Kevin Sumlin Contacted the SEC About the Mack Wilson Hit

crimsonaudio said:

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...

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the correct term would be "butt hurt"

Oh and this just in...

Another new thread just popped up on Texags stating how the officials missed another penalty on BAMA. [emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

sabanball said:

I'm pretty sure the correct term would be "butt hurt"

Oh and this just in...

Another new thread just popped up on Texags stating how the officials missed another penalty on BAMA. [emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

So when you lose a game by 3 scores it HAS to be the officiating- right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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.

Click to expand...

Omg, do you watch bama games??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Go Bama said:

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.

Click to expand...

Its a contact sport where men can get hurt. If you don't wanna get hit, might wanna find another sport. They all know the chances they're taking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I support the targeting rule. It has started to change the sport in a positive way, eliminating most of the hits that were meant to cause pain or injury rather than tackle the opponent. I can live with the inconsistency in its implementation given the changes that I have seen on the field. Rules like this might save the game.

Here's how I would fix the rule. Any player who leads with the helmet (and makes helmet to helmet contact) would be assessed a 15 yard personal foul penalty. 2 of those and then you're ejected from the game. Gives the players and the referees room for error. Also, if a player leads with the helmet more than once in a game it probably isn't an accident..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

gman4tide said:

Omg, do you watch bama games??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Every minute of every one - in fact twice, because I watch my DVR recording on Sunday afternoon. Cut me some slack, just didn't connect the dots in the context of this thread. I'm doing well to remember what I ate for breakfast this morning. :tongue:

On another note, I'm glad this thread went like it did. I was originally in the "yeah that was targeting" camp but I've changed my mind after really looking hard at the rule and what some others have posted. As someone else mentioned, the key is the verbiage about going beyond making a legal tackle or play on the ball. I think the whole discussion just highlights the lingering confusion on the rule, but I'm not sure how they'd clean it up any further to add any clarity.

TIDE-HSV said:

Are you going to delete the "defenseless player" part altogether? Because, what you done is go back to the old spearing rule but added the two incident rule. The only problem I have with yours is that there are some incidents which are so egregious, the offender needs to leave the field right then. A&M's #6 had already been warned for unbecoming conduct, basically a powder keg which they needed to get rid of for this game. The "defenseless player" rule was an attempt to zero in on those incidents without reverting to the earlier "intent" rule, IOW, inferring intent from conduct. Problem is, the introduction of the "defenseless player" concept also inserted a lot of subjectivity into the standard...

Click to expand...

Yes, I would delete the defenseless player jargon altogether. If you're on the football field then defend yourself. You are correct that some incidents are egregious but those are few and far between. I believe simplifying the rule to a finite standard is the only way it can be fairly enforced. My idea isn't a perfect solution but it's significantly less ambiguous than what we have now..

CrimsonForce said:

Yes, I would delete the defenseless player jargon altogether. If you're on the football field then defend yourself. You are correct that some incidents are egregious but those are few and far between. I believe simplifying the rule to a finite standard is the only way it can be fairly enforced. My idea isn't a perfect solution but it's significantly less ambiguous than what we have now..

Click to expand...

So the Damien Harris call was a bad one then? Had a hand in his face and couldn't see the defender coming in for the knockout block...

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

RolandDeschain said:

So the Damien Harris call was a bad one then? Had a hand in his face and couldn't see the defender coming in for the knockout block...

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

The Damien Harris call was correct under the current rules. I've never said anything different..

So, as some of you know I umpire baseball (see non-sports thread). Sunday morning before the games started, I was talking to a group of coaches as we were waiting for the fog to burn off. One of the coaches was a ref in the Bama/TAMU game so naturally we gravitated toward this discussion. His comments were it was obviously not a defenseless player, which I think everyone agrees with because he was carrying the ball.

He said where its gets muddy is "what is considered leading with the crown of the helmet?" The way the refs viewed the play was that he didn't intend to hit helmet to helmet as he had his head across the front of Noil's body in a good form tackle and basically the "forehead" of his helmet is what make contact with the mask as he was driving through the tackle. They felt that he didn't have his head lowered to "torpedo" through the guy and he was just trying to execute a good form tackle with his head up and that "helmet to helmet" if you will was incidental and not intentional.

Interesting take. So, based on his comments, I'll retract my earlier argument for helmet to helmet. Trust me, if you read my umpire comments in baseball, I certainly don't envy those guys on the field either. I thought a few dozen parents were tough, but 100K fans...brutal.