Delpit'***** on Ruggs: How Was This Not Targeting??

TUSCALOOSAHONOR · Nov 5, 2018

Nolan said:
I have to admit I lost my mind a little when Tua got hit low on the false start. How that wasn’t called roughing I don’t know. Even IF they didn’t hear the whistle, you cannot go low like that on a QB. Just pathetic the way the refs reacted to certain things. Like they were scared to penalize L8U.

The targeting being overturned I was ok with. It wasn't intentional (and yes I know that's not part of the rule). But the hit on Tuas goodies was literally and figuratively below the belt. I don't think the player was pushed or tripped, he just went low.
I also don't believe in conspiracies per se. But there is something to it when Bamas opponents average less penalties when they play Bama. Not sure if that's a concerted effort on refs (have they been told to let teams play) or just a subconscious action/non action.

Chechem · Nov 5, 2018

Gallowglas said:
After losing White for targeting, they would have lost their collective minds had that one been called. I do honestly think that played into the decision.

Yeah, at first I thought it WAS targeting. I expected the field to be littered with bottles, paper, crawfish, underwear, etc.

But after seeing the replay, and seeing that most of the impact hit Ruggs' shoulder pad, I was okay with the ruling being overturned. Just glad we didn't have to watch the fan reaction and riot that would have ensued.

CajunCrimson · Nov 5, 2018

B1GTide said:
I agree that the officiating was bad, but the bolded sounds as bad as the conspiracy stuff that the corndogs were spouting. No one is trying to derail Alabama. Lots of people wish that you would lose, but that is because you are on top of the mountain.

I do believe that the no calls are a bit intentional. I really do.

KrAzY3 · Nov 5, 2018

It was absolutely targeting based on the rule.

There is however the case to be made for two different rules, one that's just a penalty and the other being the ejection. This shouldn't warrant an ejection...

B1GTide · Nov 5, 2018

CajunCrimson said:
I do believe that the no calls are a bit intentional. I really do.

I won't go that far. I think that it is a mental thing. When one guy is so much better than another, we simply do not notice things that we should notice. I don't think that refs see holding and decide not to call it. I think that they see it and think that it really did not impact the play and decide to leave the flag in their pocket. Same result, but different intent.

TrampLineman · Nov 5, 2018

KrAzY3 said:
It was absolutely targeting based on the rule.

There is however the case to be made for two different rules, one that's just a penalty and the other being the ejection. This shouldn't warrant an ejection...

I could agree with that but I thought it was targeting as well. As for the rule I could probably agree there too, but then we could be on a slippery slope.

skipster63 · Nov 5, 2018

I will say this. I was at the game. You would have thought LSU had won the game when that call was overturned. It was embarrassing. It was like we know we are not going to win this game but let’s at least win this moment.

BamaMoon · Nov 5, 2018

FWIW...I hate the targeting rule and have argued as much on many other threads.

However, according to the rules, that was targeting. I don't know if I've seen such a clear case get overturned this season. And I'm not into thinking somebody is out to get us either, but I think this was a case of the White ruling affecting the Delpit ruling. And when that starts happening...the rule becomes even more subjective than it already seems!

ROTYDE · Nov 5, 2018

skipster63 said:
I will say this. I was at the game. You would have thought LSU had won the game when that call was overturned. It was embarrassing. It was like we know we are not going to win this game but let’s at least win this moment.

We all know that they would have won if Devin White could have played the first half.

BamaMan09 · Nov 5, 2018

B1GTide said:
I won't go that far. I think that it is a mental thing. When one guy is so much better than another, we simply do not notice things that we should notice. I don't think that refs see holding and decide not to call it. I think that they see it and think that it really did not impact the play and decide to leave the flag in their pocket. Same result, but different intent.

All you have to do is watch ESPN to see how badly people want to see Alabama lose. The disparity in penalties controversy has been ongoing for several years now which makes a lot of people draw conclusions. The low hit on Tua was a blatant penalty that should have been called. No two ways about it.

CrimsonEyeshade · Nov 5, 2018

IF your conspiracy theory were true, we would have been left out of last year’s playoffs. We are the biggest name and the biggest ratings driver in the sport. Everybody makes money off of us. Nobody is out to get us besides the teams we play.

BamaMan09 said:
All you have to do is watch ESPN to see how badly people want to see Alabama lose. The disparity in penalties controversy has been ongoing for several years now which makes a lot of people draw conclusions. The low hit on Tua was a blatant penalty that should have been called. No two ways about it.

Padreruf · Nov 5, 2018

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.

BamaMoon · Nov 5, 2018

Padreruf said:
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.

Special K · Nov 5, 2018

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.

Tide&True · Nov 5, 2018

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

TitleWave · Nov 5, 2018

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.

CrimsonNagus · Nov 5, 2018

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.

Special K · Nov 5, 2018

CrimsonNagus said:
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.

BearFan · Nov 5, 2018

Special K said:
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.

Go Bama · Nov 5, 2018

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?

Delpit'***** on Ruggs: How Was This Not Targeting??

All-SEC

Scout Team

Moderator (FB,BB) and Vinyl Enthusiast

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

All-SEC

Hall of Fame

All-American

All-SEC

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

All-American

All-American

All-American

Hall of Fame

All-American

BamaNation Citizen

Hall of Fame

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!