I am not trying to persuade anyone, as I am now convinced people are just going to see this differently. To my eye, however, there is almost no attempt by Mack to wrap up (which might make the helmet contact incidental). The helmet strike is first, seems to be what is intended (although intent is admittedly hard to assess), and by the time the arms come around both player are already horizontal, which is why the arms miss him. In fact, the more I watch it the more the arms look like they are thrown forward to increase momentum (the way you kick your legs forward on a swing), which is part of the definition of launching. Many times in this thread I have expressed doubt about the interpretation of call and rule, but I have no doubt that this is the kind of hit that should be eliminated, so for that reason alone it seems like this was something the rule was meant to apply to. I don't think intent should matter, but I admit that it seems like it does the way the game is called.
Targeting Flags -- which do you agree with
- Thread starter LA4Bama
- Start date
"Intent" isn't addressed in the rules that I know of. This is a good thing, IMO, because most officials I know are ill-qualified to function as mind readers...
I couldn't help but chuckle as I read this. Talk about twisting the facts to fit your world view. So, he threw his arms forward to gain even more momentum. Yeah.
Umm, not so much. And shame on you.
So if a ball carrier is hit......does this mean targeting can never be called when he is hit?
Nope, the old rule on spearing is still in effect, if the first contact is made with the crown of the helmet. (Wilson's was deemed not to be.) You just don't get into the targeting penalties - ejection, miss the next half, etc. BTW, my remark above about "intent" was made tongue in cheek. In 2005, the NCAA specifically took intent out of the rule. Wilson'***** could have been a missed spearing foul. However, the replay booth is not authorized to initiate that call, only targeting...
Last edited:
LOL, shaming me and telling JessN his article was "horrible". WTH... don't let your negative feelings about losing to Penn St. drag you down, dude.
I agree with Selma, and if I were an official I would have called it. They didn't, and I understand their logic.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
There are 2 parts to the rule. Part 1 is defenseless player which by rule the ball carrier does not qualify. Part 2 is any forceable contact to the head area with the crown of the helmet. I think that leaves some subjective interpretation of exactly what the "crown of the helmet" is. Back in my day there were 4 holes on top - area in the middle was the crown. If you watch the hit in slow motion you never see the stripe on Wilson's helmet disappear. In fact I think in one of the shots after the hit you could see the mark on the side of the helmet between the stripe and the number so IMO he did not violate the rule. Apparently the old farts in Birmingham agreed.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
he certainly lowered his head with pretty bad form. It was hard to tell, but it did look like he tried to lead with the shoulder and missed. So partly yes, and partly no. that's why this rule is so hard to enforce, especially on a ball carrier in motion. the QB is sliding, so the head is moving down into the area the tackler was aiming for. Even though it's not in the written rule, I think the refs have pretty much decided if you are running with the ball, and duck in any way, they probably aren't going to call it.
I knew that. Just because I posted late doesn't mean I didn't know which play you were referring to. And what is wrong with a shoulder into a player?
The reason is that it takes a "defenseless player" to escalate from spearing to targeting. A ball carrier cannot be in that category unless he enters into one of the categories in the rule, i.e. by sliding or otherwise "giving himself up." That's the reason that Wilson'***** could only have been spearing. However, the replay booth, unlike in targeting, can't overrule the officials on the field or raise the foul on their own, as they can with targeting. Apparently, the officials didn't even think Wilson'***** was spearing in that he didn't he didn't lead with the crown of the helmet. The closeups show that his head was turned to his right at contact. By definition, that can't be spearing. They had to see that in a split second and my hat's off to them, because, at a glance, I thought Mack had lead with his crown. I tend to agree with the calls, but it wouldn't have surprised me at all if any of the three had been called the other way...
Did anyone see the hit on Arkansas QB Allen that injured his leg? Was that a personal foul? Considering what Bama was flagged for(was it vs Allen too?) where the Alabama linebacker was pushed down on his rush and hit the qb while he still had the ball, the hit on Allen should have been a flag too.
Actually, you can do that without penalty. The rules require that the contact be made with the "crown of the helmet."
Latest threads
-
No. 1 Visits Tuscaloosa for Second Straight Week as Alabama Hosts Top-Ranked Texas A&M- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
-
I'm Declaring the Emporer has no clothes (NCAA rules implosion)- Started by BamaNation
- Replies: 22
-
Home-and-Home Series Wraps Up as Alabama Welcomes UAB on Tuesday
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 1
-
-
A huge win today at my doctor's office...- Started by uafan4life
- Replies: 4