|
Replies: 37
| visibility 798
|
Paw Warrior [4728]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
Was the hit on Gallman targeting?
Oct 15, 2016, 6:57 PM
|
|
Missed almost all the game to go to my daughter's cheer competition.
|
|
|
|
 |
Freshman [2]
TigerPulse: 100%
1
|
It was the definition of the term, although...
Oct 15, 2016, 7:03 PM
|
|
I hate the rule. It's football!
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet HOFer [122491]
TigerPulse: 100%
66
Posts: 78339
Joined: 2003
|
Re: It was the definition of the term, although...
Oct 15, 2016, 7:57 PM
|
|
you hate a rule that limits concussions and neck injuries?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [144]
TigerPulse: 96%
11
|
Re: Was the hit on Gallman targeting?
Oct 15, 2016, 7:05 PM
|
|
By definition absolutely
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [1131]
TigerPulse: 100%
26
|
It was definitely. But there was no flag thrown.***
Oct 15, 2016, 7:08 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1247]
TigerPulse: 100%
27
|
decide for yourself
Oct 15, 2016, 7:09 PM
|
|
|
|
I say yes by definition. Wasn't an attempt at a dirty hit I don't think, Gallman just lowered his head at the right (wrong) time
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [4078]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
Not from that bad shot, but in HD slo-mo, it was clear***
Oct 15, 2016, 7:34 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2425]
TigerPulse: 88%
32
|
It was the definition of targeting. They should use that clip and train the refs***
Oct 15, 2016, 7:09 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [31652]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 37011
Joined: 2000
|
All necessary components of targeting were present
Oct 15, 2016, 7:15 PM
|
|
1) Forcible contact to head/neck of ball carrier
2) With the crown of defender's helmet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [60213]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 45342
Joined: 2003
|
No.***
Oct 15, 2016, 7:27 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2815]
TigerPulse: 100%
33
|
Re: Was the hit on Gallman targeting?
Oct 15, 2016, 7:32 PM
|
|
He led with the crown of his helmet, by Gallman lowered his level at the last minute. In real time I didn't think it was, but when you slow it down it's obvious why he ended up needing to be helped off the field. Look at the pic one of the above posters included and you will see how low Wayne was. Really tough to call that a penalty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [4078]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
ABSOLUTELY...AND NOT ONE STINKING WORD ABOUT IT...
Oct 15, 2016, 7:33 PM
|
|
...Effectively. Yes, Griese or Levy, I don't know which one, gave a pretty lame attempt at justifying the hit. But the helmet-2-helmet contact was totally obvious. In slow motion, it appeared that Gallman momentarily lost consciousness and the ball just came loose. The #8 that hit him should have been EJECTED, and this is not crying baby shoes about the hit, considering what Boulware has been through over the last few weeks.
The ACC should review this play and STILL SUSPEND that idiot for the targeting call.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1239]
TigerPulse: 100%
27
|
I have seen many cleaner hits that were called...
Oct 15, 2016, 7:36 PM
|
|
targeting. The refs obviously missed it. To their (the refs') defense, Gallman was in a pile of NC State players from almost every angle and so that might be the reason the refs couldn't see it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [107]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
Re: Was the hit on Gallman targeting?
Oct 15, 2016, 7:36 PM
|
|
No - it was NOT targeting. It was an excellent hit by the NCSU player. Gallman was a runner, and was not defenseless, and from every angle I could see, NCSU did not lead with the crown of the helmet to the neck / shoulder area. Maybe I missed it, but that's the way I saw it. Just a dadgum great hit IMO. It's called football.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [1100]
TigerPulse: 100%
26
|
Doesn't matter if he's a runner if the defender is
Oct 15, 2016, 7:46 PM
|
|
leading with the crown of his helmet. The only thing that hit Gallman was the crown of his helmet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [583]
TigerPulse: 100%
20
|
Re: Was the hit on Gallman targeting?
Oct 18, 2016, 10:12 AM
[ in reply to Re: Was the hit on Gallman targeting? ] |
|
It doesn't have to hit the head or neck area. The rule prohibits targeting and making forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of the helmet. It does not matter where the contact is on the ball carrier.
Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet
ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an
opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.
(Rule 9-6) (A.R. 9-1-3-I)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [1131]
TigerPulse: 100%
26
|
If this isnt called then there is no need for the rule.
Oct 15, 2016, 7:39 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5512]
TigerPulse: 44%
38
Posts: 17891
Joined: 2005
|
Re: If this isnt called then there is no need for the rule.
Oct 15, 2016, 7:50 PM
|
|
The question is which player initiates contact?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1239]
TigerPulse: 100%
27
|
With the crown of the helmet?
Oct 15, 2016, 7:55 PM
|
|
You need to ask?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valley Legend [12945]
TigerPulse: 100%
47
Posts: 10499
Joined: 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5512]
TigerPulse: 44%
38
Posts: 17891
Joined: 2005
|
Re: you're full of cr*p......when have you seen and offensive
Oct 15, 2016, 8:17 PM
|
|
Why do you have to be called for targeting to initiate contact?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [33299]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 15145
Joined: 2011
|
Clearly you are just trolling. Get a life.***
Oct 18, 2016, 10:13 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [5041]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
Re: you're full of cr*p......when have you seen and offensive
Oct 18, 2016, 10:16 AM
[ in reply to Re: you're full of cr*p......when have you seen and offensive ] |
|
Gallman braced for the hit, that is not the same as initiating contact. Seems to me the player running in for a tackle with head down and arms at his side couldn't tell what or who he was initiating contact with, just that he was going to hit something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1239]
TigerPulse: 100%
27
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Conference [444]
TigerPulse: 99%
17
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [18213]
TigerPulse: 100%
52
Posts: 22450
Joined: 1999
|
I say yes
Oct 15, 2016, 7:52 PM
|
|
and the safety should have been ejected
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3434]
TigerPulse: 91%
34
|
Re: Was the hit on Gallman targeting?
Oct 15, 2016, 8:22 PM
|
|
It was very close...I think I lean towards no, but the thing that frustrates me is that the refs threw a targeting call on Boulware last week on something that was CLEARLY not a targeting penalty...but our RB was knocked unconscious in mid-air due to a hit and there was no flag thrown this week.
I think head-to-head penalties need to be taken seriously and reviewed at pretty much any opportunity. The fact that not only was this ignored by the refs, but then also the announcers, is terrible for the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [125]
TigerPulse: 100%
11
|
Re: Was the hit on Gallman targeting?
Oct 15, 2016, 8:34 PM
|
|
Yes....can't believe a flag was not thrown, my 2cents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rival Killer [2822]
TigerPulse: 77%
33
|
no. he was a runner. he wasn't defenseless.***
Oct 18, 2016, 10:13 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [583]
TigerPulse: 100%
20
|
Re: no. he was a runner. he wasn't defenseless.***
Oct 18, 2016, 10:14 AM
|
|
That has nothing to do with rule 9-1-3:
Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet
ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an
opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.
(Rule 9-6) (A.R. 9-1-3-I)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [33299]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 15145
Joined: 2011
|
Not the part of the rule that applies here. How do so many
Oct 18, 2016, 10:16 AM
[ in reply to no. he was a runner. he wasn't defenseless.*** ] |
|
chime in with no clue as to the rule - even though it has been posted here 10 times.
It is a multi-definition rule & the first definition is:
You can't lead with the crown of your helmet.
Period.
No further stipulations.
If you lead with the crown of your helmet - it is targeting and it is a penalty.
Period.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [33299]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 15145
Joined: 2011
|
Yes. Textbook example of the first definition of the rule***
Oct 18, 2016, 10:20 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [24101]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 20322
Joined: 2011
|
Dabo said,
Oct 18, 2016, 10:26 AM
|
|
they submitted it and the ACC said it wasn't targeting.
According to the NCAA rule book, it was.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5512]
TigerPulse: 44%
38
Posts: 17891
Joined: 2005
|
Re: Dabo said,
Oct 18, 2016, 11:24 AM
|
|
so the ACC confirmed it wasn't targeting?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [24101]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 20322
Joined: 2011
|
That's what he said .
Oct 18, 2016, 11:29 AM
|
|
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [2017]
TigerPulse: 100%
31
|
Re: Was the hit on Gallman targeting?
Oct 18, 2016, 11:20 AM
|
|
Yes. 100%.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [6719]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
|
Re: Was the hit on Gallman targeting?
Oct 18, 2016, 11:32 AM
|
|
I'd say no because he wasn't a defenseless player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5512]
TigerPulse: 44%
38
Posts: 17891
Joined: 2005
|
Re: Was the hit on Gallman targeting?
Oct 18, 2016, 12:37 PM
|
|
It's because Gallman initiated the contact.
Had he kept his head up there wouldn't have been any helmet to helmet contact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 37
| visibility 798
|
|
|
50
