It certainly would be interesting to see a video montage of plays called

Sign up, and you'll be able to vote in polls. Sign up

Report problem with this ad

Jan 2, 2025
9:08:32am

cwilke1 Truly Addicted User

It certainly would be interesting to see a video montage of plays called

targeting this season and close plays not called targeting this season, especially for ones of defenseless receiver right in middle of the field.

I am skeptical that from this season and last few seasons we would find many plays of helmet to helmet contact to a defenseless receiver over the middle of field not called as targeting.

Report problem with this ad

cwilke1

Bio page: cwilke1
Joined: Jan 8, 2016
Last login: Jan 4, 2025
Total posts: 13,537 (8 FO)

Report problem with this ad

Messages

Author

Time

If that hit in the Texas-Arizona State game was not targeting, what is?

BYUFootballRocks1 All-American

Jan 2, 8:19am

It has to be forcible contact. Not "any contact".

Skeptical Optimist

Jan 2, 8:26am

Everybody knows knocking a guy nearly unconscious isn't forcible contact

Goliath

Jan 2, 8:27am

So the player running into the contact isn’t “forcible”?

Yukon

Jan 2, 8:28am

Every tackle has forcible contact. In order for it to be a foul it has to be forcible contact

Skeptical Optimist

Jan 2, 8:31am

Maybe I am not remembering correctly but I recall

BYU Fan

Jan 2, 8:53am

you just argued against your own point

Count Cougar

Jan 2, 9:53am

No, I didn't. The rules specify where forcible contact is and isn't allowed on a defenseless player

Skeptical Optimist

Jan 2, 9:55am

He lowered his helmet and smacked the ASU guy in the head knocking him senseless

BYU Fan

Jan 2, 10:02am

He didn't lower his helmet.

Skeptical Optimist

Jan 2, 10:09am

I disagree

BYU Fan

Jan 2, 11:06am

yes I agree that natural tackling includes lowering the head as part of lowering

cwilke1

Jan 2, 11:11am

The NCAA rulebook defines lowering the helmet as making contact with the crown of the helmet,

Skeptical Optimist

Jan 2, 11:11am

if was your son, you would say it was targeting

Count Cougar

Jan 2, 10:03am

I think there is a good chance it was targeting.

Skeptical Optimist

Jan 2, 10:12am

If after a nights sleep Skep. O. still has this take, it’s not worth debating it

Jan 2, 8:31am

Ok, then don't debate it.

Skeptical Optimist

Jan 2, 8:33am

He's head snapping back isn't "forcible"?

byubyu

Jan 2, 8:29am

It WAS forcible contact, he sprinted for 10 yards and slammed into the receiver...

BYUFootballRocks1

Jan 2, 8:30am

Did the defender “lead” with the helmet to create the forcible contact though.

cougaman

Jan 2, 8:32am

well the 4th possible indicator is "initiating forcible contact with the crown

cwilke1

Jan 2, 8:37am

The “lead” part is what I was focusing on though. He’s making a form tackle

cougaman

Jan 2, 8:43am

its plausible to interpret it the way you are, but our body of actual referee

cwilke1

Jan 2, 8:48am

I’ve seen plays that I thought were worse go uncalled plenty, where it seemed

cougaman

Jan 2, 8:51am

It certainly would be interesting to see a video montage of plays called

cwilke1

Jan 2, 9:08am

I’ve seen so many that were players crouching, thrusting, leading with their

cougaman

Jan 2, 9:18am

espn scott helton and their rules expert afterwards on sportscenter said they

cwilke1

Jan 2, 9:24am

"lead" with the helmet? He met him face-to-face with his helmet -

BYUFootballRocks1

Jan 2, 8:41am

That’s not close to what I said and you clearly don’t want to try to understand

cougaman

Jan 2, 8:45am

Head to head was the first contact.

SoCalCoug

Jan 2, 8:46am

He’s trying to wrap him up and use his arms to make the tackle though, his head

cougaman

Jan 2, 8:50am

You're being irrational in your defense of a horrible non-call.

SoCalCoug

Jan 2, 8:51am

No, I’m not. Because I disagree with you doesn’t make me irrational.

cougaman

Jan 2, 9:36am

No, it doesn't. It's because you're not reasonably interpreting the rule or

SoCalCoug

Jan 2, 12:47pm

And you must be the authority on what’s reasonable. Maybe we call all be as

cougaman

Jan 2, 1:45pm

Now you're being reasonable.

SoCalCoug

Jan 2, 2:03pm

the first contact was head to head and it was with the crown.

FieroCoug

Jan 2, 1:49pm

Not by the ncaas definition of the crown

cougaman

Jan 2, 3:01pm

Not even close

Skeptical Optimist

Jan 2, 3:17pm

6 inch circle from the top of the head right? if that’s what it is it

FieroCoug

Jan 2, 3:42pm

Sprinting 10 yards and slamming into the receiver isn't a foul - that happens on just about every

Skeptical Optimist

Jan 2, 8:37am

baloney-he hit him in the head! wondering if just you're trying to be contrary -

BYUFootballRocks1

Jan 2, 8:42am

I'm not trying to be contrary. I'm not even arguing that it was the correct call.

Skeptical Optimist

Jan 2, 9:58am

he slams him in the face with his helmet at top speed and it's not targeting? got it...

BYUFootballRocks1

Jan 2, 8:44am

playing word games is not the proper answer

Count Cougar

Jan 2, 8:31am

The verbatim text of the rule isn't a word game. The OP was wrong when he said that any contact

Skeptical Optimist

Jan 2, 8:35am

It knocked him completely off his feet.

SoCalCoug

Jan 2, 8:45am

When the refs pick up a flag like that after review

Goliath

Jan 2, 8:29am

I don’t think they threw a flag

cougaman

Jan 2, 8:32am

I don’t think they threw a flag

Beggar

Jan 2, 8:33am

Not only did they NOT throw a flag, the review was initiated by the “booth”

Endocoug

Jan 2, 8:41am

The refs didn't say "no targeting". They simply didn't throw a flag.

Goliath

Jan 2, 1:04pm

Im no expert but it seems like they’ve changed

I'mBatman

Jan 2, 8:41am

I didn't think it was targeting because the crown of the helmet wasn't used

Coug

Jan 2, 8:45am

"crown of the helmet" isn't a thing on a defenseless player.

Ghost of Peanut

Jan 2, 9:00am

It is one of the four “things”

Endocoug

Jan 2, 9:03am

None of the four indicators are required for defenseless players.

BYUCLA

Jan 2, 9:27am

That's not true. Read the rule. It specifically says an indicator is required.

Radioactive Coug

Jan 2, 9:32am

I edited my post right after I posted and realized I was wrong but must not have

BYUCLA

Jan 2, 9:59am

someone posted the rule yesterday and rule said that there still has to be 1

cwilke1

Jan 2, 9:33am

Great points. Watching the game and play live, it was clearly targeting by the

Mitty

Jan 2, 10:32am

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