Kevin Sumlin Contacted the SEC About the Mack Wilson Hit

ALA2262 · Oct 26, 2016

Redwood Forrest said:
See ..... this is why I am giving up this subject. The part about "defenseless" apparently is useless. If you risk a targeting call tackling a running back then defenseless is just a silly word that does not apply. I think I agree with Bill King: All targeting calls are bad for both sides and all are wrong for both side."

Defenseless is not a part of Rule 9-1-3. It is a part of Rule 9-1-4. Rule 9-1-3 has to do with ANY player HITTING another player anywhere WITH the crown of the helmet. Which is what happened during the play in question. Rule 9-1-4 has to do with a DEFENSELESS player BEING HIT above the shoulder in the neck or head area. Which is not what happened during the play in question because the runner is not considered defenseless.

Problem is the play fell under the auspices of Rule 9-1-3 and Al Ford incorrectly applied the defenseless portion of Rule 9-1-4 in his interpretation. I believe this is being done because there is no way they are going to make that call on a tackle in the open field. If they were, Reuben Foster would have been ejected from just about every game he has ever played at Bama.

Edit: And please don't come back and tell me Al Ford was correct. I watched Al Ford officiate for more years than he should have been allowed to officiate and I have yet to see him do anything correct. If you think Penn Wagers was the worst, then you never saw Al Ford.

Go Bama · Oct 26, 2016

Some of you see that as not being the crown of the helmet or helmet to helmet?

ALA2262 · Oct 26, 2016

Rest assured, next season, if not sooner, that play will be considered targeting. Flag football is just around the corner Tide fans.

Special K · Oct 26, 2016

We can argue about the rule itself, but per the current rule, it was targeting and should have been called. I've looked at it in freeze frame over and over again, Wilson definitely led with the crown of the helmet. Sumlin was right to send it in and ask for an explanation at least. Saban would have probably done the same if the situation was reversed.

CrimsonForce · Oct 26, 2016

Go Bama said:
Some of you see that as not being the crown of the helmet or helmet to helmet?

Helmet to helmet is okay as long as the contact isn't deemed "forcible" which means going beyond making a tackle. IOW, if a guy isn't out there head hunting it's permissible to have incidental helmet contact. The targeting rule obviously isn't very clear based on all the differing opinions. I agree with the overriding opinion that the rulebook, as it pertains to targeting, is ambiguous and vague at best. With that being said this hit was about the same as the one on Jalen Hurts during the Ole Miss game. Did you have a problem with that hit on Jalen? Seems like there's more folks here who think Mack Wilson should have been ejected from the game than had a problem with the Ole Miss hit on Jalen.

At the end of the day targeting was not called on the field. Officials miss calls though, right? Fine. So the SEC office in Birmingham/the review booth reviewed the call during the game (Gary mentioned this during the broadcast). They did not stop play to further review because in their opinion it was not targeting. Then, Sumlin complains and the play is looked at another time and again the play is not determined to be targeting. This play was viewed 3 different times by 3 different parties and each time they came to the same conclusion. It wasn't targeting. So we can join the other fan bases who wear tin foil hats and think that the officials on the field and in Birmingham are bought and paid for by Alabama or.....maybe it wasn't targeting..

CrimsonForce · Oct 26, 2016

Special K said:
We can argue about the rule itself, but per the current rule, it was targeting and should have been called. I've looked at it in freeze frame over and over again, Wilson definitely led with the crown of the helmet. Sumlin was right to send it in and ask for an explanation at least. Saban would have probably done the same if the situation was reversed.

The roles were reversed and Saban did not ask for an explanation. The hit on Jalen Hurts during the Ole Miss game was the same as this hit and I don't recall Saban asking for an explanation. Feel free to correct me if that did happen and I missed it. Helmet to helmet doesn't automatically qualify as targeting. It has to be deemed forcible helmet contact which means the action "goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball." It was determined that Wilson was making a legal tackle..

colbysullivan · Oct 26, 2016

I'll say this: no one (anywhere) seems to be able to define targeting, but they know it when they see it. Wilson'***** was a good solid hit to a ball carrier who saw it coming. The aTm player hit Damien square in the head when Damien was trying to make a tackle against another player. One was clearly not defenseless, the other one was. If Wilson'***** was targeting, then I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

Special K · Oct 26, 2016

CrimsonForce said:
Helmet to helmet is okay as long as the contact isn't deemed "forcible" which means going beyond making a tackle. IOW, if a guy isn't out there head hunting it's permissible to have incidental helmet contact. The targeting rule obviously isn't very clear based on all the differing opinions. I agree with the overriding opinion that the rulebook, as it pertains to targeting, is ambiguous and vague at best. With that being said this hit was about the same as the one on Jalen Hurts during the Ole Miss game. Did you have a problem with that hit on Jalen? Seems like there's more folks here who think Mack Wilson should have been ejected from the game than had a problem with the Ole Miss hit on Jalen.

At the end of the day targeting was not called on the field. Officials miss calls though, right? Fine. So the SEC office in Birmingham/the review booth reviewed the call during the game (Gary mentioned this during the broadcast). They did not stop play to further review because in their opinion it was not targeting. Then, Sumlin complains and the play is looked at another time and again the play is not determined to be targeting. This play was viewed 3 different times by 3 different parties and each time they came to the same conclusion. It wasn't targeting. So we can join the other fan bases who wear tin foil hats and think that the officials on the field and in Birmingham are bought and paid for by Alabama or.....maybe it wasn't targeting..

I hear what you're saying, but I still think they missed it in this case. But you are right, the rule is still ambiguous, especially in regards to the definition of the "forcible contact" part. I'm sure it's been handled in offseason training with the officials and maybe there's more to the interpretation as a result that we regular fans just don't know. With my limited knowledge, I would call it targeting based on the wording of the current rule (not that I necessarily agree with the rule as written) but I'm not privy to the offseason reviews and training either.

dvldog · Oct 26, 2016

Obviously, this rule was not discussed this much when it was put on the books. I'm just glad upward forward thrusting to the face can lead to a penalty. No place for that in football.

RTR91 · Oct 26, 2016

dvldog said:
Obviously, this rule was not discussed this much when it was put on the books. I'm just glad upward forward thrusting to the face can lead to a penalty. No place for that in football.

CrimsonForce · Oct 26, 2016

Special K said:
I hear what you're saying, but I still think they missed it in this case. But you are right, the rule is still ambiguous, especially in regards to the definition of the "forcible contact" part. I'm sure it's been handled in offseason training with the officials and maybe there's more to the interpretation as a result that we regular fans just don't know. With my limited knowledge, I would call it targeting based on the wording of the current rule (not that I necessarily agree with the rule as written) but I'm not privy to the offseason reviews and training either.

Did you feel like the hit on Jalen during the Ole Miss game should have been called targeting?

TideMan09 · Oct 26, 2016

bamacon said:
When runners duck their head down it should eliminate the targeting rule. Why do they get a pass for not seeing what they hit? Thought they called 100% correctly.

That Aggie that got tossed was a nasty player in my book.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yup..When Henry, Fournette & other big RB's gets a full head of steam, lowers their heads before coming to a defender, has left quite a few defenders still searching for their jock straps after getting steamrolled..Some of the most brutal helmet to helmet contacts are initiated by the offensive players & it's completely legal..

Special K · Oct 26, 2016

CrimsonForce said:
The roles were reversed and Saban did not ask for an explanation. The hit on Jalen Hurts during the Ole Miss game was the same as this hit and I don't recall Saban asking for an explanation. Feel free to correct me if that did happen and I missed it. Helmet to helmet doesn't automatically qualify as targeting. It has to be deemed forcible helmet contact which means the action "goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball." It was determined that Wilson was making a legal tackle..

Well Saban probably wouldn't have broadcast it like Sumlin if he had sent it on. I'm betting the staff sends a bunch of stuff to the conference for review that we never hear about. See my other reply to you regarding forcible contact - perhaps that is indeed the explanation, that they didn't see it as meeting the definition of "forcible contact". However, take a look at the link to the rule that selma posted. Scroll down to the "Targeting Indicators" section where it states "Risk of a targeting foul high with one or more of these:" and the last one reads:
"Lowering the head before attacking by initiating contact with the crownof the helmet". Looks like what Mack Wilson did to me, but it also doesn't say it's an absolute foul if he lowers his head. Certainly open to some interpretation the way it's worded.

Again, I'm not saying I agree with the rule in it's current form, but by the letter of the law it could have been (some say should have been) called. I would not have been upset with the officials either way and it doesn't bother me that Sumlin asked for an explanation - happens all the time.

Special K · Oct 26, 2016

CrimsonForce said:
Did you feel like the hit on Jalen during the Ole Miss game should have been called targeting?

Well I wasn't comparing the two, just commenting on this one because we had a good slo-mo video clip. I'm not even sure which hit in the Ole Miss game you're talking about. Show it to me then I'll tell you what I think.

EDIT: Never mind, I see the post describing it now. Let me look at it on video and get back to you.

dvldog · Oct 26, 2016

Special K said:
Well I wasn't comparing the two, just commenting on this one because we had a good slo-mo video clip. I'm not even sure which hit in the Ole Miss game you're talking about. Show it to me then I'll tell you what I think.

EDIT: Never mind, I see the post describing it now. Let me look at it on video and get back to you.

Nope. Not going there.

Special K · Oct 26, 2016

OK, looked at the video again on the Ole Miss hit. Yes, according to the rule that was targeting and it was more egregious than Mack's play against A&M.

smilinc · Oct 26, 2016

Please note my post from Oct 17th.... T A&M runners do this constantly............

In noting the number of injuries to Tenn. players in the game with A&M, I noticed that the A&M ball carriers, when faced with a tackle lowered the head and butted the defensive players. I am no expert, but it appears they are coached to do that...and the likely result may be an injury.

Hope someone makes note of this and has the officials watch for it....

What thinks you???

IMALOYAL1 · Oct 26, 2016

The rule about leading with the crown doesn't distinguish between defenseless and non-defenseless players, and doesn't specify the opponent's head as the part you're hitting.

Yet we see ball carriers lower their head and use it as a battering ram every other carry. Some runningbacks are more prone to this than others. This many time results in a defensive player trying to make a legal tackle get smashed in the face by the crown of the helmet of an extremely forceful player going full speed.

I think the NFL called a penalty on Trent Richardson early in his career. He almost always lowered his head and led with it.

I stated in another thread the tackle by Clowney when he knocked the helmet off the ball carrier in their bowl game didn't bring anything but praise and 100s of replays on TV.

If Mac had been stand still and received most of the momentum from Speedy I don't think anyone would have cried foul.

It was obvious number 6 on TAM was launching at the side of the head of our player, arms down in an attempt to become a missile of destruction against a player who did not see him coming.

Maybe they should change the rule to any play that makes the crowd go ohwww.

Go Bama · Oct 26, 2016

My understanding is that targeting rules were to prevent concussions or worse. Regardless of who reviewed the play or who instigated contact, this kind of hit is dangerous.

If it wasn't targeting, it should be. Player safety has to come first.

Superdad · Oct 26, 2016

bamacon said:
Look at the pic right before impact. He's at 3 ft. off the ground. You'd have to assume Mack was aiming at Noil's waste when he dove. By the time he arrives both are parallel with the ground. Mack's head is clearly up. Sometimes helmets will make contact but the rule is for the spearing type blind hit with the crown. This hit was not that IMO. I don't envy the officials because it is a serious thing to kick a guy out of a huge game and part of the next one, and some of these are so bang bang.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That would be a dirty hit.

Kevin Sumlin Contacted the SEC About the Mack Wilson Hit

All-American

Hall of Fame

All-American

All-American

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

All-American

Hall of Fame

Super Moderator

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

All-American

All-American

Hall of Fame

All-American

BamaNation Citizen

All-American

Hall of Fame

1st Team

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!