Kevin Sumlin Contacted the SEC About the Mack Wilson Hit

I understand the SEC has responded to CKS about Mack Wilson'***** and here is their opinion.

Special K said:

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.

Click to expand...

And this is why I can't get upset about Mack's play. You are correct.

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...

It's football. Football is a violent contact sport. I've seen as big a collision in a flag football game. It is when the
collision is done with the intent to injure another player that it becomes a problem and a detriment to the game. Most anybody can see the intent to injure within a play and it should carry at least a game and a half penalty.Any second offense cost you the season ( 8 games minimum) penalty.If the penalty is steep enough the coaches and players will police it themselves. When this happens the refs can call holding, lineman down field and the rest of us can enjoy our hard hitting football games. BTW I think targeting calls are already down from last year.

ALA2262 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I'm not coming back at all. I am done with this nonsensical, complicated and bad for all teams rule.

Bubbaloo said:

It's football. Football is a violent contact sport. I've seen as big a collision in a flag football game. It is when the
collision is done with the intent to injure another player that it becomes a problem and a detriment to the game. Most anybody can see the intent to injure within a play and it should carry at least a game and a half penalty.Any second offense cost you the season ( 8 games minimum) penalty.If the penalty is steep enough the coaches and players will police it themselves. When this happens the refs can call holding, lineman down field and the rest of us can enjoy our hard hitting football games. BTW I think targeting calls are already down from last year.

Click to expand...

Thank you for clearing that up for me.

theballguy said:

Noil was not a defenseless player. End of story. By the way, wasn't half that team last Saturday playing for aTm since Johnny Football started in 2012??? And I don't think a lot of them were freshmen then. :-o

Click to expand...

Absolutely , Boil had every opportunity to either kneel on it or fall on the ground before he was lit up. He saw what was coming he chose to take his chances, ....closing speed is a @$!#, ain't it Speedy

Displaced Bama Fan said:

I'm not defending Noil, but when did Noil duck his head? Yeah, he was running, but I don't think he had time to duck his head and took it right on the chin. Dang lucky he walked off the field. Definitely a teachable moment for Mack as well.

Click to expand...

He absolutely ducked his head.

CoastGhost said:

He absolutely ducked his head.

Click to expand...

LOL! Whatever man. Everyone sees it differently.

Bubbaloo said:

It's football. Football is a violent contact sport. I've seen as big a collision in a flag football game. It is when the
collision is done with the intent to injure another player that it becomes a problem and a detriment to the game. Most anybody can see the intent to injure within a play and it should carry at least a game and a half penalty.Any second offense cost you the season ( 8 games minimum) penalty.If the penalty is steep enough the coaches and players will police it themselves. When this happens the refs can call holding, lineman down field and the rest of us can enjoy our hard hitting football games. BTW I think targeting calls are already down from last year.

Click to expand...

that must have been some hellacious flag football

Displaced Bama Fan said:

LOL! Whatever man. Everyone sees it differently.

Click to expand...

if it ducks like a quack

92tide said:

if it ducks like a quack

Click to expand...

Well, we did see a duck pull a truck..

TIDE-HSV said:

I've totally lost track of the number of times, I've posted it, but it could never have been "targeting," because Noil did not fit into the relatively narrow categories of "defenseless player," which he could have done by sliding or several other maneuvers. Instead, he went headlong into Wilson, ducking his head. The rule doesn't, and was never intended, to protect that maneuver. The SEC office was quite clear about that during the game with the booth. People need to read the definition of "defenseless player." The most which it could have been was a missed spearing call. That is a PF, with a 15 yd penalty. It can't be called by the replay booth and doesn't carry the severe penalties of the targeting call. I'm getting tired of it's being called "targeting," when there's no way under the rules it could be considered so...

Click to expand...

I hate to disagree with you Earle, but that's only covered under rule 9-1-4.

RULES

Targeting and Initiating Contact With the Crown of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3)

No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.

Targeting and Initiating Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player (Rule 9-1-4)

No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 2-27-14)

It's two separate rules, defenseless vs non-defenseless. I actually have a copy of the rule book.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

TIDE-HSV said:

I've totally lost track of the number of times, I've posted it, but it could never have been "targeting," because Noil did not fit into the relatively narrow categories of "defenseless player," which he could have done by sliding or several other maneuvers. Instead, he went headlong into Wilson, ducking his head. The rule doesn't, and was never intended, to protect that maneuver. The SEC office was quite clear about that during the game with the booth. People need to read the definition of "defenseless player." The most which it could have been was a missed spearing call. That is a PF, with a 15 yd penalty. It can't be called by the replay booth and doesn't carry the severe penalties of the targeting call. I'm getting tired of it's being called "targeting," when there's no way under the rules it could be considered so...

Click to expand...

The Mack Wilson Play would fall under Rule 9-1-3. It doesn't have to be a defenseless player. The play could have been called targeting. This just shows how subjective it can be.

RULES (Rule 9-1-3) Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet 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. (Rule 9-6) (A.R. 9-1-3-I)

(Rule 9-1-4) Targeting and Initiating Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting . When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6).

Note 1: 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. 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. Note 2: Defenseless player—a player not in position to defend himself. Examples (Rule 2-27-14):  A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.  A receiver attempting to catch a pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.  A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return.  A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick.  A player on the ground.  A player obviously out of the play.  A player who receives a blind-side block.  A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped.  A quarterback any time after a change of possession.  A ball carrier who has obviously given himself up and is sliding feet first

TARGETING INDICATORS Risk of a targeting foul is high with one or more of these:  Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make contact in the head or neck area  A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with contact at the head or neck area—even though one or both feet are still on the ground
 Leading with helmet, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with contact at the head or neck area  Lowering the head before attacking by initiating contact with the crown of the helmet

Risk of a targeting foul is less when the player(s) action is one or more of these:  Heads-up tackle in which the crown of the helmet does not strike above the shoulders  Wrap-up tackle  Head is to the side rather than being used to initiate contact  Incidental helmet contact that is not part of targeting but is due to the players changing position during the course of play

TIDE-HSV said:

Here's where you're wrong. What you've defined is the general rule for spearing. "Targeting" is mentioned in reference to the defenseless player rule:

Defenseless Player
ARTICLE 14. A defenseless player is one who because his physical position and focus of concentration is especially vulnerable to injury. When in question, a player is defenseless. Examples of defenseless players include but are not limited to:
a. A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
b. A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
c. A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return.
d. A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.

e. A player on the ground.
f. A player obviously out of the play.
g. A player who receives a blind-side block. (I call this the Kenny Bell Rule.)
h. A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped.
i. A quarterback any time after a change of possession.
j. A ball carrier who has obviously given himself up and is sliding feet-first.

Noil didn't fit that bolded part. Do you know give any credence at all to the pronouncement of the SEC officiating office or to Coach Saban? I'm saying exactly what they said...

​

Click to expand...

We'll agree to disagree. Spearing isn't mentioned in the section of the rule book. Targeting is in two separate rules, 9-1-3 (non-defenseless) 9-1-4 (defenseless). I'll post the pages for verification, but I don't care enough to argue any further.





Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

TiderMan said:

The Mack Wilson Play would fall under Rule 9-1-3. It doesn't have to be a defenseless player. The play could have been called targeting. This just shows how subjective it can be.

RULES (Rule 9-1-3) Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet 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. (Rule 9-6) (A.R. 9-1-3-I)

(Rule 9-1-4) Targeting and Initiating Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting . When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6).

Note 1: 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. 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. Note 2: Defenseless player—a player not in position to defend himself. Examples (Rule 2-27-14):  A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.  A receiver attempting to catch a pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.  A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return.  A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick.  A player on the ground.  A player obviously out of the play.  A player who receives a blind-side block.  A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped.  A quarterback any time after a change of possession.  A ball carrier who has obviously given himself up and is sliding feet first

TARGETING INDICATORS Risk of a targeting foul is high with one or more of these:  Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make contact in the head or neck area  A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with contact at the head or neck area—even though one or both feet are still on the ground
 Leading with helmet, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with contact at the head or neck area  Lowering the head before attacking by initiating contact with the crown of the helmet

Risk of a targeting foul is less when the player(s) action is one or more of these:  Heads-up tackle in which the crown of the helmet does not strike above the shoulders  Wrap-up tackle  Head is to the side rather than being used to initiate contact  Incidental helmet contact that is not part of targeting but is due to the players changing position during the course of play

Click to expand...

at least how i read it, the part in bold is the important part in this play

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??