Jan 2, 2025
8:29:58am
8:29:58am
It's obvious targeting. The people quoting the rule are leaving out key parts:
The introduction to the rule includes the phrase, "When in question, it is a foul." Clearly, it is in question.
Lots of discussion above of indicators, with the focus being on whether any of the stated indicators were technically present. However, before listing the indicators the rule says "Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:" This means that it's less about the technical presence of the listed indicators and more about the overall result of the play (forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent).
When taken all together, I think it's clear the rule basically means you can't hit a defenseless player in the head. To me, this is a clear case of refs chickening out at the end of a game. If the same hit happens in the first quarter it's almost certainly targeting.
Lots of discussion above of indicators, with the focus being on whether any of the stated indicators were technically present. However, before listing the indicators the rule says "Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:" This means that it's less about the technical presence of the listed indicators and more about the overall result of the play (forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent).
When taken all together, I think it's clear the rule basically means you can't hit a defenseless player in the head. To me, this is a clear case of refs chickening out at the end of a game. If the same hit happens in the first quarter it's almost certainly targeting.
Originally posted on Jan 2, 2025 at 8:29:58am
Message modified by Roko's Basilisk on Jan 2, 2025 at 8:31:42am
Message modified by Roko's Basilisk on Jan 2, 2025 at 9:57:02am
- Bio page
- Roko's Basilisk
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2017
- Last login
- Jan 4, 2025
- Total posts
- 2,701 (5 FO)
Messages
Time
Jan 2, 12:30am
In my opinion, the rule is there to protect a player from getting injured. I think the fact that the guy’s laying there
Jan 2, 12:42am
Every time a “defenseless” player gets injured by being hit in the head, yes. Thats the entire purpose of the rule.
Jan 2, 9:06am
Nope, still a penalty even if there’s no injury. Penalty is based on a specific action that is likely to result in
Jan 2, 10:02am
Jan 2, 10:07am
Yup. Thats why I used the language of the rule in my post. Some folks are trying to parse what’s “forcible” contact and
Jan 2, 10:21am
No, a defenseless player being injured by the contact to his head shows that it was plenty “forcible” to fulfill the
Jan 2, 10:40am
Jan 2, 10:44am
Prevention of those exact injuries are 100% the purpose of the rule. Injuries *are* the purpose and justification for
Jan 2, 11:04am
Jan 2, 11:43am
Nope. The purpose isn’t to avoid “worry” by preventing “worrisome” acts. The purpose is 100% to decrease injury and to
Jan 2, 1:14pm
Jan 2, 1:37pm
No I’m not. That’s your strawman of what I’m proposing. You throw the flag if there is “forcible contact” to the head
Jan 2, 1:54pm
Jan 2, 3:08pm
Jan 2, 4:38pm
Indicator is “forcible contact” to head or neck area of a defenseless receiver. Which part of that do you think is in
Jan 2, 5:38pm
Jan 2, 6:03pm
Jan 2, 6:06pm
Jan 2, 9:35am
Jan 2, 9:37am
Jan 2, 9:38am
Jan 2, 6:27am
Jan 2, 7:58am
Jan 2, 10:09am
Indicators like his head snapping back after helmet to helmet contactsand him laying on the ground with a concussion
Jan 2, 9:56am
Jan 3, 9:16am
Jan 3, 9:15am
Jan 2, 1:11am
Jan 2, 1:52am
Jan 2, 6:24am
Jan 3, 9:17am
Jan 2, 1:57am
Jan 2, 2:23am
Jan 2, 3:10am
Jan 2, 3:14am
Jan 2, 6:13am
I think if they had an angle clearly showing forcible contact to the head they would have made the call
Jan 2, 7:18am
I don't think that's clear - you can't see through his shoulder to see where his face mask hits first
Jan 2, 7:37am
Jan 2, 7:51am
Jan 2, 9:30am
Jan 2, 9:34am
Jan 2, 9:39am
Jan 2, 10:07am
Jan 2, 8:16am
Jan 2, 8:29am
Jan 2, 9:25am
Jan 2, 7:20pm
Jan 3, 9:13am