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

Report problem with this ad

Jan 1, 2025
3:16:02pm

Radioactive Coug Sometimes Coherant

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