Started By
Message
re: Was the targeting call against RSJ (TAMU) the correct call?
Posted on 10/5/15 at 8:11 pm to ryanthe4aces
Posted on 10/5/15 at 8:11 pm to ryanthe4aces
If you want to see what targeting looks like, Karl Joseph targeted DeDe Westbrook on this play Saturday. It was not called on the field, nor was it reviewed. On the replay, the crown of Joseph's helmet hit Westbrook in the neck and jaw and his head clearly snapped back. It was all helmet to helmet. That's targeting.
Targeting
Targeting
This post was edited on 10/5/15 at 8:13 pm
0
Posted on 10/5/15 at 8:13 pm to shanklin12
quote:correct. it definitely was helmet to helmet. one angle shows it very clearly. what i saw that i don't think anyone has mentioned is that rsj didn't have to move. he ran towards the defenseless player and launched, albeit slightly. according to the rule, he could have positioned himself, stood still and still delivered a block for the runner.
By the letter of the rule, it was the right call.
quote:the rule errs on the side of caution which is the climate with all the recent injuries. hard to argue with. safety is paramount.
My issue is the rule
Posted on 10/5/15 at 8:14 pm to bfniii
Posted on 10/5/15 at 8:16 pm to EKG
typical rant. use an emoticon when you're out of brains
Posted on 10/5/15 at 8:17 pm to bfniii
Nah.
I was genuinely laughing at your usage of the descriptors, definitely and clearly.
I was genuinely laughing at your usage of the descriptors, definitely and clearly.
Posted on 10/5/15 at 8:23 pm to bfniii
quote:
rsj didn't have to move.
So what now players are just supposed to stop and not play, he didn't lower his head and launch, he made a blindside block, albeit a vicious one, but it was just a blindside block.
Posted on 10/5/15 at 8:24 pm to Farmer1906
Posted on 10/5/15 at 8:25 pm to EKG
quote:you must not have watched the replay. i didn't say anything that was untrue. i understand you might not like it but, that's a different situation.
EKG
Posted on 10/5/15 at 8:29 pm to Agforlife
quote:1. that's not what i said.
players are just supposed to stop and not play
2. according to the rule, he didn't have to "target" the defenseless player. had he stood still, there's no way he gets flagged and you know it.
3. standing still doesn't equate to uselessness.
quote:actually the replay shows he did.
he didn't lower his head and launch
1. he ran towards the player
2. he lowered his helmet. the helmets made contact first.
3. he definitely launched into the defender.
quote:according to the prior iteration of the rule, you would be correct. i don't necessarily agree with the new rule but, i do understand the reason and don't like seeing players get hurt.
he made a blindside block, albeit a vicious one, but it was just a blindside block.
Posted on 10/5/15 at 8:39 pm to ryanthe4aces
It was the right call.
Posted on 10/5/15 at 8:55 pm to bfniii
Helmets did not contact first
Posted on 10/5/15 at 8:56 pm to ryanthe4aces
Shoulder to shoulder.
Not targeting.
quote:
No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder.
RSJ's hit was not targeted at head or neck area, nor was it initiated to head or neck area. Incidental contact between helmets during the course of a legal hit falls outside the scope of the rule.
Bad call.
Posted on 10/5/15 at 8:59 pm to GetmorewithLes
I didn't mind the call. He could have lead with his hands like an OL block. He didn't need a kill shot to block the guy. I understand the reason for this rule, so I can't say it was wrong.
I do believe the rule and outcome sucks. The whole thing needs to change. Too often a game is ruined by having a key defender removed.
I do believe the rule and outcome sucks. The whole thing needs to change. Too often a game is ruined by having a key defender removed.
Posted on 10/5/15 at 9:00 pm to ryanthe4aces
10 years ago it would have been a good block. Now, it's targeting. Bryant popped right back up and maybe that should have been in consideration. But RSJ left his feet and it was a high block. He should have went lower. I'd been ok if it was a no call. But if a WR gets protection from targeting, he better be ready for that type call against for delivering a similar hit.
But I dont' care either way bc we fricking lost.
But I dont' care either way bc we fricking lost.
Posted on 10/5/15 at 9:01 pm to Sig
In that situation you lead with you hands you are breaking a bone in your hand or your wrists. That is a no no at full speed from any distance
Posted on 10/5/15 at 9:02 pm to AgBQ00
Break your bones? Do you have vagina hands?
Posted on 10/5/15 at 9:03 pm to Sig
Do you have a clue to the force two guys that size running that fast create when they collide. I had a friend in high school snap an arm trying to block someone in the manner you described.
Posted on 10/5/15 at 9:06 pm to Sig
Please explain why the defender was defenseless in this situation.
Posted on 10/5/15 at 9:15 pm to ryanthe4aces
Bad Call
Posted on 10/5/15 at 9:17 pm to Fmedic08
quote:anyone receiving a blindside block is by definition defenseless
Please explain why the defender was defenseless in this situation.
Page 2 of 6
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News