Started By
Message
1
Posted on 10/24/16 at 8:32 am to Wallacewade04
quote:
Tennessee fans really need that narrative to get over the shellacking we just handed them at home, huh?
You guys in offseason mode already?
I didn't think anything of it -- until I heard the SEC officials in Birmingham misrepresent the way the rules read because CBS was calling it a horrible no-call.
Posted on 10/24/16 at 8:34 am to Jobu93
quote:
It's a missed call on a rule that continues to evolve. Really nothing more.
That is not the issue at all. The issue is the SEC officials misrepreseting how the rule reads.
Posted on 10/24/16 at 8:47 am to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
This clear bias for Alabama ought to be a really big deal.
Again I keep asking why it isnt. Why don't the 13 other SEC ADs do anything about it?
Posted on 10/24/16 at 8:51 am to WhiskeyPapa
Dude, you're really stuck on that, aren't you?
Just because the helmets meet, does not make it targeting. He was not defenseless. Get over it.
Just because the helmets meet, does not make it targeting. He was not defenseless. Get over it.
Posted on 10/24/16 at 8:55 am to Mindless Zombie
It's not targeting unless Saban says it is
Posted on 10/24/16 at 8:58 am to Guitarcheese
Just want to chime in and say, I'm sorry all of your schools are poor and can't afford to buy the refs, the SEC office, the TV commentators and the United States Government.
Posted on 10/24/16 at 8:59 am to KyleOrtonsMustache
Because Speedy Noil is a bad person.
Posted on 10/24/16 at 8:59 am to KyleOrtonsMustache
Because Speedy Noil is a bad person.
Posted on 10/24/16 at 9:03 am to elit4ce05
quote:
Just because the helmets meet, does not make it targeting. He was not defenseless. Get over it.
There are two rules, I believe you are hung up on one of them
quote:
Targeting and Initiating Contact With the Crown of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3)
No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.
quote:
Targeting and Initiating Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player (Rule 9-1-4)
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. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 2-27-14)
Posted on 10/24/16 at 9:09 am to DeathPenalty
What is this ....page 10 of arguing on this topic? So there's apparent doubt amongst this esteemed community with all the time in the world to review it.
The rule:
Bolding is mine. the hit was egregious, any competent official with access to the video could see it met the letter of the rule, but if there was any doubt on this, due to the violent contact to the head....it's still a foul by rule.
edit: Didn't mean to copy/paste rule 9-1-4 also. As has been mentioned that rule relates to defenseless players. The bold portion is what rules in this case.
The rule:
quote:
Targeting and Initiating Contact With the Crown of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3)
No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.
Targeting and Initiating Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player (Rule 9-1-4)
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. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 2-27-14)
Bolding is mine. the hit was egregious, any competent official with access to the video could see it met the letter of the rule, but if there was any doubt on this, due to the violent contact to the head....it's still a foul by rule.
edit: Didn't mean to copy/paste rule 9-1-4 also. As has been mentioned that rule relates to defenseless players. The bold portion is what rules in this case.
This post was edited on 10/24/16 at 9:33 am
Posted on 10/24/16 at 9:13 am to NYCAuburn
no, you are trying to mix the two.
Defenseless and not defenseless. So anything rules that says "defenseless" can be tossed.
No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet
"This specifies a hit with the top of the helmet, but not necessarily a hit to the opponent’s helmet".
“What replay has to decipher, and use judgment if you will, that contact that then resulted to the head was it incidental or was it forcible,” Shaw said.
The End
Defenseless and not defenseless. So anything rules that says "defenseless" can be tossed.
No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet
"This specifies a hit with the top of the helmet, but not necessarily a hit to the opponent’s helmet".
“What replay has to decipher, and use judgment if you will, that contact that then resulted to the head was it incidental or was it forcible,” Shaw said.
The End
Posted on 10/24/16 at 9:17 am to elit4ce05
quote:
no, you are trying to mix the two.
What?
quote:
Targeting and Initiating Contact With the Crown of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3) No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.
there is nothing about defenseless in this rule.
You said it wasnt targeting because he wasnt defenseless, that isnt true.
This post was edited on 10/24/16 at 9:18 am
Posted on 10/24/16 at 9:30 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
"This specifies a hit with the top of the helmet, but not necessarily a hit to the opponent’s helmet".
The crown has been defined: from top of the facemark to the top of the helmet.
Posted on 10/24/16 at 9:34 am to BarnHater
Because Birmingham.
Posted on 10/24/16 at 9:36 am to elit4ce05
quote:
Just because the helmets meet, does not make it targeting. He was not defenseless. Get over it.
It was absolutely targeting under the rule.
"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."
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. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:
Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area
A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground
Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet"
So when the SEC officials told the CBS crew that Noil was not defenseless so it wasn't targeting, they misrepresented how the rule reads.
Posted on 10/24/16 at 9:39 am to WhiskeyPapa
holy shite
someone is melting over a call on special teams return
someone is melting over a call on special teams return
Posted on 10/24/16 at 9:40 am to NYCAuburn
"This specifies a hit with the top of the helmet, but not necessarily a hit to the opponent’s helmet".
NOT defenseless...NOT crown (top)
quote:
Targeting and Initiating Contact With the Crown of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3) No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.
NOT defenseless...NOT crown (top)
quote:
“What replay has to decipher, and use judgment if you will, that contact that then resulted to the head was it incidental or was it forcible,” Shaw said.
This post was edited on 10/24/16 at 9:45 am
Posted on 10/24/16 at 9:43 am to elit4ce05
thanks for clarifying it was targeting... Your bolding shows it nicely.
However back to your previous argument, do you concede you were wrong?
However back to your previous argument, do you concede you were wrong?
Posted on 10/24/16 at 9:47 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
There are two rules, I believe you are hung up on one of them
This discussion still going?
I think the operative word in the 9-1-3 rule is "shall target" which means intentional and I don't think Mack intentionally targeted Noil by hitting a punt returner in possession of the ball and making a football move. However, it errs on the side of caution when saying if there is any question its a foul. Even though the paly was reviewable the call on the field was a non-target so it would have to have convincing evidence to get it overturned
I agree it's a bit ambiguous.
Page 9 of 12
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News