I believe it was targeting but I think the language does allow for the result we saw.

Sign up, and you'll be able to customize your font size and more! Sign up

Report problem with this ad

Jan 1, 2025
3:04:57pm

Radioactive Coug Sometimes Coherant

I believe it was targeting but I think the language does allow for the result we saw.

The contact to the head has to be forcable. That is the nebulous part that isn't clearly defined. The heading leads you to believe that forcable has to go beyond a legal tackle. If the refs thought he didn't make any effort outside a legal tackle and the head contact was incidental to the tackle...

I'm not saying it's right, just that there is room.

Report problem with this ad

Radioactive Coug

Previous username: CougMandoo
Bio page: Radioactive Coug
Joined: Aug 14, 2007
Last login: Jan 6, 2025
Total posts: 11,121 (1,314 FO)

Report problem with this ad

Messages

Author

Time

Here is the rule. Guess there wasn’t an indicator- I can see that:

shimmy triples are best

Jan 1, 2:48pm

he was lowering his head though. hit above the facemask.

FieroCoug

Jan 1, 2:49pm

I dunno that he lowered his head to hit him. Honestly that is okay with me.

shimmy

Jan 1, 2:49pm

head wasn't all the way down but was definitely down. certainly an indicator

FieroCoug

Jan 1, 2:50pm

Not clearly an indicator by the people who understand the rules better than you or I.

shimmy

Jan 1, 2:52pm

Yeh, it needs to be crown or you purposefully initiate the head contact. I think he did but I can see if you

CSoul

Jan 1, 2:49pm

The heads were the first things that hit

TwinsRight

Jan 1, 2:50pm

That doesn’t mean anything anymore. You can hit heads

shimmy

Jan 1, 2:52pm

not if the O is defenseless you can't, if its a runner in the field its a

cwilke1

Jan 1, 2:53pm

This is incorrect

shimmy

Jan 1, 2:54pm

ok you're right, if there is some incidental contact. In your opinion, what part

cwilke1

Jan 1, 2:55pm

I’d have to see it again. Clearly the ruling is that he wasn’t leading with the helmet. If you body a guy up and helmets

shimmy

Jan 1, 3:00pm

it isn't targeting anymore for this game for the SEC defender. That type of

cwilke1

Jan 1, 3:03pm

I thought it was targeting originally. I’d like to see a replay after I looked up the rule.

shimmy

Jan 1, 3:04pm

The way it has usually been called even in this season is that it is up

cwilke1

Jan 1, 5:05pm

Just that it shows he was leading with his helmet

TwinsRight

Jan 1, 2:57pm

Third indicator. Absolutely.

SoCalCoug

Jan 1, 2:51pm

Absolutely this. That was a helmet to helmet hit on a defenseless player. It is literally why they made the rule

Littlerich

Jan 1, 2:53pm

Helmet to helmet isn’t the rule anymore.

shimmy

Jan 1, 2:53pm

on a defenseless player it is still the rule

Littlerich

Jan 1, 2:54pm

Wrong

shimmy

Jan 1, 2:54pm

Might want to read the rule. Leading with the helmet and making forcable contact

bluesloth

Jan 1, 2:57pm

I posted it above for your convenience.

shimmy

Jan 1, 2:58pm

We are literally citing the rule you posted

Littlerich

Jan 1, 2:58pm

No you are not. You keep saying helmet to helmet contact which isn’t in that rule I posted.

shimmy

Jan 1, 3:01pm

There was helmet to helmet contact. That fact is in support of the 3rd bullet

bluesloth

Jan 1, 3:03pm

The helmets hitting first doesn’t mean leading with the helmet. At one point that was the difference between the NFL

shimmy

Jan 1, 3:06pm

Can you point to supplemental language that explains how leading with the

bluesloth

Jan 1, 3:11pm

You’re arguing with their interpretation. I’m arguing the distinction. If they would have called targetting I wouldn’t

shimmy

Jan 1, 3:19pm

Just looking at the rule you posted: Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand, or elbow to attack with

Littlerich

Jan 1, 2:57pm

Do you believe helmet to helmet contact and leading with the helmet are the same thing?

shimmy

Jan 1, 2:58pm

In your opinion, with what part of the D's body did the D lead for the hit?

cwilke1

Jan 1, 3:00pm

Yes, when the defender has his head down and initiates contact with the helmet

Littlerich

Jan 1, 3:00pm

Oh, we’ve identified the comprehension error then. You said helmet to helmet and you meant leading with the helmet.

shimmy

Jan 1, 3:02pm

Oh my gosh, that is what we are inferring with helmet to helmet on that play.

Littlerich

Jan 1, 3:05pm

Helmet to helmet was the rule at one point and it was different than leading with the helmet. That old standard doesn’t

shimmy

Jan 1, 3:08pm

Again, the inference on that play was the helmet to helmet was leading with the helmet

Littlerich

Jan 1, 3:11pm

Thus demonstrating the necessity to rely on precise language rather than inference.

shimmy

Jan 1, 3:20pm

<< Deleted >>

Littlerich

Jan 1, 3:24pm

yes absolutely, face mask is part of "the helmet" so if D is leading with his

cwilke1

Jan 1, 2:53pm

I believe it was targeting but I think the language does allow for the result we saw.

Radioactive Coug

Jan 1, 3:04pm

not meaning to be offensive, but your usage of meaning of "legal tackle" is just

cwilke1

Jan 1, 3:11pm

That's my point. It's not my usage of meaning. It's in the rule and isn't clearly defined.

Radioactive Coug

Jan 1, 3:16pm

ok good point. I missed that part. What a terribly unclear rule

cwilke1

Jan 1, 3:17pm

Report problem with this ad

Posting on CougarBoard

In order to post, you will need to either sign up or log in.

Report problem with this ad