Started By
Message
If LeCounte wanted to target the Auburn wr, he could.have killed him,
Posted on 10/3/20 at 10:56 pm
Posted on 10/3/20 at 10:56 pm
He adjusted with his shoulder on a play low to the ground.
That's bullshite SEC Office.
That's bullshite SEC Office.
4
Posted on 10/4/20 at 7:34 am to lewis and herschel
They had to call it with the rules as they are. With that said, the rules should take into account gravity and intent. Lacounte was making a play on the WR he fell on a key play. His shoulder hot the WR in the head when he was “defenseless” but the defense is also defenseless in those situations.
Posted on 10/4/20 at 8:11 am to Peter Buck
Seriously. The WR should just run backwards and they’re “defenseless”. Stupid rule
Posted on 10/4/20 at 8:13 am to lewis and herschel
I mean, I don’t like that that’s the rule, but it is the rule.
LeCounte should have had field presence to know that the receiver didn’t have the first down. He didn’t have to separate that ball. He’s worth more to the team than 15 yards of distance on a field goal in a 24-point game.
They didn’t get the TD though, we won, and LeCounte’s back next week. All’s well that ends well.
LeCounte should have had field presence to know that the receiver didn’t have the first down. He didn’t have to separate that ball. He’s worth more to the team than 15 yards of distance on a field goal in a 24-point game.
They didn’t get the TD though, we won, and LeCounte’s back next week. All’s well that ends well.
Posted on 10/4/20 at 8:58 am to Peter Buck
quote:
His shoulder hot the WR in the head when he was “defenseless” but the defense is also defenseless in those situations.
To be fair to Lecounte, the brunt of the impact was shoulder to shoulder. I dont deny impact to the head. But it definitely was not a clean head shot. Roman Harper and Chris Doering went off on the rule in the nightly recap show. They said that the rule was intended to change defensive behavior and it is successful in that. The rule needs to be reevaluated for intent, because it is not a fair rule (both in language written and punishment) for the defense.
Posted on 10/4/20 at 9:28 am to meansonny
Yep. He hit his shoulder with initial contact.
Posted on 10/4/20 at 9:52 am to djsdawg
Only a.dumb mutherfricker would say anything other than he lead with his shoulder into wr shoulder. Helmet contact was incidental as the shoulder is connected to it.
20 years ago, that player would be done as he would have hit him square in the back of the helmet.
20 years ago, that player would be done as he would have hit him square in the back of the helmet.
Posted on 10/4/20 at 12:13 pm to meansonny
quote:
The rule needs to be reevaluated for intent, because it is not a fair rule (both in language written and punishment) for the defense.
Not sure that putting a purely subjective element like "intent" into a rule - especially one for a penalty with significant ability to change a game - is going to be helpful. Best case scenario, it renders the penalty completely arbitrary; worst case scenario, games would be a lot easier to fix.
Posted on 10/4/20 at 1:19 pm to FaCubeItches
quote:
subjective element like "intent" into a rule -
If you lead with the shoulder and initially hit the shoulder, those are not subjective but do play into the intent of the defender.
Posted on 10/4/20 at 1:39 pm to lewis and herschel
Alright. I’m going to play devils advocate.
The receiver was clearly falling down and was almost to his knees when the ball got there. The shot came from behind so he was defenseless.
Also, Lecounte made enough contact with the back of his head to blow his mouthpiece 3 yards back upfield.
Blind, hard hit to the head against a defenseless player who was practically already down. Why is that not targeting?
The receiver was clearly falling down and was almost to his knees when the ball got there. The shot came from behind so he was defenseless.
Also, Lecounte made enough contact with the back of his head to blow his mouthpiece 3 yards back upfield.
Blind, hard hit to the head against a defenseless player who was practically already down. Why is that not targeting?
Posted on 10/4/20 at 1:47 pm to SquatchDawg
quote:
Blind, hard hit to the head against a defenseless player who was practically already down. Why is that not targeting?
He isnt down without the football possession.
Hit was to the shoulder. Caused by the shoulder. Whiplash could eject a mouthpiece. Contact to the head was made by the shoulder as incidental.
The only way Lecounte could tackle any lower would be to launch himself. That would be more dangerous for both Lecounte and the receiver (less control upon target area of impact and is more commonly associated with leading with the helmet)
Posted on 10/4/20 at 2:47 pm to meansonny
Again, If LeCounte was heading hunting, it would have been so much worse.
He hit him the only way he could without absolutely blowing him up.
He hit him the only way he could without absolutely blowing him up.
Posted on 10/4/20 at 6:10 pm to meansonny
Gotcha. Sounds good. I also thought it was a clean hit.
Than goodness it was the first half so it won’t impact the TN game.
Than goodness it was the first half so it won’t impact the TN game.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 3:45 am to meansonny
quote:
If you lead with the shoulder and initially hit the shoulder, those are not subjective but do play into the intent of the defender.
And a referee could also infer intent to deliberately injure based on the fact that the guy was already going down, etc.
Rules are best when they are bright lines: something either is or isn't. Once you put in subjective elements, it gets complicated. It would make defensive players more hesitant, because they wouldn't know how any given official would call the "intent" behind a hit.
The ultimate problem is that targeting is a stupid rule. I understand that the idea is to make the sport safer, but it is an inherently unsafe sport, as all contact sports are.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 6:45 am to FaCubeItches
quote:
deliberately injure based on the fact that the guy was already going down, etc.
You cant be down without the ball.
The play isnt dead because you are sitting on your arse.
The defender has a right to the ball. The defender has a right to separate the ball from the receiver.
Dont create rules or ill intent when there are none.
quote:
Once you put in subjective elements
Shoulder to shoulder
Not initiating at the head
Not launching
None of that is subjective
quote:
The ultimate problem is that targeting is a stupid rule
I don't think targeting is stupid.
What is stupid is that it takes 20 years to develop a common sense rule (same with what defines a reception)
Posted on 10/5/20 at 6:55 am to FaCubeItches
The line is already murky with the term defenseless and the additional rules that penalize shoulder contact to the head. I get the “safety” aspects, yet, the ref should have the ability to add a falling player and where the initial contact took place. For what it is worth, catching a ball over the middle is inherently unsafe. That’s football.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 8:37 am to Peter Buck
The Wr lowered his helmet into RC.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 12:04 pm to lewis and herschel
Did RLC get disqualified in the first or second half?
Posted on 10/5/20 at 12:06 pm to lambertdawg
End of 1st so he is good
Posted on 10/5/20 at 12:31 pm to lewis and herschel
Im just glad the player is ok. If Lecounte did that to me I would be dead.
Page 1 of 2
Latest Georgia News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News