« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Big XII Suspends for Unflaggd Targeting  (Read 18085 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8773
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-269
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Big XII Suspends for Unflaggd Targeting
« on: October 16, 2013, 08:04:10 AM »
Logged

Offline Wingmanbp

  • *
  • Posts: 267
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-7
Re: Big XII Suspends for Unflaggd Targeting
« Reply #1 on: October 16, 2013, 08:41:33 AM »
According to everything I have seen and heard about targeting. That is no way targeting. Yes its a vicious hit but no defenseless player and no crown of the helmet, no launching. Nothing that would indicate targeting. Which is what they warned us in Targeting 101  ;D. After this new penalty was adopted
Logged

Offline TxSkyBolt

  • *
  • Posts: 2007
  • FAN REACTION: +45/-46
Re: Big XII Suspends for Unflaggd Targeting
« Reply #2 on: October 16, 2013, 08:46:41 AM »
Appears to be a high hit on a defensless player (blind side block). No helmet, launching required.
Logged

Offline InsideTheStripes

  • *
  • Posts: 272
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-5
Re: Big XII Suspends for Unflaggd Targeting
« Reply #3 on: October 16, 2013, 09:10:30 AM »
Quote from: Wingmanbp on October 16, 2013, 08:41:33 AM
According to everything I have seen and heard about targeting. That is no way targeting. Yes its a vicious hit but no defenseless player and no crown of the helmet, no launching. Nothing that would indicate targeting. Which is what they warned us in Targeting 101  ;D. After this new penalty was adopted

A player receiving a blind side block is defenseless by rule. While we can quibble about whether or not this was truly a blind side block, but in the view of the conference, it was.

Launching is not a required element of targeting; it's simply one element of a non-exhaustive list of targeting indicators. Also on the list of targeting indicators:  (a) crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground.

Based on the video, I think it's pretty clear that the blocker was attacking the head or neck area in a forward and upward thrust.  I have no problem with the ex post facto suspension.
Logged

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8773
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-269
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Big XII Suspends for Unflaggd Targeting
« Reply #4 on: October 16, 2013, 09:12:01 AM »
It sure looks like the kind of blocks I have seen all season that WERE flagged, and were upheld by IR.
Logged

Offline Wingmanbp

  • *
  • Posts: 267
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-7
Re: Big XII Suspends for Unflaggd Targeting
« Reply #5 on: October 16, 2013, 09:22:55 AM »
Quote from: TxSkyBolt on October 16, 2013, 08:46:41 AM
Appears to be a high hit on a defensless player (blind side block). No helmet, launching required.
How can it be blindside when its face to face? Their pads hit chest to chest
Logged

Offline clearwall

  • *
  • Posts: 758
  • FAN REACTION: +14/-13
Re: Big XII Suspends for Unflaggd Targeting
« Reply #6 on: October 16, 2013, 11:02:03 AM »
Quote from: Wingmanbp on October 16, 2013, 09:22:55 AM
How can it be blindside when its face to face? Their pads hit chest to chest

Disagree. You can see his helmet start to come off. Thats a shot to his facemask. Looks like a good call to me. Couch followed by a launch upwards into the head area.
Logged

Offline dvasques

  • *
  • Posts: 508
  • FAN REACTION: +13/-2
Re: Big XII Suspends for Unflaggd Targeting
« Reply #7 on: October 16, 2013, 11:04:12 AM »
blindside because the defender was looking the other way?
Logged

Offline Wingmanbp

  • *
  • Posts: 267
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-7
Re: Big XII Suspends for Unflaggd Targeting
« Reply #8 on: October 16, 2013, 11:25:32 AM »
Quote from: dvasques on October 16, 2013, 11:04:12 AM
blindside because the defender was looking the other way?
Why would the defender be looking the other way he was trying to tackle the receiver in front of him. The blocker was between him and the ball carrier
Logged

Topspot

  • Guest
Re: Big XII Suspends for Unflaggd Targeting
« Reply #9 on: October 16, 2013, 02:55:14 PM »
Looks like an almost open shut case of targeting to me.  You can see on the gif in the first link that Coleman crouches and follows this with an upward and forward thrust initiating contact to opponent's head/neck area with his shoulder.  Player is defenseless because it is a blind side block--Coleman is coming parallel to end line at a player who is focused on and facing ball carrier in front of him.
Logged

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8773
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-269
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Big XII Suspends for Unflaggd Targeting
« Reply #10 on: October 16, 2013, 08:59:32 PM »
Just saw this on Rom Gilbert site:   
Checked news and can't see anything saying the SEC is taking any action against Alabama # 77 for this.  Incredible.    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QQIgLU8FCw
Logged

Offline Wingmanbp

  • *
  • Posts: 267
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-7
Re: Big XII Suspends for Unflaggd Targeting
« Reply #11 on: October 17, 2013, 06:30:55 AM »
Quote from: TXMike on October 16, 2013, 08:59:32 PM
Just saw this on Rom Gilbert site:   
Checked news and can't see anything saying the SEC is taking any action against Alabama # 77 for this.  Incredible.    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QQIgLU8FCw
That is why dead ball officiating is so important. That is definite targeting by leading with the crown of the helmet. I bet if he was ejected he may think twice about doing that again.
Logged

Offline bama_stripes

  • *
  • Posts: 3153
  • FAN REACTION: +124/-29
Re: Big XII Suspends for Unflaggd Targeting
« Reply #12 on: October 17, 2013, 09:22:52 AM »
Quote from: TXMike on October 16, 2013, 08:59:32 PM
Just saw this on Rom Gilbert site:   
Checked news and can't see anything saying the SEC is taking any action against Alabama # 77 for this.  Incredible.    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QQIgLU8FCw

Gross miss.
Logged

110

  • Guest
Re: Big XII Suspends for Unflaggd Targeting
« Reply #13 on: October 17, 2013, 11:41:32 AM »
Free trip to the showers, period.
Logged

PelleHaglund

  • Guest
Big XII Suspends for Unflaggd Targeting
« Reply #14 on: October 17, 2013, 02:17:43 PM »

Quote from: TXMike on October 16, 2013, 08:59:32 PM
Just saw this on Rom Gilbert site:   
Checked news and can't see anything saying the SEC is taking any action against Alabama # 77 for this.  Incredible.    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QQIgLU8FCw
Would that one be a ejection or just a late hit 15y?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free
Logged

Online Legacy Zebra

  • *
  • Posts: 1026
  • FAN REACTION: +56/-11
Re: Big XII Suspends for Unflaggd Targeting
« Reply #15 on: October 17, 2013, 02:48:11 PM »
In my opinion he leads with the crown and should be disqualified.
Logged

Offline InsideTheStripes

  • *
  • Posts: 272
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-5
Re: Big XII Suspends for Unflaggd Targeting
« Reply #16 on: October 17, 2013, 03:22:56 PM »
Anyone have thoughts on this play?



It was flagged as RPS.  I'm wondering if there's not a case to be made for targeting.
Logged

Offline bama_stripes

  • *
  • Posts: 3153
  • FAN REACTION: +124/-29
Re: Big XII Suspends for Unflaggd Targeting
« Reply #17 on: October 17, 2013, 03:53:21 PM »
Quote from: InsideTheStripes on October 17, 2013, 03:22:56 PM
Anyone have thoughts on this play?



It was flagged as RPS.  I'm wondering if there's not a case to be made for targeting.

Not much there, IMO.
Logged

Offline dvasques

  • *
  • Posts: 508
  • FAN REACTION: +13/-2
Re: Big XII Suspends for Unflaggd Targeting
« Reply #18 on: October 17, 2013, 05:00:50 PM »
Quote from: TXMike on October 16, 2013, 08:59:32 PM
Just saw this on Rom Gilbert site:   
Checked news and can't see anything saying the SEC is taking any action against Alabama # 77 for this.  Incredible.    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QQIgLU8FCw

latest video review from CFO had a play very much similar to this one and RR said DQ... targeting
Logged

Offline Joe Stack

  • *
  • Posts: 637
  • FAN REACTION: +33/-46
Re: Big XII Suspends for Unflaggd Targeting
« Reply #19 on: October 18, 2013, 03:34:14 PM »
Sorry, but I don't have the Baylor player making a blindside block. They need to define the term or its up to us. To me, a blindSIDE block is outside the 10-2 like on the BBW rule but high. Why would the committee allow a 10-2 block low without calling such player being blocked as defenseless, but not allow a high 10-2 block while calling that player defenseless?

Its impossible to judge exactly where a player is looking, hence the objective 10-2 reference on low blocks. I don't think its reasonable to suggest that a block that's clearly in front should be made illegal because the player had his head turned slightly. If there is any disagreement to this -- fine -- but the correct way to solve the disagreement is to eliminate the requirement that targeting be against a defenseless player only. That rule needs to go away.
Logged

StudyingFutureZebra

  • Guest
Re: Big XII Suspends for Unflaggd Targeting
« Reply #20 on: October 18, 2013, 08:39:22 PM »
That's a beautiful hit there, and I can't see why you'd call it a blindside hit if it's from the front. As for the Alabama thing, I really feel like they're calling petty things just for the sake of calling them. I feel like it could go either way for a late hit, but to send him to the showers for that, 100% no.

One thing that I've noticed is that now that a receiver leaping to make a catch is a defenseless player, how is the corner supposed to legally defend the play? Is he supposed to just let the receiver catch the ball and tackle him cleanly when he lands?

I think Mike Pereira says it best-nobody really knows what targeting is and isn't. I really hope the NCAA will change/clear this up next season.
Logged

Offline InsideTheStripes

  • *
  • Posts: 272
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-5
Re: Big XII Suspends for Unflaggd Targeting
« Reply #21 on: October 18, 2013, 09:37:04 PM »
Quote from: StudyingFutureZebra on October 18, 2013, 08:39:22 PM
As for the Alabama thing, I really feel like they're calling petty things just for the sake of calling them. I feel like it could go either way for a late hit, but to send him to the showers for that, 100% no.

I can't help but wonder if you think it would be a "petty thing" if YOU were the one on the ground getting speared in the back by a 300-pound lineman after the play was over.  Easy TGT call - enjoy your shower.
Logged

Offline Kalle

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3418
  • FAN REACTION: +114/-35
Re: Big XII Suspends for Unflaggd Targeting
« Reply #22 on: October 19, 2013, 12:27:10 AM »
Quote from: StudyingFutureZebra on October 18, 2013, 08:39:22 PM
One thing that I've noticed is that now that a receiver leaping to make a catch is a defenseless player, how is the corner supposed to legally defend the play? Is he supposed to just let the receiver catch the ball and tackle him cleanly when he lands?

The corner can contact the receiver as long as he does not contact head or neck area.
Logged

Diablo

  • Guest
Re: Big XII Suspends for Unflaggd Targeting
« Reply #23 on: October 19, 2013, 06:53:15 AM »
Quote from: Kalle on October 19, 2013, 12:27:10 AM
The corner can contact the receiver as long as he does not contact head or neck area...

... or initiate contact anywhere on the receiver with the crown (top) of his helmet.
Logged
Pages: [1]
« previous next »