OK, I'm happy to let it go, but remember that both Saban and SEC have spoken on this. I will accept their view of the rules...
Kevin Sumlin Contacted the SEC About the Mack Wilson Hit
- Thread starter RTR91
- Start date
This whole thread proves that no one really knows what targeting is, not even the people who made up the rule. There's way too many ways to interpret the rule, I wish they would just get rid of it altogether, but that won't happen.
Bring your point up again the next time targeting is called when the player is not "defenseless" under the rules. I wouldn't hold my breath...
I agree that according to Rule 9-1-4, the Mack Wilson play is not considered targeting because Noil was not defenseless but targeting could have been called according to Rule 9-1-3. The SEC, Saban, and many others (including yourself) are only referring to the defenseless player rule (9-1-4) and not the other rule (9-1-3). Everyone doesn't have to agree but that is my take on it.
Like I said to '92, bring your point up again the next time targeting is called when the player is not "defenseless." OK?
In my opinion, the Jalen Hurts hit in the Ole Miss game hit should have been called targeting also.
So in your opinion, what does Rule 9-1-3 mean? It looks like it is being ignored and only 9-1-4 is being used to apply the rule.
not speaking for earle, but the way i read it, rule 9-1-3 refers to "note 1" which in the part i bolded above brings intent into the matter and wilson was making a legal tackle on a non-defenseless ball carrier, therefore no intent.
I agree that intent is hard to determine but what about the rest of note 1 that says, "Crown of the Helmet—the top portion of the helmet. Contact to the head or neck area—not only with the helmet, but also with the forearm, fist, elbow, or shoulder—these can all lead to a foul."
Exactly. I mentioned the same thing in a earlier post:
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..
yes, i never even considered that what wilson did was spearing. i was initially worried about targeting until i heard the explanation on tv
The rest of note 1 that you mentioned (crown of the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow) must be in conjunction with forcible contact which is going beyond making a legal tackle, block or play on the ball. Wilson was making a legal tackle so therefore not targeting..
Has anybody even blamed A&M for this whole thing. If they would have blocked Wilson just a little the hit wouldn't have looked so violent. When you don't even break stride on a kickoff and hit the return man at full speed every hit looks like targeting. A&M at least slowed Wilson up a little the next time when he hit the back up return man.
This point is the only one I've heard/seen that makes any sense to me as to why there was no targeting call. Others have mentioned this... I am just quoting CrimsonForce's because it's the latest one.
Last edited:
I've been on the internet for some 20 years and it still amazes me that the average internet posters questioning this (like those on Texags) think that they have it correct while Saban, the officials on the field, the official in the replay booth, the official in Birmingham, and the post-game SEC review all got it wrong...
For God's sake, get some sleep, take a vacation, take a lady out, get out for a bit...
It doesn't help that the rule they cite (not a defenseless player) doesn't pertain to the actual question (leading with the crown of the helmet)
Latest threads
-
-
Question: Chris Youngblood did he commit over the weekend?
- Started by mlingerfelt31
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
-