Started By
Message
re: The targeting call on Battle last night...
Posted on 1/12/21 at 9:38 am to SummerOfGeorge
Posted on 1/12/21 at 9:38 am to SummerOfGeorge
If he didn't lower his head, he hits the helmet of the ball carrier... It's a lose lose either way.
1
Posted on 1/12/21 at 9:40 am to Sneaky__Sally
quote:
The rule was right as called - I think ejections should be revisited and consider intent and launch as a main factor.
Obviously ejections have not stopped the occurance.
if you go back and review the play, Battle had an opportunity to make a play on the ball or hit him lower as the receiver was juggling the ball. Hindsight is 20/20 and hard to make that judgement on a split second play.
Also these guys are trained on the rules. The receiver by definition was a defensless player so the defenders options were limited to begin with.
A poster above mentioned Chucky Mullins who had a instantaneous injury but ask the NFLPA about the chronic damage due to plays like that. See Junior Seau...
Posted on 1/12/21 at 9:41 am to bogeypro
quote:
If he didn't lower his head, he hits the helmet of the ball carrier... It's a lose lose either way
He still hit the helmet of the receiver. He hit him right in the facemask.
This post was edited on 1/12/21 at 9:43 am
Posted on 1/12/21 at 9:46 am to Goldtide1
He used he helmet as a weapon. Enough said
Posted on 1/12/21 at 9:50 am to Goldtide1
quote:
The targeting call on Battle last night
Was the right call and a perfect example of why the RULE exist.
Head up, lead with shoulder and hit mid-section.
Posted on 1/12/21 at 9:51 am to BorrisMart
quote:
So now, the targeting rules are "problematic"?
I didn't think the targeting call on the Clemson linebacker against Fields should have been called either. Had Fields not made a sideways move, it would have been a perfect shoulder tackle. Defenses are handcuffed. Even the ruffing call Barmore got for bumping Fields was stupid. He clearly added extra floppage. The TE that we "targeted" was clearly trying to play act that he was hurt just to draw attention to it. It is ridiculous what they are doing to this sport
Posted on 1/12/21 at 9:51 am to GooseCreekGamecock
quote:
Here's the bottom line. Football is a sport predicated on violent collisions. You can't legislate safety into a violent activity
Also, the rules are designed to enhance offensive production, thus keeping millennials, etc, effectively engaged in the game. IE: note facemask penalties only called on defensive players. Note the lack of targeting calls on RB's who lower their heads and launch into a defender.
Should the rule be changed/modified again? Intent is vague and means you have to get inside a dudes head to know what he was thinking. Using the pro rule where there is no ejection would be a step forward.
I personally don't think that the hit Battle made was intentionally high and don't recall that he launched. Bama already had a comfortable lead so the uproar from the masses wasn't nearly as loud as it would have been in a closer, more competitive game.
So here's what happens in real-time, emotionally. A key player is in your sights and you have the leverage to do serious damage. Should I lower my head and take him out of a game that means the world to me and get a 15-yard penalty for my trouble, or should I strike him like the headhunting cheap artist I imagine I am and get thrown out of the game for my efforts?
Getting your azz thrown out is a deterrent. And time after time we keep seeing in the NFL, headhunters, cheapshot artist, assassins, who have zero fear of a 15-yard penalty in trade for a star player getting carted off.
And for all you fainthearted fans, go read up on "Bounty Gate." Seriously hurting players have always been a thing in football.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News