Molly has been top of the heap for a while, IMO. Although this picture makes it appear she’s lost weight she didn’t need to lose.
Any chance we could have her weigh in on the importance of the upward thrust?
OT: The ASU vs. Texas non-targeting call...
- Thread starter ttowncoug
- Start date
Any chance we could have her weigh in on the importance of the upward thrust?
eh... everyone cares about targeting at all times. This isn't a shitty missed DPI call or holding call. There is still an ejection associated with it, correct? That could have serious consequences; there needs to be unanimity and comprehension across the board on this issue. 90 is a prime example - he states that because the experts don't mention intent and an indicator that, somehow, the rule is wrong or misunderstood and not the other way around with the "experts."
Its kinda indicative of a lot of what goes on in this country with automatic defaulting to "experts" who can be, and sometimes are, wrong. At least according to the rule(s) and how they are currently written.
And it may very well be true - the defacto rule of targeting may omit the indicator (honestly, its the first time I'd heard of it in discussion about the targeting rule, which is surprising since it was the P12's most popular call for a few years), but that doesn't mean that its correct vis a vis what the rule book says.
Are you safe? Has Loyal kidnapped you for trafficking purposes?
You can call 911 and order a pepperoni pizza and they can come help you...
Like a 9.9 but there's a .1 I have to deduct due to that "Boston" look. I don't know how to explain it.
According to Wikipedia, Molly lives in Seattle with her husband and two children. I don't mind the two children, but if she wants to date me, the husband has got to go.
Suudy,
There is no way that is not targeting. The reason part of the rule states they don't want you to use the crown the head is not to protect the offensive player, but the defensive player. If CougEd is coming through the line and shows his blazing speed, and sponge lowers his head to tackle him and hit him in the thigh with the crown of his helmet, is that targeting?
In the ASU game the player went head to head with the ASU player. According to the rule, you cannot hit a defenseless player in the head or neck area.
This call isn't even close. It wasn't called because of the power of the SEC.
Read the bolded part I posted about attacking: “a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking.”
I didn’t see the Texas player taking aim much less attacking. I saw the contact as incidental. Same with your example.
Yep yep yep.
Also, a must-see is the non-call against ASU for an egregious targeting. Click on the link and scroll down to the clip. Why no outrage there? Because it was earlier in the game, that's why.
Hey, Ed, when is your first referee’s clinic? Have you signed up yet?
Don’t fret when your first games assigned are in the junior league 8-10
ALL the parts of targeting must be present. Being defenseless is only one part. Helmet to helmet is an other. Taking aim for the purposes of attacking is another.
I don’t see all the elements present, specifically attacking.
Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet
ARTICLE 3 No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of their helmet. The crown of the helmet is the top segment of the helmet; namely, the circular area defined by a 6-inch radius from the apex (top) of the helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below) When in question, it is a foul (Rule9-6) (AR 9-1-3-I).
Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player
ARTICLE 4 No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul(Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6) (AR 9-1-4-I-VI).
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 their 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
Some people here seem to be overlooking the fact that the rule talks about TWO diferent ways that targeting can occur, and simply want to focus on "crown of the helmet". Please note all the different ways that targeting can occur, such as shoulder, forearm, fist, hand, or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the "head and neck area".
I saw the replays in the game and there clearly appeared to be forcible contact in the tackle to the head and neck area to me. Unfortunately, I haven't seen any replay on the internet that doesn't jump around and/or be so fuzzy when enlarged as to be useless for analysis.
But, whatever..... the rule is a mess and somehow needs to be simplified/clarified for players benefit as well as for coaches, officials, broadcast crew, and fans/alums.
And I didn’t think that was targeting. He was playing the ball and wasn’t even looking at the guy. If his buddy hadn’t picked it he’s knocking the ball away. If you’re watching and making a play on the ball and not even looking at the opponent, not targeting. It looked to me like an awkward play on the ball not an intentional shot on the receiver 🤷
What’s always lost in these is how fast these happen in real speed. Why Id be fine if neither of these was targeting and the rule required obvious intention to knockout the opposing player, which I don’t see in either of these.
you know it when you see it and it’s usually obvious in full speed.
And you're still missing that there are three criteria that have to be met in order to be targeting, not just forcible contact to the head.
Wait...what three criteria? In the section posted above it mentions "at least one criteria" detailed in "Note 1, see below"
Having initially belied targeting was going to be called (not having the actual rule in front of me) upon further review that Texas guy didn't "launch", "crouch", "lower", or "lead". And I certainly didn't see intent to harm. The receiver was "defenseless" so I expected a call on that at a minimum. Maybe that is just an NFL thing.
College does seem to be calling these a lot less than they used to, however. That's all I have to say about that
That may be true, but to the point of the commentators, if this was an October game that’s targeting 100% of the time…and there would have been laundry all over the field in real time. They wouldn’t call it because of the moment, not because it wasn’t targeting.
That is not accurate . So you are saying a player can take a face mask to the helmet then there has ti be a determination if it was forceable
The big issue that I see with football and the targeting rule is that it doesn't seek to correct the behavior that usually leads to a targeting type of hit.
Too often, football players seek to "hit" opposing ball players rather than tackle them. I see a lot of bullshit comments about the pussification of football but the game being played is tackle football where the primary goal of a defender is to tackle a player to the ground and big hits don't count for anything if they don't accomplish that goal.
I think a component to targeting should include whether the defender was attempting to wrap up the opponent during the play or if their only goal was to deal a striking blow. In this specific play in the Texas/ASU game, it would not have been targeting because the defender did wrap up as he completed the tackle.
Too often, football players seek to "hit" opposing ball players rather than tackle them. I see a lot of bullshit comments about the pussification of football but the game being played is tackle football where the primary goal of a defender is to tackle a player to the ground and big hits don't count for anything if they don't accomplish that goal.
I think a component to targeting should include whether the defender was attempting to wrap up the opponent during the play or if their only goal was to deal a striking blow. In this specific play in the Texas/ASU game, it would not have been targeting because the defender did wrap up as he completed the tackle.
You need to read the rule again. It specifically states that there must be at least ONE indicator, not all three. Huge difference between what the rule reads and what you claim.
