Started By
Message
Posted on 11/14/22 at 12:45 pm to djsdawg
quote:
Looks like Targeting can be to a defenseless player, but doesn’t have to be.
True, BUT the caveat is that once a player is determined to not be defenseless the scope for when you can throw the flag narrows considerably.
So if this player isn't defenseless, then lowering his helmet pretty much rules out targeting.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 12:45 pm to meansonny
quote:
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.
The NCAA clarified this year that the "crown" of the helmet is only the very top of the helmet. The "forehead" of the helmet i.e. above the facemask but below the "crown", is OK. Hence no penalty and a good adjustment IMO.
This post was edited on 11/14/22 at 12:46 pm
Posted on 11/14/22 at 12:46 pm to The Albatross
Probably. The TV copy showed the sideline over and over (trying to see if stet stepped out of bounds which was an awful call on the field).
When the announcers and booth ref were discussing targeting, they showed the tight angle and the booth ref properly predicted from that angle that no penalty would be given.
So yes. The OP should have known better (sideline angle is misleading because it doesn't show where contact was mostly made)
When the announcers and booth ref were discussing targeting, they showed the tight angle and the booth ref properly predicted from that angle that no penalty would be given.
So yes. The OP should have known better (sideline angle is misleading because it doesn't show where contact was mostly made)
Posted on 11/14/22 at 12:47 pm to djsdawg
quote:
Nah man. I don’t have a rule book handy.
Why are you making comments about a rule you obviously didn't read then?
And can I introduce you to google.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 12:48 pm to Deacon Reds
I was thinking the same thing.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 12:48 pm to djsdawg
quote:
Irrelevant to the penalty
not it's not. Defenseless players have different criteria considered than do ball carriers.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 12:50 pm to meansonny
quote:
Defenseless redefines the requirements for targeting. It makes it an easier call (only needs 1 indicator).
Yeah. I don't think you know how to read rules correctly. Ask someone who practices law on how to read this stuff. It is not your thing.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 12:51 pm to The Albatross
quote:
Not defenseless,
Doesn't matter if you use the crown of the helmet to make forcible contact to the head or neck area.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 12:52 pm to Barstools
Welcome to the thread. It’s been discussed to death. Please feel free to peruse the many responses at no additional charge.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 12:55 pm to Deacon Reds
No.
Now please, by all means, cry more.
Now please, by all means, cry more.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 12:56 pm to ALhunter
Agree to disagree.
Facemask down and the contact is the crown (top of the helmet).
Remember. This is to prevent neck injuries to the defender.
Facemask down and the contact is the crown (top of the helmet).
Remember. This is to prevent neck injuries to the defender.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 12:57 pm to PeleofAnalytics
quote:
Yeah. I don't think you know how to read rules correctly. Ask someone who practices law on how to read this stuff. It is not your thing.
He could be wrong.
But the booth ref addressed "defenseless" during the telecast.
It doesn't matter with the 3 indicators.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 1:01 pm to meansonny
quote:
the contact is the crown (top of the helmet).
Jesus the crown of the helmet has been defined in the thread and the defender didn't use the apex of the helmet.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 1:08 pm to TigerLunatik
He did use 6 inches below the apex.
"Jesus" is right.
"Jesus" is right.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 1:13 pm to meansonny
That isn't 6 inches.
This post was edited on 11/14/22 at 1:19 pm
Posted on 11/14/22 at 1:20 pm to TigerLunatik
Y’all are starting to sound like my wife in here.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 1:22 pm to deeprig9
quote:
You need to go to the Help Board and learn how to embed imgur pictures.
I did. Wouldn’t work.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 1:23 pm to meansonny
quote:
He could be wrong.
But the booth ref addressed "defenseless" during the telecast.
It doesn't matter with the 3 indicators.
Let me explain how reading laws like this works. And this rule was written by lawyers because there is a lot of potential litigation with this stuff
The rule specifically states that the hit must be to a "defenseless" player in the very first sentence of the rule. Then in Note 1, they list indicators. Absolutely nowhere in note 1 does it rescind the requirement that the player be defenseless. There is absolutely no caveat that says, a player does not need to be defenseless if indicator 1,2 or blah blah is present.
Then in Note 2, it describes what a "defenseless" player is. Again, they fail to make any caveat about the requirement that being defenseless does not apply if certain indicators are present. They do show a "but not limited to" but that is to cover any obscure situation.
Every instance where the rule could have explicitly stated that a targeting does not require a player to be "defenseless" as explicitly set forth in the very first sentence of the rule, they do not. It just does not exist.
And I just listened to the broadcast of the play and aftermath. There was absolutely NOBODY that was a rules expert that said anything questioning targeting or whether defenseless does or does not apply. Gene Steratore is the only person that knows what he is talking about and the only rule he mentions is related to using the CROWN which is a completely separate rule. That is the only thing that came out of his mouth regarding potential penalties and "targeting" did not come out of his mouth. The only people that mentioned targeting are Nessler or Danielson who are notorious for having no clue about the rules.
UGA vs UT broacast Fast forward to 14:00 and tell me when someone other than those two bozos say "targeting".
This post was edited on 11/14/22 at 1:31 pm
Posted on 11/14/22 at 1:23 pm to mckibaj
Bennett was heading for the pylon. How could that be launching?
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News