Delpit's Hit on Ruggs: How Was This Not Targeting?? - Page 5
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 53 to 65 of 94
  1. #53
    BamaNation Hall of Fame BamaMoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Plano, TX
    Posts
    10,549
    Thread Starter

    Re: Delpit's Hit on Ruggs: How Was This Not Targeting??

    Quote Originally Posted by Padreruf View Post
    If this was not targeting, then it was a late hit that warranted a flag. He had scored and was going to the ground...the player had plenty of time to pull up...this was several yards deep in the end zone.
    I disagree. He'd scored when he crossed the goal line, but the hit was "legal" in the sense it was just a spit second after Ruggs caught the ball and occurred before he even hit the ground. Happens all the time.

    I personally have no problem with the hit and I believe it's just part of football. This is why I hate the current targeting rule.

    My contention, however, is according the the current targeting rule, this should have been called/confirmed. I think the replay officials in B'ham sold out because of the 2 weeks on controversy.

  2. Advertisement
  3. #54
    BamaNation All-SEC Special K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,857

    Re: Delpit's Hit on Ruggs: How Was This Not Targeting??

    I do not believe this was targeting by the letter of the rule.

    Here's the rule:

    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.

    No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)

    Note 1: "Targeting" means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:


    • Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area
    • A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground
    • Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
    • Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet


    Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14):

    • A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
    • 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.
    • 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, 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.
    • 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
    So the first question is, was Ruggs considered "defenseless" on the play? According to Note 2 above, I would say he was NOT defenseless - Delpit's contact came just as he crosses the goal line. So the 2nd paragraph of the rule does not apply.

    So now you go back to the first paragraph of the rule. Did Delpit make forcible contact with the crown (top) of his helmet? I don't see it. I see him leading with his shoulder for the most part and then making contact with the side of his helmet, not the crown. There is no "indicator" that I can see - didn't launch, didn't crouch, didn't lead with the helmet, and didn't lower his head.

    This is not targeting. And while I agree the rule is difficult to interpret and apply in general, sometimes we are seeing what we want to see and making it more complicated than it really is. If this had been a Bama player and he had been ejected on a play like this, we'd all be livid. Just my $.02.
    I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.

  4. #55
    BamaNation All-American Tide&True's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Murfreesboro, TN
    Posts
    2,563

    Re: Delpit's Hit on Ruggs: How Was This Not Targeting??

    My take: they got the one on D White wrong and tried to correct it it by not calling it again. Total PC you know what!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    "They've got a name for the winners in the world....they call Alabama the Crimson Tide"
    -Steely Dan

  5. #56
    BamaNation All-SEC
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,664

    Re: Delpit's Hit on Ruggs: How Was This Not Targeting??

    Question: Do Irv Smith's cleats have to sit out a half this week for targeting? 'Cause they were sure trying to go full possum stomp on Delpit after the TD catch for his earlier "football moves" against Ruggs and Tua's jewels on the delay of game penalty. Should have been a justifiable targeting and half-the-distance to the goal for 'Bama on the extra point try.

  6. #57
    BamaNation All-American CrimsonNagus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, United States
    Posts
    3,811

    Delpit's Hit on Ruggs: How Was This Not Targeting??

    I disagree Special K.

    The rule:

    No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder.

    Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14):

    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.
    He was defenseless. He was falling backwards into the endzone and couldn’t protect himself. If he wasn’t defenseless, then there is no such thing. Textbook targeting on a defenseless player. The end.

    Deep down, everyone in the sports world knows why this call was reversed.
    Last edited by CrimsonNagus; November 5th, 2018 at 10:26 AM.

  7. #58
    BamaNation All-SEC Special K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,857

    Re: Delpit's Hit on Ruggs: How Was This Not Targeting??

    Quote Originally Posted by CrimsonNagus View Post
    I disagree Special K.

    The rule:



    He was defenseless. He was falling backwards into the endzone and couldn’t protect himself. If he wasn’t defenseless, then there is no such thing. Textbook targeting on a defenseless player. The end.

    Deep down, everyone in the sports world knows why this call was reversed.
    Agree to disagree. He took 2 steps before Delpit makes contact. You'd have a hard time convincing an official he "has not had time to protect himself". Backing into the end zone is not a qualifier, but time is the key word there.

    By the way, here's the exact moment of the initial contact by Delpit:



    Notice where his head is - just behind HR's shoulder. And notice where HR's feet are - not even across the goal line yet. LSU got away with a lot of crap in this game, but I just can't see this as targeting. What else is a safety supposed to do? Just let him cross the goal line unchallenged? Delpit's low shot on Tua was dirty, but this was just a safety trying to knock the ball out before a guy scores. But it is bang-bang and close, so I see why some might think it's targeting. I think they were right to flag it and review, but I also think they were right to overturn. JMHO, to each his own.
    I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.

  8. #59
    BamaNation Third Team BearFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Tulsa, OK
    Posts
    32

    Re: Delpit's Hit on Ruggs: How Was This Not Targeting??

    Quote Originally Posted by Special K View Post
    I do not believe this was targeting by the letter of the rule

    Here's the rule:


    So the first question is, was Ruggs considered "defenseless" on the play? According to Note 2 above, I would say he was NOT defenseless - Delpit's contact came just as he crosses the goal line. So the 2nd paragraph of the rule does not apply.

    So now you go back to the first paragraph of the rule. Did Delpit make forcible contact with the crown (top) of his helmet? I don't see it. I see him leading with his shoulder for the most part and then making contact with the side of his helmet, not the crown. There is no "indicator" that I can see - didn't launch, didn't crouch, didn't lead with the helmet, and didn't lower his head.

    This is not targeting. And while I agree the rule is difficult to interpret and apply in general, sometimes we are seeing what we want to see and making it more complicated than it really is. If this had been a Bama player and he had been ejected on a play like this, we'd all be livid. Just my $.02.
    I agree. I’ve seen us benefit from similar overturns in the past. I understand the need to try to prevent head injuries, but I wish the rule could be simplified to eliminate some of this confusion.

  9. #60
    BamaNation Hall of Fame Go Bama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Milan, TN
    Posts
    5,300

    Re: Delpit's Hit on Ruggs: How Was This Not Targeting??

    IMO, it was to Alabama’s advantage that the call was overturned. Whether they got it right or wrong, the crowd would have been on the verge of a riot and probably would have started throwing debris on the field had the call not been overturned. The crowd had been worked into a lather for two weeks already and getting the call to go LSU’s way allowed the LSU fans the victory they needed. I realize politics should not play into the decision. However, the reality of the moment was that it was best to overturn the call.

    For those that that were at the game, was the crowd as raucous after they calmed down from hearing the call had been overturned?

  10. #61
    BamaNation Hall of Fame BamaMoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Plano, TX
    Posts
    10,549
    Thread Starter

    Re: Delpit's Hit on Ruggs: How Was This Not Targeting??

    Quote Originally Posted by Go Bama View Post
    IMO, it was to Alabama’s advantage that the call was overturned. Whether they got it right or wrong, the crowd would have been on the verge of a riot and probably would have started throwing debris on the field had the call not been overturned. The crowd had been worked into a lather for two weeks already and getting the call to go LSU’s way allowed the LSU fans the victory they needed. I realize politics should not play into the decision. However, the reality of the moment was that it was best to overturn the call.

    For those that that were at the game, was the crowd as raucous after they calmed down from hearing the call had been overturned?
    I agree but that's an awfully slipperly slope...point of the thread!

  11. #62
    BamaNation Hall of Fame Go Bama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Milan, TN
    Posts
    5,300

    Re: Delpit's Hit on Ruggs: How Was This Not Targeting??

    On a side note, Tua had his jewels hammered on a dead play. Why did he have to sit out a play? Why was a flag not thrown on that play?

  12. #63
    BamaNation Hall of Fame Go Bama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Milan, TN
    Posts
    5,300

    Re: Delpit's Hit on Ruggs: How Was This Not Targeting??

    Quote Originally Posted by BamaMoon View Post
    I agree but that's an awfully slipperly slope...point of the thread!
    And I agree with you, but the reversal did effectively say to the crowd there is no conspiracy.

  13. #64
    BamaNation All-American Snuffy Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Posts
    3,104

    Re: Delpit's Hit on Ruggs: How Was This Not Targeting??

    Quote Originally Posted by Go Bama View Post
    On a side note, Tua had his jewels hammered on a dead play. Why did he have to sit out a play? Why was a flag not thrown on that play?
    Yep - cannot hit the QB below the waist, no matter the circumstances. We even had that called in us once when our defender was pushed down and falling. The hit on Tua was clearly below the waist, as evidenced by his “injury”.

    Generally I like Danielson, but his silence on many clear penalties like that sorta chaps me.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  14. #65
    BamaNation All-SEC
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    River Ridge, LA
    Posts
    1,242

    Re: Delpit's Hit on Ruggs: How Was This Not Targeting??

    Quote Originally Posted by Snuffy Smith View Post
    Yep - cannot hit the QB below the waist, no matter the circumstances. We even had that called in us once when our defender was pushed down and falling. The hit on Tua was clearly below the waist, as evidenced by his “injury”.

    Generally I like Danielson, but his silence on many clear penalties like that sorta chaps me.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I wonder if the announcers have rules on what they can and can't say about the officials. I know there were a couple of times during the game where they let something slip about they thought there was holding etc. I know on that one play, where Burrow was running for his life and dumped it to a running back who went about 25 yards with it, they mentioned a crack back block that should have been a penalty. I think they were genuinely surprised when the call was "offsides Alabama". Just more proof that LSU could do anything they wanted, and they would only call the obvious false start or something like that.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 

TideFansStore.com: Get YOUR gear!