Started By
Message
0
Posted on 11/14/22 at 2:06 pm to meansonny
quote:
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.
There's no "agree to disagree" here... you're viewing this through black and red glasses. The officials reviewed it and there are plenty of incredibly clear angles and photos of the hit. The NCAA clarified what the "crown" of the helmet is specifically so hits like this wouldn't be targeting.
If this is targeting then there would be 10-15 targeting penalties per game as runners fight for an extra yard or two at the end of runs.
This post was edited on 11/14/22 at 2:19 pm
Posted on 11/14/22 at 2:32 pm to Deacon Reds
Ball carrier's body is at such an angle that the only other place to hit him is the knees. Making a note to defense: hit the runner in the knees, especially the QB.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 2:38 pm to Deacon Reds
Not a defenseless player, but is leading with crown of helmet. Sometimes that's called, sometimes not.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 2:43 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Why is it ok for the offensive player to lower his head but not the defensive player?
Probably for the same reason an Offensive player can grab the facemask and drive a defender like a stick shift, but it's a penalty for a Defensive player.
So... I have no idea.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 2:44 pm to Deacon Reds
quote:
Is this not the definition of targeting?
Posted on 11/14/22 at 2:53 pm to PeleofAnalytics
quote:
The rule specifically states that the hit must be to a "defenseless" player in the very first sentence
But you can have targeting against a player that isn't defenseless.
It's really not that hard. If you use the crown of the helmet to create forcible contact to the head or neck area, it's is targeting. Period. Defenseless or not.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 2:59 pm to Deacon Reds
Downvoted for still image.
If you want to make a case, a gif should be a minimum requirement. Still images are like cherry picked stats that 100% ignore context.
If you want to make a case, a gif should be a minimum requirement. Still images are like cherry picked stats that 100% ignore context.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 3:07 pm to 3down10
quote:
If you want to make a case, a gif should be a minimum requirement. Still images are like cherry picked stats that 100% ignore context.
here are the gifs I could find
To me, Tennessee guy is just trying to make a normal tackle and Bennett dips his head right before the contact, causing incidental helmet to helmet contact. He's not a defenseless player, and the Tennessee defender does not initiate contact with the crown of his helmet. The no-call was the correct call there.
Most of the force on that play was the Tennessee's defender's shoulder and Bennett's shoulder/back
This post was edited on 11/14/22 at 3:15 pm
Posted on 11/14/22 at 3:39 pm to lsufball19
That's the definition of helmet to helmet and the intent of the rule is to prevent exactly that.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 3:40 pm to lsufball19
I think that bottom gif shows it pretty clearly that it isn't targeting. 
Posted on 11/14/22 at 4:28 pm to TigerLunatik
quote:
I think that bottom gif shows it pretty clearly that it isn't targeting.
Just the opposite.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 4:34 pm to Deacon Reds
quote:
Just the opposite.
you're either seeing what you want to see or you're naïve to how the targeting rules are applied and/or how terms within the targeting rules are defined.
quote:
That's the definition of helmet to helmet
and herein is where I'm leaning towards your struggle being the latter. Simply helmet to helmet contact =/= targeting
Namely, I don't think you know how "crown of the helmet" is defined within the rule. You take the very top/center of the helmet and draw a 6 inch radius around that spot. If the player isn't defenseless, which Bennet was not, then contact has to be initiated with the crown of the helmet to be targeting, which it was not on that play.
This post was edited on 11/14/22 at 4:39 pm
Posted on 11/14/22 at 4:38 pm to Deacon Reds
The crown of the helmet hitting the body or underside of helmet...yes.
In that pic...judgement call.
In that pic...judgement call.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 4:42 pm to southernboisb
quote:
The crown of the helmet hitting the body or underside of helmet...yes.
See my edit. this is what you don't understand...what the crown of the helmet is. To save time for you having to look back and read, here it is again
quote:
Namely, I don't think you know how "crown of the helmet" is defined within the rule. You take the very top/center of the helmet and draw a 6 inch radius around that spot. If the player isn't defenseless, which Bennet was not, then contact has to be initiated with the crown of the helmet to be targeting, which it was not on that play.
On tat play, the initial contact was with the area of the helmet where the facemask meets the helmet. That is not the crown of the helmet. That's why it wasn't targeting and why it wasn't called that way on the field. I think your issue is you see helmet to helmet contact and immediately think it is targeting. That's just not how the rule works.
This post was edited on 11/14/22 at 4:44 pm
Posted on 11/14/22 at 4:47 pm to meansonny
quote:
You can have targeting with 3 indicators or targeting a defenseless player with 1.
Not exactly. Either way (defenseless or not) you only need one indicator of targeting.
If it’s not a defenseless player, the contact has to occur with the crown of the helmet for it to be targeting. But you still need at least one “indicator” - contact with the crown of the helmet alone does not necessarily equal targeting.
Typically the indicator in question would be “lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet.”
If the player is defenseless, then the requirement for the offending player to make contact with the crown of the helmet goes away.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 5:08 pm to Deacon Reds
quote:
That's the definition of helmet to helmet and the intent of the rule is to prevent exactly that.
No it's not.
Don't make me stick up for Tennessee, I'll hate you forever.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 5:41 pm to lsufball19
quote:
I think your issue is you see helmet to helmet contact and immediately think it is targeting.
I think there are some trolls in this thread. Blatant evidence has been posted and they're still saying the same shite as they said on page 1.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 11:45 pm to lostinbr
It's crazy how many dumb arse people in here think targeting can only be called against a defenseless player. But it is the SEC rant, we have no shortage of dumbasses.
Posted on 11/15/22 at 12:31 am to lostinbr
If you can look at the replays, and read the definition of targeting, and not understand that this is the very definition of targeting, you’re either a homer or an idiot, or both. Even the vast majority of Tennessee fans on the VolNation game thread said so.
This post was edited on 11/15/22 at 12:35 am
Page 4 of 6
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News