if was your son, you would say it was targeting

Sign up, and you'll be able to ignore users whose posts you don't want to see. Sign up

Report problem with this ad

Jan 2, 2025
10:03:29am

Count Cougar All-American

if was your son, you would say it was targeting

if that wasn't targeting why have the rule. so many argue for and against each particular potential targeting call by stating wording of the rule. The rule was made to protect players from head-to-head shots. If we play semantics of how the rule was written get rid of it altogether.

Report problem with this ad

Count Cougar

Bio page: Count Cougar
Joined: Mar 3, 2012
Last login: Jan 6, 2025
Total posts: 6,527 (50 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