. The head looked more incidental and there was no neck movement from Bennett to indicate danger from a shot to the head)
The sideline cameras showed all of the checkboxes for targeting.
The tight view behind the QB didn't look anywhere near as bad (lowered head and launching. But lots of contact away from the head. The head looked more incidental and there was no neck movement from Bennett to indicate danger from a shot to the head)
Posted on 11/14/22 at 12:13 pm to Deacon Reds
quote:
Yet you took time to read and reply.??
It was a blind link, he didn't know it was two weeks old until he clicked. And at that point he was already invested in the message board interaction process.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 12:13 pm to Deacon Reds
Looks like Bennett led with the crown of his helmet and is launching.
This post was edited on 11/14/22 at 12:14 pm
Posted on 11/14/22 at 12:15 pm to Deacon Reds
You need to go to the Help Board and learn how to embed imgur pictures.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 12:18 pm to Deacon Reds
No it isn't targeting. The contact is with the front of the helmet and not the top of it. No launch. Not defenseless. Good No call.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 12:19 pm to djsdawg
quote:
Not defenseless,
Irrelevant to the penalty
What?
It's the main thing that is relevant to the penalty.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 12:21 pm to The Albatross
quote:
It’s one of the indicators.
Don’t think so
Posted on 11/14/22 at 12:24 pm to djsdawg
Ok, so let’s assume that this qualifies as targeting, even though it wasn’t called that way. If the defensive player does not get his body between Stetson and the remainder of the field, how does he force him out legally? Should he just let him have it? I’m usually more targeting-friendly than most, but I’m not seeing it here. If this was a running back, do you feel that this is still targeting?
Posted on 11/14/22 at 12:27 pm to TigerLunatik
quote:
The contact is with the front of the helmet and not the top of it.
The front is the forehad or face mask.
That is the crown of the head to the helmet area of Stetson. And he does launch.
Defenseless is not an issue on a play like this. Defenseless would eliminate the requirement for the defender to use his helmet (any contact to the head would be targeting if in the act of throwing or receiving).
The backside camera angle (facing the goal posts), shows contact initiated at the shoulder pads. Helmet was incidental.
I could see a flag thrown and then picked up in this situation because of that angle.
But both angles on the sideline (camera from upper deck and from sideline/pylon) look bad from a helmet to helmet standpoint.
There is a good reason to review other angles. It would suck to throw a guy out when it wouldn't be necessary.
Page 1 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News