Started By
Message
NCAA Targeting Rules and Bammer
Posted on 10/23/16 at 8:47 am
Posted on 10/23/16 at 8:47 am
In the Bammer/TAMU game yesterday the CBS guys both couldn't figure why it wasn't targeting on that player - I think his name was Noil.
Soon they heard from the SEC officials - Noil wasn't a defenseless player so it wasn't targeting.
CBS to their credit quickly had the rules on the screen. And what the SEC officials said was false.
"1) No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul.
This specifies a hit with the top of the helmet, but not necessarily a hit to the opponent’s helmet.
The next item in the rulebook, including the aforementioned "Note 1," which explains the many additional situations in which all kinds of hits are considered targeting:
No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)
Note 1: "Targeting" means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball..."
Okay, in both the UT game where Evan Berry was hit crown to crown by a Bammer player and the TAMU game where this TAMU player was blatantly hit helmet to helmet, clear targeting under the rule wasn't called.
The SEC office went out of its way (I am assuming they know the rules) to misrepresent the rules, which is pretty crappy.
Soon they heard from the SEC officials - Noil wasn't a defenseless player so it wasn't targeting.
CBS to their credit quickly had the rules on the screen. And what the SEC officials said was false.
"1) No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul.
This specifies a hit with the top of the helmet, but not necessarily a hit to the opponent’s helmet.
The next item in the rulebook, including the aforementioned "Note 1," which explains the many additional situations in which all kinds of hits are considered targeting:
No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)
Note 1: "Targeting" means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball..."
Okay, in both the UT game where Evan Berry was hit crown to crown by a Bammer player and the TAMU game where this TAMU player was blatantly hit helmet to helmet, clear targeting under the rule wasn't called.
The SEC office went out of its way (I am assuming they know the rules) to misrepresent the rules, which is pretty crappy.
This post was edited on 10/23/16 at 8:48 am
Posted on 10/23/16 at 8:49 am to WhiskeyPapa
Just watched the video. It was 100% targeting.
Posted on 10/23/16 at 8:49 am to WhiskeyPapa
Two weeks out still melting
Posted on 10/23/16 at 8:49 am to WhiskeyPapa
No one is arguing that Alabama clearly gets a free pass
Posted on 10/23/16 at 8:49 am to WhiskeyPapa
I thought it could have gone either way. He was clearly trying to make a form tackle, as he wrapped up. A kickoff return is such a fast-paced play, it is difficult to avoid some helmet-to-helmet contact.
The more important issue is for you to stop being such a bitch about it. The play was called. It's not going to be changed. It wouldn't have changed the outcome of the game.
The more important issue is for you to stop being such a bitch about it. The play was called. It's not going to be changed. It wouldn't have changed the outcome of the game.
Posted on 10/23/16 at 8:50 am to WhiskeyPapa
A lot of people are saying that the conference is rigged because the offices are in Birmingham. So crooked. Sad!
Posted on 10/23/16 at 8:51 am to WhiskeyPapa
Oswald did not act alone
This post was edited on 10/23/16 at 8:52 am
Posted on 10/23/16 at 8:52 am to The White Lobster
Wikileaks is dropping the SEC emails any day now! Saban directly implicated! O'Keefe with the undercover videos!
Posted on 10/23/16 at 8:52 am to GenesChin
quote:
No one is arguing that Alabama clearly gets a free pass
I think you mean:
"No one is arguing that Alabama clearly [doesn't] gets a free pass"
Some of the Bammer fans are already on here saying "neener neener, fuggit about it."
Posted on 10/23/16 at 8:53 am to WhiskeyPapa
Congrats. At least you succeeded at exposing your own weak reading comprehension. Hit on Noil was not targeting according to rules. Did not lead or hit with crown of his head, nor was the player defenseless.
This post was edited on 10/23/16 at 8:57 am
Posted on 10/23/16 at 8:55 am to StringedInstruments
quote:
Just watched the video. It was 100% targeting.
The byplay in that game yesterday between Verne, Gary and the SEC officals should alert everyone to the finger that tips the scale to Bammer on calls that should go against them but are just no-calls instead.
It's a finger to all the other teams.
Posted on 10/23/16 at 8:55 am to Decker
quote:And an interception return is not a "fast-paced play?"
could have gone either way. He was clearly trying to make a form tackle, as he wrapped up. A kickoff return is such a fast-paced play, it is difficult to avoid some helmet-to-helmet contact.
But TAMU player gets ejected while 'Bama player remains in the game. Hmmm.
This post was edited on 10/23/16 at 8:58 am
Posted on 10/23/16 at 8:57 am to Decker
The dishonest mainstream media won't say anything about this. Birmingham is so corrupt. We need change from the outside. It was so terrible what they did to Tennessee, they just stole the game from them.
Posted on 10/23/16 at 8:58 am to WhiskeyPapa
Always love waking up in the morning and hearing Tennessee fans melt. I'm guessing your assholes are still puckered after another beat down in that shite hole.
49-10. 10 in a row
49-10. 10 in a row
Posted on 10/23/16 at 8:58 am to TidalSurge1
quote:
Congrats. At least you succeeded at exposing your own weak reading comprehension.
I clearly comprehend that what the SEC office in Birmingham were represented to have said about the NCAA targeting rule was false.
Posted on 10/23/16 at 8:59 am to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
WhiskeyPapa
Haven't seen you around much in the last week or so.
Hurts says hello....
Posted on 10/23/16 at 8:59 am to WhiskeyPapa
Hmmm... WhiskeyPapa posted something I agree with. Do I upvote or downvote? Truly a paradox.
Downvoted.
Downvoted.
Posted on 10/23/16 at 8:59 am to WhiskeyPapa
Reviews should be made within the stadium and no alumnus should be anywhere near these decisions on or off the field.
Posted on 10/23/16 at 8:59 am to AggieHank86
He blind-sided him. It was the right call.
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News