Yah, this one is textbook targeting, maybe time to get the ol' peepers checked...I've not been known to have the best vision, and I don't know all the ins and outs of the targeting rule. Regardless, I saw the tackler hit the QB in the chest with his shoulder. The QB's head snapped forward, and then the back of the head violently struck the turf at the end of the tackle. Personally, I didn't see the tackler contact the QB's head, and I never saw the tackler's helmet contact the QB. I guess it's targeting if the chest is considered the shoulders or neck. Nevertheless, it looked like a textbook clean hit to me.
Students and alumni upset with the Michigan athletic department's mishandling of a football player's head injury are planning an on-campus rally Tuesday night to call for athletic director Dave Brandon's resignation.
The rally, coordinated by users who visit mgoblog.com and its message boards, is scheduled to begin on campus at 6 p.m. In addition, more than 6,400 students, staff members and alumni had signed an online petition -- created by a graduate student -- calling for Brandon's resignation as of 2:30 p.m. Tuesday.
It is curious why it wasn't called given the official staring down the play. Anyway, still doesn't look like textbook targeting to me. The tackler did not initiate contact around the head, neck, or shoulders in my opinion. And yes, I've watched the replay of the tackle several times. Looks to me that initial contact was made in the breast area.And here's a shot of the defender's helmet literally hitting him in the jaw:
Indeed, there was quite an uproar amongst the fans. No different than any other game any other weekend - calls are missed.It is curious why it wasn't called given the official staring down the play.
Agree to disagree - watching the reply his head snaps back before any part of his body moves, and I've never heard of someone being concussed from a who tot he chest - but I guess you can see what you want.Anyway, still doesn't look like textbook targeting to me. The tackler did not initiate contact around the head, neck, or shoulders in my opinion. And yes, I've watched the replay of the tackle several times. Looks to me that initial contact was made in the breast area.
That would be the right call.I won't be surprised when the B1G issues an after-the-fact statement declaring that the tackle constituted targeting.
It's not unusual for concussions to occur when the back of the head contacts the ground. In this case, the QB's head hit the ground pretty violently.Indeed, there was quite an uproar amongst the fans. No different than any other game any other weekend - calls are missed.
Agree to disagree - watching the reply his head snaps back before any part of his body moves, and I've never heard of someone being concussed from a who tot he chest - but I guess you can see what you want.
That would be the right call.
Nope, he fell on his left shoulder and rolled.It's not unusual for concussions to occur when the back of the head contacts the ground. In this case, the QB's head hit the ground pretty violently.
Wouldn't surprise me...Expect his resignation before the week is out.
My position is formed from viewing the video evidence, nothing else. I did not form my opinion before watching the video.Nope, he fell on his left shoulder and rolled.
I'm not going to argue with you anymore, I think it's very obviously targeting and you seem to be willing to ignore the actual video evidence which plainly shows the defensive player launching into his chin (along with his falling not directly backwards, but to his side) in order to justify your position.
We'll call it a draw.
It was clearly targeting and I don't know how anyone can see it differently. The tacklers helmet contacted the face mask of the QB thus snapping his head back.My position is formed from viewing the video evidence, nothing else. I did not form my opinion before watching the video.
Just answer one question for me: Who is responsible for everything in regards to the University of Michigan football program?Hoke is not to blame IMO. The medical staff and about 12 other people are way more at fault than the HC for this particular issue.