Started By
Message
re: Saban: "It Was a Great Hit"
Posted on 10/25/16 at 12:44 am to narddogg81
Posted on 10/25/16 at 12:44 am to narddogg81
quote:
well considering wilson didn't use the crown of his helmet, it was a good hit.
Seriously?
quote:
Also, there is another part to the targeting against a non-defenseless player that says other factors have to be present, such as launching.
There are 4 additional factors given by the rule, at least one of which must be present for a targeting call under rule 9-1-3.
quote:
(Rule 9-1-3) Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet 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. (Rule 9-6) (A.R. 9-1-3-I)
quote:
TARGETING INDICATORS Risk of a targeting foul is high with one or more of these:
? Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make contact in the head or neck area
? A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with contact at the head or neck area—even though one or both feet are still on the ground
? Leading with helmet, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with contact at the head or neck area
? Lowering the head before attacking by initiating contact with the crown of the helmet
As you can see in the gif below, Wilson's hit definitely meets additional factor #3, leading with helmet to attack head or neck are, and arguably meets number 4 as well, as you can see his head lower right before making contact with Noil's face.
It was definitely targeting, exactly as spelled out in black and white in rule 9-1-3.
This post was edited on 10/25/16 at 12:46 am
4
Posted on 10/25/16 at 12:51 am to AggieLandman
I like how you pick a still to try and make it look like the crown, and yet you include the gif that makes it clear it wasnt the crown but the side of the helmet. You should have stuck with the still
This post was edited on 10/25/16 at 1:01 am
Posted on 10/25/16 at 12:58 am to AggieLandman
Funniest thing I find about this topic.
Refs on the field didn't think it was targeting.
The SEC office didn't think it was targeting.
The players didn't think it was targeting.
The coaches didn't think it was targeting.
And yet, everyone is damn convinced it was targeting and it's a big conspiracy to cover it up.
Nobody wants to admit he wasn't a defenseless player and that it was just football.
Cry more I guess.
Refs on the field didn't think it was targeting.
The SEC office didn't think it was targeting.
The players didn't think it was targeting.
The coaches didn't think it was targeting.
And yet, everyone is damn convinced it was targeting and it's a big conspiracy to cover it up.
Nobody wants to admit he wasn't a defenseless player and that it was just football.
Cry more I guess.
Posted on 10/25/16 at 1:03 am to 3down10
What they need if they are going to have this rule is have a requirement that all helmets have markings on them to clearly denote the crown area. Then its a simple matter of crown or not crown
Posted on 10/25/16 at 1:04 am to 3down10
quote:
Nobody wants to admit he wasn't a defenseless player and that it was just football.
There are two different targeting rules. One requires the player receiving the hit to be defenseless, the other does not. We are discussing the one that does not.
Posted on 10/25/16 at 1:08 am to narddogg81
quote:
I like how you pick a still to try and make it look like the crown, and yet you include the gif that makes it clear it wasnt the crown but the side of the helmet. You should have stuck with the still
Pretty clear in the gif that initial contact occurred on the white line that runs down the center of the Alabama helmet. Keep grasping at straws if you like, but the rule has been laid out in its entirety with visual evidence of each element being satisfied. It was targeting.
Posted on 10/25/16 at 1:17 am to 14&Counting
Most of you tards that were here weeks ago bitching about Arden Key's hit are defending this shite which is by far worse. I swear some of you gumps are brain dead.
Posted on 10/25/16 at 1:28 am to AggieLandman
quote:
There are two different targeting rules. One requires the player receiving the hit to be defenseless, the other does not. We are discussing the one that does not.
The way you are reading the rules, only 1 exists and the one about the defenseless player is meaningless.
If this is not the case, please show me an example of when the other rule allows for such a hit, or anything beyond the rule you want to focus on as a means of ignoring the other.
Posted on 10/25/16 at 1:33 am to 3down10
Some leeway is always given for kick returns.
Just the way it is.
Just the way it is.
Posted on 10/25/16 at 1:45 am to BigOrangeBri
Forehead tip of helmet is not the crown. Crown is top center area. Hitting with crown is illegal primarily to protect the one doing the hitting. When you hit with front of helmet, the hitter's body will bow backward absorbing the shock of impact. But when you hit with very top of helmet, there is greater shock to the head of the hitter. Running backs get hit helmet to helmet like that freqently. According to the rules it should not have been called as targeting. It was reviewed and determined that there was no targeting.
This post was edited on 10/25/16 at 1:46 am
Posted on 10/25/16 at 2:21 am to AggieLandman
Another thing being ignored is that you can clearly see Mack squaring up, putting his shoulder into the hit, and trying to wrap up the ball carrier.
Yes, the helmet was part of the contact, but it was absolutely an attempt at a form tackle. The game moves fast and shite happens.
Also, holding on #26 there.
Yes, the helmet was part of the contact, but it was absolutely an attempt at a form tackle. The game moves fast and shite happens.
Also, holding on #26 there.
This post was edited on 10/25/16 at 2:23 am
Posted on 10/25/16 at 2:32 am to 3down10
quote:
The way you are reading the rules, only 1 exists and the one about the defenseless player is meaningless.
If this is not the case, please show me an example of when the other rule allows for such a hit, or anything beyond the rule you want to focus on as a means of ignoring the other.
Rule 9-1-3 exists. Rule 9-1-4 also exists.
This is not a matter of opinion or subjective interpretation. There are two targeting rules. If they were meant to be read in tandem as a one rule, there would only be one rule.
Since there are two rules, with two different sets of criteria, it's clear that there are two rules.
Rule 9-1-3 revolves around leading with the crown of the helmet, and has nothing to do with whether or not the targeted player is defenseless.
Rule 9-1-4 revolves around hitting defenseless players. It does not matter if the contact is initiated with the crown of the helmet or not.
I'm not sure how that distinction can be made any more clearly.
Posted on 10/25/16 at 3:35 am to Aggie Fishfinder
Just like Aggie benefited on the same call vs VOLS
Posted on 10/25/16 at 7:21 am to 14&Counting
Here is the operative SEC rule, especially in Birmingham:
If leading with the crown and Alabama is defending (also known as player is not defenseless), it isn't targeting.
If leading with the crown and Alabama has the ball (also known as player is defenseless), it's targeting.
If leading with the crown and Alabama is defending (also known as player is not defenseless), it isn't targeting.
If leading with the crown and Alabama has the ball (also known as player is defenseless), it's targeting.
Posted on 10/25/16 at 7:36 am to Aggie Fishfinder
quote:
Nope. He just benefits from selective enforcement.
quote:
Aggie Fishfinder
Posted on 10/25/16 at 7:37 am to harmonics
quote:
Also, holding on #26 there.
Posted on 10/25/16 at 7:39 am to Captain Crown
quote:
Until it's one of his players
then he will cry like a little pussy. he did it at lsu. nothing new. he is a hypocrite
Posted on 10/25/16 at 7:46 am to narddogg81
quote:
target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown
Was the hit initiated with the crown of the helmet? no.
Posted on 10/25/16 at 7:52 am to 14&Counting
Bottom line: football the way it used to be played is no more. With all of the concussion litigation the NFL and CFB has become proactive (in some degree a good thing) but it cheapens the game in my opinion. Put flags on the boys and before you pull it ask the player if their feelings will be hurt first. Football of yesteryear was a thing of beauty.
Posted on 10/25/16 at 7:52 am to Bham4Tide
quote:
Many of you guys are some the biggest bunch of whiney bitches I have ever seen. So funny.
Was this thread not started by bama fan?
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News