Started By
Message
re: If LeCounte wanted to target the Auburn wr, he could.have killed him,
Posted on 10/5/20 at 10:50 pm to meansonny
Posted on 10/5/20 at 10:50 pm to meansonny
quote:
Dont create rules or ill intent when there are none.
Then never, ever allow the question of "intent" to enter into whether or not something is a penalty. A subjective standard exists for no other reason than to create a nonstandard rule.
quote:
Shoulder to shoulder
Not initiating at the head
Not launching
None of that is subjective
And none of those are "intent"
quote:
I don't think targeting is stupid.
Have to agree to disagree on that one. It's just a further nerfing of the game.
1
Posted on 10/6/20 at 6:27 am to FaCubeItches
quote:
quote:
Shoulder to shoulder
Not initiating at the head
Not launching
None of that is subjective
And none of those are "intent"
This is getting stupid.
You absolutely see intent through actions.
If I'm playing baseball and I intend to hit the ball to right field, I adjust my hands. If I'm a pitcher and I intend to throw a slider, I adjust my hands. Whether I'm successful or not has nothing to do with my intent which you can see through my actions.
Leading with shoulder. Not initiating at the head. Not launching. All of those show my intent to follow the rules. All of those reflect the coaching.
The targeting rules changed behavior. Kids and coaches dont want to break that rule. You can see the intent of the player by how they approach a receiver (head placement and launching)
This post was edited on 10/6/20 at 6:30 am
Posted on 10/7/20 at 8:30 am to meansonny
quote:
Not initiating at the head
And here is the first exemplar where subjectivity comes into play. The difference between aiming for a shoulder and aiming for a head is pretty small - especially at speed, compounded by factors like defenders won't always be able to take the best angle, or a tackle attempt may be a last-ditch effort at stopping a score, etc.
quote:
You absolutely see intent through actions.
If I'm playing baseball and I intend to hit the ball to right field, I adjust my hands. If I'm a pitcher and I intend to throw a slider, I adjust my hands. Whether I'm successful or not has nothing to do with my intent which you can see through my actions.
Ok, sticking with baseball - how about a pitch that strikes a batter in the head? What's the "intent" there? Was it an errant throw? A brushback that got a little too close? A deliberate attempt to injure?
There are plenty of laws in the justice system that have "intent" requirements. Guess what? One of the first things that happens is that legislatures and courts start creating alternatives to establishing "intent". It's ALWAYS a slippery slope
Posted on 10/7/20 at 10:00 am to FaCubeItches
quote:
Ok, sticking with baseball - how about a pitch that strikes a batter in the head? What's the "intent" there?
Here's a tip.
Fastball outside of the strike zone at the head is intentional (players who crowds the plate and leans over the plate are subject to unintentional).
Everything else is unintentional to injure.
I presume that you've played.
Fastball behind the hitters rear sends a message (intentional but not intent to injure).
Curve, change, slider may be intentional or unintentional but they sure arent with intent to injure.
Page 2 of 2
Latest Georgia News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News