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...
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...at least how i read it, the part in bold is the important part in this play
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.You can carry this on, but both the SEC and Saban have said no defenseless player and therefore no targeting. How exactly does your argument get around that? I think they're correct and arguing with them is pointless.
[/B][/I]
Like I said to '92, bring your point up again the next time targeting is called when the player is not "defenseless." OK?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.
In my opinion, the Jalen Hurts hit in the Ole Miss game hit should have been called targeting also.How many times does it have to be said that the Mack Wilson hit was NOT targeting. The rule book says when in question it is targeting so the hit wasn't even close enough to be in question to the people who make the final decision - the officials on the field, the replay booth and the SEC office in Birmingham. 3 separate parties reviewed the play and deemed it wasn't even in question or it would have been called targeting.
This was the same type of hit Jalen Hurts took in the Ole Miss game. I didn't hear any outcry or fussing about that hit yet there's many people posting here who feel Mack should've been thrown out of the aTm game??
"Look at the platoon! My son is the only one marching in step!"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.Like I said to '92, bring your point up again the next time targeting is called when the player is not "defenseless." OK?
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.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.
Target—to take aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with an apparent intent that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball.
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."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.
Exactly. I mentioned the same thing in a earlier post: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.
Intent was specifically removed from the spearing rule by the NCAA in 2005...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.
yes, i never even considered that what wilson did was spearing. i was initially worried about targeting until i heard the explanation on tvIntent was specifically removed from the spearing rule by the NCAA in 2005...
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..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."
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.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..
For God's sake, get some sleep, take a vacation, take a lady out, get out for a bit...I've been on the internet for some 20 years
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)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...
Can I second that motion ?For God's sake, get some sleep, take a vacation, take a lady out, get out for a bit...