Author Topic: UCLA - VaTech QB Hit (Read 27651 times)

TXMike · « **on:** December 31, 2013, 04:36:09 PM »

The talking heads were more important than the penalty announcement but I assume roughing the passer was called based on how penalty was enforced. Seems like he was hit pretty soon after he released the ball so is RTP really accurate? Is it targeting (not called as no DQ).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u71ss1pk1Ng

BoBo · « **Reply #1 on:** December 31, 2013, 04:42:42 PM »

man i know as a R calling this fast motion is tough, I only work D-III so i have to be spot on with the call, No Replay for us.

I was surprised he did not call leading with the helmet as i think we can all agree on this one it is definitely roughing the passer at worse.

With replay he would have had an out if it wasn't leading with the helmet and DQ.

There still would have been a 15 yard penalty enforced

TxSkyBolt · « **Reply #2 on:** December 31, 2013, 04:43:18 PM »

If that ain't targeting and the Navy hit was, I'm at a loss.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BoBo · « **Reply #3 on:** December 31, 2013, 04:48:07 PM »

i agree

Kalle · « **Reply #4 on:** December 31, 2013, 06:02:08 PM »

I usually give the defenders (too) much leeway but IMO this is a clear case of targeting.

StudyingFutureZebra · « **Reply #5 on:** December 31, 2013, 07:15:45 PM »

No foul. Roughing the passer is kind of a long shot, but there was no helmet contact.

Getting Fat · « **Reply #6 on:** December 31, 2013, 07:56:25 PM »

I was at the game. The call was unr, IMO it's clearly unnecessary roughness. I thought it was targeting live, and stand by that after viewing the video.

BoBo · « **Reply #7 on:** December 31, 2013, 08:21:53 PM »

there was definitely helmet contact as the def guy leads right into the chin of the qb

InsideTheStripes · « **Reply #8 on:** December 31, 2013, 08:56:28 PM »

Clear TGT foul.

Joe Stack · « **Reply #9 on:** December 31, 2013, 10:14:41 PM »

I have RTP but not targeting.

BoBo · « **Reply #10 on:** December 31, 2013, 10:20:05 PM »

Targeting NO but I have leading with the crown of the helmet

fencewire · « **Reply #11 on:** December 31, 2013, 10:36:31 PM »

Quote from: BoBo on December 31, 2013, 10:20:05 PM

Targeting NO but I have leading with the crown of the helmet

Huh?

If you have leading with the crown then you have 9-1-3, targeting with the crown of the helmet.

Remember there is no 'helmet to helmet' in NCAA.

BoBo · « **Reply #12 on:** December 31, 2013, 10:49:56 PM »

Fence i may have mislead, i think some are saying the defender did not target or aka launch as everyone wants to call it.

I agree I have 9-1-3, i called it a couple times this season.

fencewire · « **Reply #13 on:** January 01, 2014, 09:21:10 AM »

Ah, gotcha...

For others,

, remember there are two fouls that encompass "targeting", one, 9-1-3, is leading with the crown of the helmet, it doesn't matter where on the body of the receptor that the crown of the helmet of the deliverer contacts, on this foul. Two, 9-1-4, is contact to the head or neck area, of a defenseless player, this could be with any part of the body of the deliverer, helmet, other than crown, shoulder, forearm, knee, et al...

Fatman325 · « **Reply #14 on:** January 01, 2014, 10:00:04 AM »

Magician · « **Reply #15 on:** January 01, 2014, 10:51:20 AM »

This is the kind of hit they are trying to eliminate. Aim lower and wrap up.

Arbitrator · « **Reply #16 on:** January 01, 2014, 11:10:55 AM »

Targeting, by the defender's mere leading with his helmet to the QB's neck/helmet area with the QB there in a state of being virtually defenseless. In watching the film, and IMHO, the defender could very well have held up from hitting him.

I thought that this was what the rule was implemented for guys, instead of just giving the broadcasters fuel for fodder in commenting about what an absolutely great defensive play that it was on the defender's part!

Wingmanbp · « **Reply #17 on:** January 01, 2014, 06:32:27 PM »

Definitely targeting by leading with the crown of the helmet. He takes a step and ducks his head right into the QB's helmet and then stands over him. I almost expected him to bow up his chest and cross his arms

tx29 · « **Reply #18 on:** January 01, 2014, 08:39:02 PM »

The face mask is a part of the helmet so pretty evident ejection. Throw flagrant and let IR bring him back. Hopefully that's not what happened.?

trixx32 · « **Reply #19 on:** January 02, 2014, 01:28:34 PM »

I was at the game and it was a clear TGT foul from my seat. I was amazed when they reported only a personal foul. The crew did a great job throughout the game, but unfortunately this is the call that everyone will remember. We had an awesome game until the QB injury.

clearwall · « **Reply #20 on:** January 03, 2014, 10:18:32 AM »

Tgt. Crown of the helmet to the facemask of a QB. Ouch

Sonofanump · « **Reply #21 on:** January 03, 2014, 11:08:50 AM »

1) I would have ruled targeting.
2) This might be ticky-tack, but would you let the center and Qb warm up on the field of play?

Welpe · « **Reply #22 on:** January 03, 2014, 12:10:21 PM »

Put me down for 9-1-3 Targeting.

As far as enforcement, I'd say it should either be 15 yards from the previous spot or Team A can decline and take the play. Either way, B35 is DQed.

Johnponz · « **Reply #23 on:** January 03, 2014, 02:00:07 PM »

If it is targeting (I say it should have been), it would be "roughing the passer by targeting" so the enforcement would be a 15 yard tack on at the end of the run. D35 is DQd

Curious · « **Reply #24 on:** January 03, 2014, 02:15:09 PM »

Looked like targeting from the beginning - confirmed by replay. Hit was top of helmet right to the QB's jaw.

Would make Mike Tyson proud; but should have been penalized as severely as the rule permits.

Author Topic: UCLA - VaTech QB Hit (Read 27651 times)

StudyingFutureZebra

Fatman325

tx29

trixx32

Johnponz