Started By
Message
re: So will the SEC officiating address the targeting no call in the NC game or not?
Posted on 1/9/19 at 10:48 am to RebelRye
Posted on 1/9/19 at 10:48 am to RebelRye
quote:
That's not true. There have been plenty of targeting calls against defenders when the runner has lower his head and caused the helmet to helmet. They treat it as leading with the helmet therefore targeting.
We’ve seen bad targettiing calls by refs. They leave the rule ambiguous enough to justify doing whatever the hell they want by saying “includes but us not limited to”.
This wasn’t targeting: 1) no defenseless runner, 2) no launching 3)crouching - yes, but no vertical excursion of force. 4) the runner dropped his head first while accelerating. By definition, the contact was then not excessive or beyond the scope of a reasonable tackle.
This post was edited on 1/9/19 at 11:00 am
1
Posted on 1/9/19 at 10:50 am to ceretonia
quote:
“includes but us not limited to”.
Posted on 1/9/19 at 11:20 am to DawgsLife
The problem with this thought process is that it completely erases the sheer definition of targeting which is leading with the crown of the helmet. Even if the runner does not dip down, and the defender hits him in the stomach or chest, it is still targeting because he led with the crown. The rule is not in place to just protect the runner or QB but also to protect the defender from head/neck/spinal injuries.
I agree that the consistency of the call or non call needs to be addressed. As well as the punishment for the penalty.
I agree that the consistency of the call or non call needs to be addressed. As well as the punishment for the penalty.
Posted on 1/9/19 at 11:23 am to Lahurricane08
quote:
you should not be penalized for a helmet to helmet hit when the person you are tackling low falls into your helmet OR lowers their helmet to try and tank the hit/tackle...
well said!
Posted on 1/9/19 at 11:24 am to GumboPot
Which one was targeting? They both lead with the crown.
See how fricked up that rule is.
See how fricked up that rule is.
Posted on 1/9/19 at 11:25 am to stbpike24
quote:Your entire post makes it clear that you have no idea what “the definition” of targeting actually entails.
the sheer definition of targeting which is leading with the crown of the helmet.
Posted on 1/9/19 at 11:25 am to KaiserSoze99
go back to leather helmets...if you are crazy enough to lower the head then, so be it!
Posted on 1/9/19 at 11:30 am to GumboPot
Just watched the Delpit play for the first time (since that's the angle you're working) and there is one major difference in the two. The receiver Delpit hit is a defenseless player. Lawerence had made himself a runner on this play and therefore was not defenseless. That's a pretty clear difference in the two plays and one any person who watches football recognizes immediately. I'm not getting into what is and isn't targeting, or what should or shouldn't be targeting, because it seems nobody knows, but there is one major difference in the two plays and a defenseless player always raises the odds of targeting being called.
This post was edited on 1/9/19 at 11:35 am
Posted on 1/9/19 at 11:32 am to ceretonia
quote:
Your entire post makes it clear that you have no idea what “the definition” of targeting actually entails.
Everytime someone gets hit in the helmet LSU screams targeting now. No matter the circumstances.
Posted on 1/9/19 at 11:35 am to stbpike24
quote:
The problem with this thought process is that it completely erases the sheer definition of targeting which is leading with the crown of the helmet.
I understand what you are saying, but the intent is "leading with the crown of the helmet to hit a player in the head, neck or shoulder area". They don't really expect players to try to tackle someone with a chest bump.
Posted on 1/9/19 at 11:35 am to stbpike24
From the rule book,
quote:
“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.
Posted on 1/9/19 at 11:36 am to GumboPot
Mutual targetting. Double ejection!
Posted on 1/9/19 at 11:37 am to DawgsLife
quote:
They don't really expect players to try to tackle someone with a chest bump
Speaking of tackling, can we all agree that its annoying as frick seeing players try to strip a ball instead of tackling?
Posted on 1/9/19 at 11:54 am to PBD4BAMA
I dont have statistics, but I'm pretty sure a low hit (waist area) is less likely to injure the tackler/player being tackled.
Posted on 1/9/19 at 11:57 am to bigpapamac
I would agree that Delpit was targeting, White was not, Lawrence was not. Also, UCF wr Davis should have gotten flagged for taunting after contributing to the Alexander ejection.
Still think Dantzler should have been tossed out for the hit in tua. There is a ruling on almost the exact situation per rule book:
Still think Dantzler should have been tossed out for the hit in tua. There is a ruling on almost the exact situation per rule book:
quote:
Approved ruling 9-1-3 Forward passer A12 inside the tackle box is looking for an open receiver. Before or just as he releases the ball, A12 is hit from the side at the ribs, thigh or knee by B79, who dives forward and leads with the crown (top) of his helmet. RULING: Foul by B79 for targeting his opponent and making forcible contact with the top of his helmet. 15 yards, first down. B79 is automatically disqualified. [Cited by 9-1-3]
Posted on 1/9/19 at 11:58 am to bamaboy87
quote:
Speaking of tackling, can we all agree that its annoying as frick seeing players try to strip a ball instead of tackling?
It's maddening to me, because I played in the day when form tackling and locking up a player was taught. now coaches teach them to get the turnover and strip the ball. Then kids are bringing into the ESPN hit where they launch themselves like missiles and try to knock a ball carrier down. I bet teams give up an additional 40-50 yards a game minimum trying to strip the ball while they are still running down the field.
Posted on 1/9/19 at 11:59 am to GumboPot
They ban Devin White from the NFL if he does that.
Posted on 1/9/19 at 12:05 pm to Lahurricane08
quote:
ABSOLUTE LACK OF CONSISTENCY
I would wager that if someone looked at the percentages, one would see that the frequency of targeting calls dropped dramatically during the bowl season. Why is that? Did everyone learn how to tackle properly after November?
There was small uptick in calls on Jan 1st (refs going after LSU). But, it dropped off again for the Clemson Bama game.
Posted on 1/9/19 at 12:28 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
Can't call that because the runner (QB) lowered his head. Had Lawrence not lowered his head the defensive player would have hit him in the chest or stomach area.
This isn't how they enforce the rule but it is how it is written. Worth noting Tua got hit with the crown in the waist on a potential targeting no-call as well.
This post was edited on 1/9/19 at 12:32 pm
Posted on 1/9/19 at 12:29 pm to TDFreak
quote:
I would wager that if someone looked at the percentages, one would see that the frequency of targeting calls dropped dramatically during the bowl season. Why is that? Did everyone learn how to tackle properly after November?
There was small uptick in calls on Jan 1st (refs going after LSU). But, it dropped off again for the Clemson Bama game.
Big games are usually full of no-calls because refs dont want to interfere
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News