Targeting Flags -- which do you agree with

92tide

TideFans Legend
May 9, 2000
58,154
44,877
287
54
East Point, Ga, USA
Thanks. Based on this I think we can all agree Noil wasn't a defenseless player. I think the issue is still what difference it makes to the targeting rule whether a player is defenseless or not.
from the article

No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul.

This specifies a hit with the top of the helmet, but not necessarily a hit to the opponent’s helmet.

The next item in the rulebook, including the aforementioned "Note 1," which explains the many additional situations in which all kinds of hits are considered targeting:

No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)

Note 1: "Targeting" means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:

Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area
A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground
Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet
 
Last edited by a moderator:

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
I don't have actual stats, but it seems like every game there are 2-3 stoppages in play to review for targeting. About half of those result in an ejection. Then, some just get missed. It is football and helmets will collide.

#6 for A&M was ejected and it was the right call. I happened to be in the end zone seats just below the student section where he was escorted to the locker room. Like a dummy, he puts his hand up to his ear (think of Hulk Hogan) taunting the students. Needless to say, choice words were directed his way, and his team was down 13-0. I digress...

when Speedy Noil got blown up on the kick return, did the officials even look at it? I'm asking you guys to be objective here. Should that have been ruled targeting? I was so caught up in the excitement when that happened, coupled with my disdain (probably unfair) for Noil that I didn't notice if a replay was even put on the screen. I heard he lost a tooth on the hit.

It just seems to me that the targeting rule isn't creating change in how the game is played. Isn't that the intent?
I thought Mack should have been ejected if that's what you're asking. I was up in QQ and thought from my seat it was targeting, at least by letter of the law.
 

92tide

TideFans Legend
May 9, 2000
58,154
44,877
287
54
East Point, Ga, USA
I thought Mack should have been ejected if that's what you're asking. I was up in QQ and thought from my seat it was targeting, at least by letter of the law.
see the link above to the rules. based on that, what mack did was not targeting and that is what the official told gary (and rick n. mentioned in his post-game talk).
 

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,552
39,659
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
I'll have to look but I'm pretty sure there's nothing in the targeting rule that specifies the player has to be 'defenseless'.
Actually, they reviewed the call in Birmingham and the SEC office ruled that the KO returner wasn't "defenseless." Danielson announced that...
 

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
45,502
46,845
187
For me, the biggest difference was the attempt to tackle the player. Wilson had his arms out and wrapped up Noil after the huge hit. The aTm player launched himself like a missile, with his arms at his sides. Clearly he was just trying to blow up the player - not trying to make a tackle.
 

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,552
39,659
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
Sometimes, I think the "final straw" factor comes into play. In the case of #6, he was begging for an ejection. He had shoved, punched once and was continually in the face of our players, who were largely ignoring him. One official appeared to warn him, although you can't really tell what passed between them. Even some of the A&M fans have said he deserved ejection. However, all that said, the enforcement is so subjective, I can see all three calls going the other way...
 

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,552
39,659
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
For me, the biggest difference was the attempt to tackle the player. Wilson had his arms out and wrapped up Noil after the huge hit. The aTm player launched himself like a missile, with his arms at his sides. Clearly he was just trying to blow up the player - not trying to make a tackle.
Agreed...
 

Isaiah 63:1

All-American
Dec 8, 2005
2,508
2,154
187
Probably at 35k or in an airport somewhere
...Most of the helmet to helmet contact is initiated by the evasiveness of the offensive player's movements to avoid the big hit. It's football plain and simple...
It isn't helmet-to-helmet that gets you called for targeting, but rather leading with the crown of the helmet, which typically (if not always) means your head is down and you can't actually see your target. This is as dangerous for the tackler (think Mark Buoniconti) as for the target. It's poor form at best; borderline suicidal at worst. Getting rid of this style of play in no way emasculates football.

Mack's tackle seemed like textbook targeting, as defined, to me...
 

CrimsonForce

Hall of Fame
Dec 20, 2012
12,757
94
67
I think the Wilson non-call was correct. Crown of the helmet doesn't = any helmet contact. Crown of the helmet means leading with the top of the helmet. I don't think Wilson did that. There was helmet contact but, IMO, not targeting. With that being said I was surprised he didn't get ejected because of the vicious nature of the hit. We've all seen a player get ejected for a lot less than that play..
 

BamaNation

Publisher and Benevolent Dictator
Staff member
Apr 9, 1999
20,435
16,626
432
Silicon Slopes
TideFans.com
I know I've mentioned this in the past, but how about we actually enforce tackling someone instead of running into them and "blowing them up" with shoulder bumps and head-on hits. T.A.C.K.L.E.

Also, my opinion of SEC officiating is that none of them actually know the rules anymore because they are doubting whatever they call.
 

92tide

TideFans Legend
May 9, 2000
58,154
44,877
287
54
East Point, Ga, USA
I think the Wilson non-call was correct. Crown of the helmet doesn't = any helmet contact. Crown of the helmet means leading with the top of the helmet. I don't think Wilson did that. There was helmet contact but, IMO, not targeting. With that being said I was surprised he didn't get ejected because of the vicious nature of the hit. We've all seen a player get ejected for a lot less than that play..
in the slo-mo replay, you could see noil's facemask collapse into his face from the force of the hit. it looked very painful

you can also see his tooth pop out

[video]https://cdn-e1.streamable.com/video/mp4-mobile/b3j1.mp4?token=1478538001_18678e2a3cf20d1bc52632b6 2a2034dcef15b920[/video]
 
Last edited:

davefrat

Hall of Fame
Jun 4, 2002
5,172
3,893
282
Hopewell, VA
I understand the analysis of the ST hit and per the rules it sounds like it was a good no call.
that being said, when it happened my wife and I both said "oh my god!" out loud at the same time.
if the issue is about player safety, then hits like that shouldn't be allowed.
as to intent, however, it was clear the aTm player was simply looking to blow harris to pieces, whereas the ST hit just looked like a straight on clobbering...but dangerous nonetheless.
 

LA4Bama

All-SEC
Jan 5, 2015
1,624
0
0
Los Angeles, CA
I think the Wilson non-call was correct. Crown of the helmet doesn't = any helmet contact. Crown of the helmet means leading with the top of the helmet. I don't think Wilson did that. There was helmet contact but, IMO, not targeting. With that being said I was surprised he didn't get ejected because of the vicious nature of the hit. We've all seen a player get ejected for a lot less than that play..
I don't think there is any doubt the first thing that happened was the crown/top of 30's helmet hit the returner in the head. Whether that is enough to constitute the foul still confuses me even after reading the rule.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
I saw it when I got home, and it was even worse than I had thought.

Earle's point is what to me gets to the core of the whole thing. I could see ANY of the three we're talking about but ESPECIALLY the ATM guy who was tossed and Mack's first hit. If they had thrown Mack out, I don't think anyone here could seriously argue with any degree of vociferousness that it was the WRONG call, which again - is part of the problem.

And I wonder if I should pause to note the irony of people here talking about how terrible the officiating is but insisting 'they got it right' in this particular instance. I chose to reserve judgment until I saw the replay, but I honestly thought Mack's was textbook.

On the flip side - it seems to me that part of the reason for officials being there also grants a degree of flexibility on subjective things like that. Despite the carping of fans all over the country, the refs KNOW that people paid good money to see So and So play, and they don't REALLY like to have an unusual effect on the outcome of the game. Thus, it would be perfectly acceptable to me if a ref said, "Yeah, Mack'***** was targeting BUT he was trying to tackle and not trying to injure so I'll consider it 'incidental' and not eject him."

The actions of the ATM player were far more egregious, and I noticed this at the time. Mack seemed to try and keep a low profile on it.
 

JustNeedMe81

Hall of Fame
Sep 30, 2011
14,906
6,190
187
42
Huntsville, Al
Aaron Suttles just tweeted that "Saban also said that Mack Wilson'***** was great and that it was correctly called as not targeting. " The ball carrier wasn't defenseless."
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
Actually, they reviewed the call in Birmingham and the SEC office ruled that the KO returner wasn't "defenseless." Danielson announced that...
Yeah, but league office something something Birmingham something something Alabama has unfair advantage something something Hotty Toddy something something it's all fixed something something
 

New Posts

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.