Recruiting Forum Football Talk VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
#14,328
#14,328
Volosaurus rex said:
As this article indicates, the subjectivity of its interpretation makes targeting calls a progressively muddy process. Originally, you could tell rather clearly and easily when it occurred. Was there helmet-to-helmet contact and did the defender "launch" or, in other words, did he deliberately leave his feet to make contact? If so, targeting was called.

To me personally, the emphasis on the crown of the helmet per se should not be a major criteria. And, above all else, they have got to eliminate these targeting calls where the quarterback begins his slide way too late and the defender, who was in position to hit center mass, has no way of avoiding contact with the quarterback's helmet.
Click to expand...

This rule crosses some lines not used in MOST of the rest of the rulebook. If you block in the back, it is a foul because you do, not whether it was your intent for example, takes aim is the exact wording in the rule. The inclusion and featuring of the indicators in the rule is clearly looking to identify intent to make dangerous contact. Launching, crouching then upward thrust for example. Crown is it's own separate world. Intentionally adjusting and using the top of the helmet as a weapon rather than a protective device is what is in play.

The short oversimplified version of the rule 9-1-4 you can't hit a defenseless player with darn near anything in the head and neck area, OR 2) you cannot hit another player with the crown of your helmet darn near anywhere on his body. The confusion is sometimes a guy is guilty of both. If you read the 4 non-inclusive listed indicators in the rule, Crown, the last one is the only one that does not limit it to contact in the head and neck area, but specifically calls for lowering the head to employ the crown and "INITIATING" contact for it to be a foul.

The oft overlooked separate 9-1-3 an inch up the page says you cannot use the crown of the helmet on an opponent defenseless or not, but there must be an indicator from Note 1. shared with 9-1-4 but not one from the defenseless player Note 2 list. The construction is a bit murky. It is made worse by the inclusion of the word initiating in the shared indicator for crown only. So is secondary or incidental hard contact with the helmet ok by rule? The addition of the 6 inch radius from the top to define crown is not a help either. Having crown in both rules, especailly 9-1-4 seems unnecessary.

Like in life, trying to legislate morals can get ugly.

Rule cleanup on isle 9 please.........
 
  • Like
Reactions: OrangenSC
#14,331
#14,331
TN-POSSUM said:
You ever notice when a team beats Saban, it's not long afterwards, that some of them get in trouble. 🤔
Click to expand...
Yep because he runs the entire NCAA. Little man has way too much power. He needs to be brought down. As for us after beating them, he is going to get Pruitt completely off the hook so he can hire him as his DC, instead of getting us in trouble some how.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolsDoc81TX, Paper_Towel, HeadVol77 and 6 others
#14,332
#14,332
OGbabyaviVol said:
Yep because he runs the entire NCAA. Little man has way too much power. He needs to be brought down. As for us after beating them, he is going to get Pruitt completely off the hook so he can hire him as his DC, instead of getting us in trouble some how.
Click to expand...
If Pruitt escapes a show cause, it will just prove once and for all that the NCAA is an absolute joke with no real power. His breaking of rules was si egregious I just don't see how it can go unpunished. But if it does, then college football absolutely becomes the wild, wild west because it will signal to other coaches they can do whatever they want with no real fear of repercussions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SmokinBob, VolsDoc81TX, Paper_Towel and 8 others
#14,335
#14,335
Weezer said:
If Pruitt escapes a show cause, it will just prove once and for all that the NCAA is an absolute joke with no real power. His breaking of rules was si egregious I just don't see how it can go unpunished. But if it does, then college football absolutely becomes the wild, wild west because it will signal to other coaches they can do whatever they want with no real fear of repercussions.
Click to expand...
It will change nothing…. The majority already know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolsDoc81TX, HeadVol77 and hooter vol
#14,336
#14,336
ACvol3 said:
Yeah I thought it was weird when they came out this year and said no, his is actually pronounced booty
Click to expand...
yeah, I lived in Louisiana for 12 years and never heard it pronounced that way lol..the news always mispronounces Cajun towns and names (my last name I respond to about three variations).. so I was assuming that was the case here.. dunno
 
  • Like
Reactions: ACvol3
#14,337
#14,337
TN-POSSUM said:
Someone in here posted Cruise's motorcycle stunt for the next Mission Impossible movie (maybe @Enki_Amenra 🤔). It's a cool clip if you can find it. It blows my mind he's 60 years old still doing stunts like that.
Click to expand...
I saw that. That was insane and especially now that he is a lot older man than he use to be. lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolsDoc81TX, Enki_Amenra and TN-POSSUM
#14,339
#14,339
drvenner said:
I have heard that as well, but if that is how it will be enforced, then that is how it should be written. It is a very difficult call, no doubt. You have to take the impact of players being disqualified out of the equation if you are the reviewer. It should be was it unsafe to the degree of targeting or was it not? Not arguing that you have said anything different, but this rule needs to be looked at yet again. I think it has swung back in the other direction that they are erring on the side of it not being targeting because of the disqualification aspect of it.
Click to expand...

Man, I didn't want to jump back into this, but this reminds me of what Brian Kelly said or implied. Maybe it shouldn't be all or nothing. It could be unnecessary roughness without being "targeting" as some interpret it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SmokinBob, VolsDoc81TX, beneVOLence and 1 other person
#14,340
#14,340
OrangenSC said:
Man, I didn't want to jump back into this, but this reminds me of what Brian Kelly said or implied. Maybe it shouldn't be all or nothing. It could be unnecessary roughness without being "targeting" as some interpret it.
Click to expand...
Was it unnecessary? He was separating the receiver from the ball. Isn't that what DBs are supposed to do? JMO, but it was just an unfortunate turn of events that Harrison got hurt on the hit. From the replays I've watched, the hit looks legal, even though there was incidental helmet contact.

We all wanted Georgia to lose. I still hope they lose to TCU. In no way do I want to see them repeat. But I just don't see the hit as dirty. And if it had been our DB hitting a Clemson player like that, I think everyone would be saying it was a clean hit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: beneVOLence, ConwayFitty, InVOLuntary and 4 others
#14,346
#14,346
Weezer said:
Was it unnecessary? He was separating the receiver from the ball. Isn't that what DBs are supposed to do? JMO, but it was just an unfortunate turn of events that Harrison got hurt on the hit. From the replays I've watched, the hit looks legal, even though there was incidental helmet contact.







We all wanted Georgia to lose. I still hope they lose to TCU. In no way do I want to see them repeat. But I just don't see the hit as dirty. And if it had been our DB hitting a Clemson player like that, I think everyone would be saying it was a clean hit.
Click to expand...



We're talking about the rule in general. Not any particular play.
 
#14,349
#14,349
OrangenSC said:
We're talking about the rule in general. Not any particular play.
Click to expand...
It's been proven all rules are subject to horrible refs who don't make consistent calls. Like when they keep calling one team for PI but not a single damn one on the other team when they do the same damn thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paper_Towel, beneVOLence, Volunteer821 and 10 others
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.

VN Store



Back
Top