Mich St. and Baylor blocked FG

[ALStripes17]

Anyone see the blindside hit on the FG return with 1:10 left in MSU-Baylor game?

Possible uncalled targeting?

[Legacy Zebra]

I was wondering the same thing, but I haven't seen any angle that shows contact to the head/neck. Until I see something that shows head/neck contact, I'm going with no flag.   

[ALStripes17]

Does NCAA have illegal helmet contact (not necessarily targeting).

Although it did seem like the blocker launched himself through the defender.

[clearwall]

I logged on to see if anyone had asked this question too. Clear targeting, IMO. Launch, shoulder to the head against a defenseless player(blind side block). Ejection.

Legacy, what angle have you seen? This is the one I saw that makes me think this should be flagged:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2316593-baylor-kicker-destroyed-by-michigan-state-defender-after-blocked-fg?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=programming-national

[ALStripes17]

Is the penalty enforcement for that a spot foul? So MSU would have had a lot more field to cover that final drive?

[clearwall]

3-1 I think here, correct? Bring it back and enforce spot of the foul.

[TXMike]

The reaction of the blockee is identical to the reaction we see when there is contact to the head.  What I do not know is if it is possible to get that same reaction from a hit NOT to the head.  I think the docs will say the whiplash effect on blocks like this could cause the reaction. 

[TxSkyBolt]

That's just the tv feed. Cannot tell if contact was above the shoulders.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tx29]

No foul. We can still have hard hits in football.

[Berkut]

This is *precisely*  the hit (and resulting injury) that the targeting rules are trying to remove from the game. I am kind of amazed there was no flag on this - I hope Redding at least comments.

Did the R stop following the K after he went into reverse mechanics perhaps?

[Clear Lake ref]

Do we all agree that the player is defenseless as a kicker on a return?

[TxSkyBolt]

Yes he's defenseless. Just a question if the hit was above the shoulders. I can't tell from this clip.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DallasLJ]

Hit to the shoulder - no foul.  Also, while I understand the Kicker and Passer are Defenseless Players throughout the play ---  but I was told that only applies if they are not attempting to continue to participate in the play.  Here the Kicker was the first person moving to tackle the ball carrier -- I think you lose that Defenseless Player protection at that point.

[BankerRef]

He is defenseless under 9-1-4; check note 2.  This is a player receiving a "blind-side" block even if he were not the kicker.  Players have to learn to lower the strike zone on these.   I've got a flag here.   

[SD_Casey]

For the lazy:

https://www.imgur.com/2hbOshb.gifv

Happy new year boys! 

[TexLJ]

Someone on the sideline told me that it was a hit to the shoulder.  But as stated before, it was a blindside block.  Also, I'm not sure if it was far enough behind the runner to warrant a PF or not but it looks like the runner had already cleared him and he was not threat to make a play.

[TXMike]

You can get concussed without a blow to the head. (attached)  Looks like that is what happened here

[attachment deleted by admin]

[psv]

Flag.  He launched up and looks like he tried to lead with his elbow.

From the image that was shown, it was in the head/neck area.  His day should have been done.

Who would have this, the R, or the flank on that side?

[Johnponz]

R should stay with the Kicker throughout the play.

It looks to me that this was at the shoulder and perhaps even under the shoulder pads. It does not look like the neck area or above to me.

It would be nice to see it in slow motion to tell for sure.

[Etref]

Looks shoulder to shoulder,

Concussion probably from head hitting turf

[TXMike]

Nope  I don't think it hit the turf  I think this is an example of the "whiplash concussion"

[TxSkyBolt]

If you down load the gif, you get a larger look and better resolution. Looks like no foul to me.

[BoBo]

No foul to me. Like I stated in the chat room last night the 14 is 6'3'" and kicker is 5'9"

14 does not leave his feet and actually has to lower the strike zone the best he can.

To me he does not launch "upward"

His hit is a blindside block agains what i call a "non football" player a Kicker so that in itself gives the appearance of bad illegal hit.

We still need to allow hard hits in the game

[BankerRef]

It may be that it isn't a foul but at that level I would hope there would be a flag especially when the kicker is involved.  From the angles I've seen it is hard to tell for certain if you have a 9-1-4 foul.  The crouch and launch indicators are there even if he doesn't completely leave his feet.  Hat level is virtually even at impact and he follows through with the forearm.  These guys have replay to clean this up if there wasn't enough for targeting but without a flag you've got nothing.

[Johnponz]

Officials on the field need to officiate, and should never count on replay to clean things up.  The official's job is still the same as it always was, simply put "Call them as you see them." 

Replay is not 100%, and by putting the flag down, you are saying that in your judgment that was a foul.  It is not appropriate to call a foul if you have no doubt that the foul did not occur.  It is wholly inappropriate for an official to call a foul that his judgement says is not there. 

This is about integrity.