|
Replies: 50
| visibility 452
|
Oculus Spirit [40337]
TigerPulse: 100%
57
Posts: 22713
Joined: 2003
|
The Targeting Call on Turner Was Total BS
Dec 20, 2020, 8:04 AM
|
|
My Only Complaint
|
|
|
|
 |
Paw Master [17597]
TigerPulse: 100%
51
Posts: 15437
Joined: 1999
|
True if intent figures in
Dec 20, 2020, 8:05 AM
|
|
but clearly it doesn’t. Just really bad luck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [48079]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 49059
Joined: 2004
|
Re: The Targeting Call on Turner Was Total BS
Dec 20, 2020, 8:05 AM
|
|
It seemed fair enough to me, but it really sucks because he is not a cheap player. It was just a timing thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [4757]
TigerPulse: 82%
37
|
Re: The Targeting Call on Turner Was Total BS
Dec 20, 2020, 9:42 AM
|
|
Once the two helmets collide, you are going to see targeting. That is a big part of the definition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [48079]
TigerPulse: 100%
58
Posts: 49059
Joined: 2004
|
Re: The Targeting Call on Turner Was Total BS
Dec 20, 2020, 10:44 PM
|
|
Yeah it was a fair call. I have no prob with it. Just sucks for us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [86056]
TigerPulse: 100%
62
Posts: 38876
Joined: 2003
|
It was the correct call via the rulebook as written right
Dec 20, 2020, 8:07 AM
|
|
now. The rule needs to be updated. There was no intent, and no forcible contact. There was contact, helmet to helmet on a "defenseless player" which is why the officials had no leeway on the call.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [4757]
TigerPulse: 82%
37
|
Re: It was the correct call via the rulebook as written right
Dec 20, 2020, 9:44 AM
|
|
Intent was never meant to be part of the call. The name of the call - targeting implies intent, but the rule does not.
Head injuries can occur whether there is intent or not, so the call is based on helmet to helmet contact - not intent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [33704]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 36093
Joined: 2003
|
Yeah.. Symantecs.
Dec 20, 2020, 10:03 AM
|
|
Note 1: "Targeting" means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact
You could consider "taking aim" as intent which is probably why people bring up intent all the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [65617]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49153
Joined: 2000
|
Not symantics. It's pretty clear.***
Dec 20, 2020, 6:08 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [65617]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49153
Joined: 2000
|
Rule 9, Section 1, Article 4, Note 1 ....
Dec 20, 2020, 6:06 PM
[ in reply to Re: It was the correct call via the rulebook as written right ] |
|
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.
The player must "take aim" with a specific purpose in mind. That's intent. Helmet to helmet contact that happens without intent is not targeting, per the rule.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [4880]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [40337]
TigerPulse: 100%
57
Posts: 22713
Joined: 2003
|
No Forceable Launch...And Receiver Dropped Low
Dec 20, 2020, 8:14 AM
|
|
Impact would have been body. I think Skalski yacking at the hit might have driven the call. Oh well, we should have XT back next game. Not a 1 for 1 replacement for Turner, but it works.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [4757]
TigerPulse: 82%
37
|
Re: No Forceable Launch...And Receiver Dropped Low
Dec 20, 2020, 9:46 AM
|
|
I think the flag was on the ground before Skalski started yakking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3865]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
Re: No Forceable Launch...And Receiver Dropped Low
Dec 20, 2020, 1:30 PM
[ in reply to No Forceable Launch...And Receiver Dropped Low ] |
|
It was one of those "perfect storm" incidents. If either player had been off half a step the helmet contact would not have occured, but it happened. After seeing what happened to his Dad, Nolan would be the last player in the world to intentionally be involved in targeting. Fortunately it doesn't appear that either player was injured, and NT can come roaring back in the second half of the playoff game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1524]
TigerPulse: 92%
30
|
Ohio State fans said same about hit on Trevor last year
Dec 20, 2020, 1:53 PM
[ in reply to No Forceable Launch...And Receiver Dropped Low ] |
|
We just laughed at them for looking for excuses.
It would have been pretty hard for the officials to overlook the obvious helmet to helmet contact in either case.
Intentional or not, it is what it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Master [16191]
TigerPulse: 100%
51
|
Its really this simple.. look at what you're tackling
Dec 20, 2020, 7:18 PM
[ in reply to Re: The Targeting Call on Turner Was Total BS ] |
|
Unless there is egregious launching to the head or neck, any player who is looking up when the helmets collide will NOT be charged with targeting.
Its the "crown of the helmet" hitting the ND player helmet that cost Tunrner the 1st half against OH ST.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9905]
TigerPulse: 100%
44
|
Re: Its really this simple.. look at what you're tackling
Dec 20, 2020, 9:12 PM
|
|
Yep. Defensive players need to see what they tackle. Face mask up!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valley Protector [1426]
TigerPulse: 100%
29
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [1194]
TigerPulse: 98%
26
|
Re: The Targeting Call on Turner Was Total BS
Dec 20, 2020, 8:13 AM
|
|
Not BS. It was legit. Hopefully we can overcome his absence for the first half
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [4757]
TigerPulse: 82%
37
|
Re: The Targeting Call on Turner Was Total BS
Dec 20, 2020, 9:47 AM
|
|
Turner is the 2nd most important player on the defense. Brett will have to cover some things up in the 1st half.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1524]
TigerPulse: 92%
30
|
Amazing that a 2-star guy called a “wasted scholarship” by
Dec 20, 2020, 1:56 PM
|
|
So many T-Netters has achieved this exalted status.
I agree ... he is the glue that holds the back end of the defense together.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [65617]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49153
Joined: 2000
|
Somebody needs to explain to me how Turner could have
Dec 20, 2020, 8:19 AM
|
|
made a play in that situation and avoided that penalty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [6782]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
|
Re: Somebody needs to explain to me how Turner could have
Dec 20, 2020, 8:41 AM
|
|
Here’s my two cents: I had already texted my in-game group that the coaches better have told everybody don’t do anything close to targeting from here on out (8 minutes left in a blowout). This was a pass thrown low and away to a guy that had to lay out to have a chance to catch it. You don’t even need to make contact in that situation because if he somehow stabs the ball he’s already down. But then to lead with the crown directly at the receivers upper torso was no smart at all. I get the effort - Turner is trying to make contact to jar the ball loose and you can’t coach instinct out of players in the heat of a championship game. But you have to have had that conversation on the sidelines once you are up 34-3 that we have a more meaningful game coming up and we don’t want to lose anybody for a half.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [65617]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49153
Joined: 2000
|
I don't know that you ever tell your players not to try to
Dec 20, 2020, 9:25 AM
|
|
defend or break up passes, and I don't think Turner was trying to "lead with the crown". Think about it; any time you bend forward at the waist, your head lowers too. Any time you lower your shoulder, you lower your head. It is flat out impossible to play football in a totally upright position, and especially tackling, without bending forward and lowering your shoulder. And don't hand me the bit about "keep your head up". That's totally unnatural and very dangerous (it puts your neck in a very weak, dangerous position). I don't know how you can defend and tackle if you are not allowed to bend and lower the shoulder; it's totally unnatural. I understand the need for player safety, but as the rule is written now, it is a flat out mess. It's impossible to interpret and apply fairly and consistently, and it wrongly penalizes good players like Turner who are not playing dirty or recklessly. It needs to be totally redone to penalize dirty play, focusing on 3 areas 1. Intentional Targeting to the head, 2. Injuring defenseless players, 3. Reckless, out of control blows to the head. The rule must allow for normal football plays like the one last night with Turner where two football player's helmets get together with no ill intent or unnecessary recklessness from either player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [4757]
TigerPulse: 82%
37
|
Re: I don't know that you ever tell your players not to try to
Dec 20, 2020, 9:49 AM
|
|
If he just keeps his face up, he probably avoids ejection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [65617]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49153
Joined: 2000
|
LOL! SMH***
Dec 20, 2020, 11:47 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [6782]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
|
Re: I don't know that you ever tell your players not to try to
Dec 20, 2020, 12:14 PM
[ in reply to Re: I don't know that you ever tell your players not to try to ] |
|
Exactly. Smiling Tiger I’ll bet you can pull the data on paralyzing hits in football and the majority are from spinal compression: the top of the head making contact and being forced downward. The rule is to protect offensive players from concussions and defenders from hurting themselves. The neck is actually much stronger in resisting being pushed backwards than being pushed downwards. He could have kept his head aligned with his spine and been fine but he chose to tilt it down or did so reflexively.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [65617]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49153
Joined: 2000
|
About 25 years ago, a tree limb that weighed approx 150 lbs
Dec 20, 2020, 12:31 PM
|
|
fell from about 20 feet, and struck me in the top of the head. I know, that explains a lot!  "> I suffered a concussion, a broken collarbone, and two fractured vertabrae (compression fracture). It was not a fun time, so I understand a little about it. I wish I'd had a football helmet and shoulder pads on at the time. I do know this, however: If your chin is up and your head back, as it would be if you were bent forward (for a tackle) and had your face up, your neck is in a very weak and vulnerable position. I trained in martial arts for about 10 years and I can promise you, anybody can totally control anybody, or inflict serious injury if you get their head tilted back that way. That's why the "face up" while lowering the shoulder is not only unnatural, it's unsafe. You are correct, keeping it aligned with the spine would be optimal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2723]
TigerPulse: 77%
33
|
Re: Somebody needs to explain to me how Turner could have
Dec 20, 2020, 8:43 PM
[ in reply to Somebody needs to explain to me how Turner could have ] |
|
Players literally make that play all the time without targeting. It was unfortunate and unintentional, but it was 100% textbook targeting of a defenseless player. I saw Nolan mouth to Dabo “I’m sorry” after he came out. He knew he messed up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Master [16389]
TigerPulse: 99%
51
Posts: 18841
Joined: 2009
|
It was absolutely targeting based off the rule.
Dec 20, 2020, 8:24 AM
|
|
The problem is the rule.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [65617]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49153
Joined: 2000
|
Exactly.***
Dec 20, 2020, 8:31 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [4757]
TigerPulse: 82%
37
|
Re: It was absolutely targeting based off the rule.
Dec 20, 2020, 9:51 AM
[ in reply to It was absolutely targeting based off the rule. ] |
|
Caddie,
I think the problem is the name of the rule. It implies intent which does not play any part in the actual ruling. if they just called it illegal helmet contact, it would not mislead or inflame the fans so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [65617]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49153
Joined: 2000
|
And yes, it was total BS. If people want to defend it
Dec 20, 2020, 8:29 AM
|
|
because "that's the rule", then they are defending an unfair, ridiculous rule which penalizes innocent players like Turner who are not playing dirty or doing anything wrong. It is totally absurd. It is a rule which good football players who are doing everything in their power to follow the rules and still play the game of football and tackle opponnents cannont possibly avoid breaking this rule from time to time. It is total, 100% BULLSH-T. But that's okay, stick your heads in the sand, continue to defend it and go along with it like sheep.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14598]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
Posts: 23666
Joined: 2004
|
I disagree. The rule has a clear purpose and nobody cares
Dec 20, 2020, 9:50 AM
|
|
if a few "innocent players" get ejected occasionally. They are going to err on the side of player safety over a few "unjust" ejections here and there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [65617]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49153
Joined: 2000
|
It's not just here and there - it's every week. It's not
Dec 20, 2020, 1:32 PM
|
|
just a few unjust ejections, it's consistently unjust. Players and teams who are directly impacted care, and anybody with an ounce of integrity should care. Players can and should be protected by a rule that does not penalize good players unfairly. To let it continue as is, is just plain lazy and unacceptable. As I was typing this, David Pollack was interviewing Dabo, and Pollack commented that the targeting rule is stupid and needs to be changed. Players need to be protected - absolutely. Do it the right way - not the stupid ####### way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14598]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
Posts: 23666
Joined: 2004
|
What is the right way? If you loosen up the targeting rule
Dec 20, 2020, 2:21 PM
|
|
you invite more of these kinds of hits. Regardless of what Turner was intending to do, the result of the play was a violent helmet to helmet hit which is exactly what the governing bodies do not want. I don't think they are concerned about his intentions on the play.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [32399]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 19184
Joined: 2000
|
Re: What is the right way? If you loosen up the targeting rule
Dec 20, 2020, 6:19 PM
|
|
"violent helmet to helmet hit"???
What were you watching? It WAS helmet to helmet... but much more incidental than violent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14598]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
Posts: 23666
Joined: 2004
|
Those things aren't mutually exclusive
Dec 20, 2020, 6:22 PM
|
|
Incidental implies lack of intent more than lack of force or impact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [65617]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49153
Joined: 2000
|
We have to accept that some helmet-to-helmet contact is
Dec 20, 2020, 7:32 PM
|
|
is unavoidable and part of the game. Somebody doesn't have to be penalized every time it happens; we need to break out of that mindset. If we want to eliminate it altogether, then we need to ban football altogether, because somebody could get hurt very badly in spite of any rules we make. The rule, as written and enforced now, it is impossible for defenders to adapt and regulate their game in a way that prevents them from committing this violation while still effectively defending at the highest level. Not jumping offsides is a matter of self discipline, and is preventable. Not holding while still blocking effectively is a matter of practice and good technique, again within the player's control. With targeting, it's largely a crapshoot; you can make a normal, legal tackle, but if your helmet gets together with a ball carrier the wrong way, you will get flagged and ejected. That's the problem. The penalty is designed to prevent hth hits, but they still happen every week, often not out of negligence or ill intent, but because defenders just can't help it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2723]
TigerPulse: 77%
33
|
Re: We have to accept that some helmet-to-helmet contact is
Dec 20, 2020, 8:51 PM
|
|
Every helmet to helmet hit is not called a penalty. Not even close. There has to be a launch or a defenseless player. All other helmet to helmet contact is not flagged.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [1194]
TigerPulse: 98%
26
|
Re: The Targeting Call on Turner Was Total BS
Dec 20, 2020, 8:47 AM
|
|
If they weren’t in “Task-Talking Mode” it would never have happened. It was a stupid decision to make any contact. The guy was driving and Turner was proving a point. Look at the demeanor for the two to three minutes leading up to that. Even Skalski was talking after the guy got laid out. SEC refs typically let this go. But it was Bush League in my opinion and o bet he gets an earfull from Dabo
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [4757]
TigerPulse: 82%
37
|
Re: The Targeting Call on Turner Was Total BS
Dec 20, 2020, 9:55 AM
|
|
Fike,
I think you have a point, but I was happy to see the Clemson players with a little bit of an attitude. i think at this upper level of competition you need a bit of that.
I think Skalski AND TL brought some of it and it raised the level of our play.
I don't want to see a lot of showboating - and certainly no dirty play - but a little bit of bite back - I'm good with.
Plenty of our great players over the years have had it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14598]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
Posts: 23666
Joined: 2004
|
It was 100% the correct call***
Dec 20, 2020, 9:48 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [65617]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49153
Joined: 2000
|
Right - based on a terrible rule.***
Dec 20, 2020, 12:52 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valley Legend [12698]
TigerPulse: 100%
47
Posts: 10384
Joined: 2006
|
Re: The Targeting Call on Turner Was Total BS
Dec 20, 2020, 12:59 PM
|
|
It was a correct call and I am glad that the rule is in place. I still remember the vicious hit to our tight end (Palmer) against Miami and the one to Gallman against NC State (which I don't think was called). Even some of the announcers do not understand the rule. I'm glad it is in the rule book.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [65617]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 49153
Joined: 2000
|
I agree, there needs to be a rule, but there needs to be
Dec 20, 2020, 1:20 PM
|
|
some accounting for intent. It's in the rule now but it is ignored: Rule 9, Section 1, Article 4, Note 1.
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.
Did Nolan Turner "take aim for purposes of attacking that goes beyond making a legal tackle"? I think it's a huge leap to suggest that he purposely took aim and targeted the receiver's helmet. But that's what we have to belive in order for that to have been targeting.
The goal should be to protect players from being hurt by dirty or reckless play. It should be done without penalizing players who are playing clean. That can be accomplished, but they don't have the balls or the brains to fix it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5125]
TigerPulse: 100%
38
|
Re: The Targeting Call on Turner Was Total BS
Dec 20, 2020, 1:36 PM
|
|
That was a good call. Do you even football?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [40337]
TigerPulse: 100%
57
Posts: 22713
Joined: 2003
|
Nominated for Coot***
Dec 20, 2020, 6:43 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scout Team [154]
TigerPulse: 49%
12
|
Re: The Targeting Call on Turner Was Total BS
Dec 20, 2020, 1:58 PM
|
|
I think it was the correct call relative to the way the rule was written. The rule needs to be changed. It reminded me of the Wade hit from last year's semi-final. In both examples, two players were thrown out and faced missing the first half of their next game despite making a football play that didn't appear their was intent to harm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [479]
TigerPulse: 99%
18
|
Re: The Targeting Call on Turner Was Total BS
Dec 20, 2020, 6:30 PM
|
|
No it wasn’t. Just very unfortunate and terrible timing for us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Day Hero [4324]
TigerPulse: 100%
36
|
Re: The Targeting Call on Turner Was Total BS
Dec 20, 2020, 8:34 PM
|
|
I knew something stupid was going to happen with targeting to cost us a player in the playoffs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 50
| visibility 452
|
|
|
50
