|
Replies: 32
| visibility 2262
|
Oculus Spirit [44488]
TigerPulse: 100%
57
Posts: 11682
Joined: 2015
|
Targeting
7
7
Dec 30, 2023, 11:01 AM
|
|
Was I the only one that felt the hit on Stellato was targeting? If I’m reading the rule correctly that was a blatant foul. Could not believe it was not reviewed.
|
|
|
|
 |
Game Changer [1705]
TigerPulse: 100%
31
|
Re: Targeting
2
Dec 30, 2023, 11:02 AM
|
|
We all wondered the same in this household
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3438]
TigerPulse: 100%
34
|
Re: Targeting
3
Dec 30, 2023, 11:03 AM
|
|
I thought so at first too, but in the replay it looked like it was shoulder to chest and not to the head or neck. Just a big hit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3369]
TigerPulse: 100%
34
|
Re: Targeting
2
Dec 30, 2023, 11:30 AM
|
|
I thought the defender launched. And I don’t think if they launch it matters where they hit. Could be wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1977]
TigerPulse: 90%
31
|
Re: Targeting
Dec 30, 2023, 12:13 PM
|
|
Launching is an indicator of targeting. It does not create targeting on it's own. You still have to either make forcible contact to the head or neck of a defenseless player or lead with the crown of the helmet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Offensive Star [308]
TigerPulse: 100%
15
|
Re: Targeting
Dec 30, 2023, 1:00 PM
|
|
This is accurate and I don't think that play was targeting.
I know it's not your term but I've never understood "forcible" contact. I don't know what forcible means in this context. Is there such a thing as "non-forcible" contact?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1977]
TigerPulse: 90%
31
|
Re: Targeting
Dec 30, 2023, 1:43 PM
|
|
Forcible is elucidated on in the mechanics of enforcement which is part of ref training and not readily available for the public like the rulebook is.
The term is really intended to allow things like glancing blows that don't contain the full force of the hit, but ultimately it's an official's discretion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [78551]
TigerPulse: 100%
62
Posts: 120219
Joined: 1998
|
Re: Targeting
3
Dec 30, 2023, 11:03 AM
|
|
I havent seen it called in months in any game in spite of numerous blatent examples. No longer a point of emphasis
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1627]
TigerPulse: 100%
31
|
Re: Targeting
1
Dec 30, 2023, 11:08 AM
|
|
My wife and I said the same thing last night watching the bucknuts / mizzou game, a few clear targeting calls that weren’t even reviewed. Makes my blood boil a bit to see them just give up on the rule this year after some of the BS ones Skalski had on him, especially the one where Fields spun his back INTO Skalskis helmet in the semifinals
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1977]
TigerPulse: 90%
31
|
Re: Targeting
1
Dec 30, 2023, 11:13 AM
|
|
Skalski lowered and led with the crown of his helmet on that hit. That's 100% targeting under the exact same rule that got Shawn Wade for OSU ejected the year prior for his hit on Lawrence. There was nothing BS about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valley Legend [12428]
TigerPulse: 100%
47
|
Skalski lowered his shoulder. The QB planted and spun into
Dec 30, 2023, 11:32 AM
|
|
Skalski’s helmet
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1977]
TigerPulse: 90%
31
|
Re: Skalski lowered his shoulder. The QB planted and spun into
Dec 30, 2023, 11:53 AM
|
|
|
|
No he didn't. Skalski was completely squared up to Fields and led directly into the hit with his helmet. Take the orange shaded glasses off and it's clear as day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [44488]
TigerPulse: 100%
57
Posts: 11682
Joined: 2015
|
Re: Skalski lowered his shoulder. The QB planted and spun into
Dec 30, 2023, 11:57 AM
|
|
No he didn't. Skalski was completely squared up to Fields and led directly into the hit with his helmet. Take the orange shaded glasses off and it's clear as day.
Orange colored or not thought the Skalski call was pure BS. Dude was just making a play. Typical call against Clemson imo. If he was going to get flagged I wished he would have at least gotten his monies worth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1977]
TigerPulse: 90%
31
|
Re: Skalski lowered his shoulder. The QB planted and spun into
1
Dec 30, 2023, 12:00 PM
|
|
He made a clearly illegal tackle and got appropriately penalized for it. That rule is in place to protect Skalski - this is the exact same type of hit that forced Ryan Shazier to re-learn how to walk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2596]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
Re: I remember an Ole Miss player who
Dec 30, 2023, 1:56 PM
|
|
Never walked again. That was devastating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1627]
TigerPulse: 100%
31
|
Re: Skalski lowered his shoulder. The QB planted and spun into
Dec 30, 2023, 11:55 AM
[ in reply to Skalski lowered his shoulder. The QB planted and spun into ] |
|
Exactly! He was all set to make a textbook mid waist shoulder tackle but fields is a rediculous athlete so he cut and made the quick spin. No way it should have been called, it’s not what the rule was made for. Now it seems they’ve over corrected in the other direction
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scout Team [83]
TigerPulse: 100%
9
|
Re: Targeting
2
Dec 30, 2023, 11:04 AM
|
|
Thought the same thing. Then replay on the scoreboard confirmed it to me. Have definitely seen less lead to a penalty and ejection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1977]
TigerPulse: 90%
31
|
Re: Targeting
1
Dec 30, 2023, 11:04 AM
|
|
No. The contact was completely shoulder to shoulder. That's never targeting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [44488]
TigerPulse: 100%
57
Posts: 11682
Joined: 2015
|
Re: Targeting
3
Dec 30, 2023, 11:07 AM
|
|
He looked like he launched into a defenseless player was my take. On tv his eyes even said “dang I may have screwed up.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1977]
TigerPulse: 90%
31
|
Re: Targeting
1
Dec 30, 2023, 11:11 AM
|
|
Launching into a defenseless player isn't targeting. You have to make forcible contact to the head or neck of the defenseless player or you have to lead into the hit with the crown of the helmet. There may have been a glancing touch to Stellato's facemask just because of how momentum works, but the forcible component of the hit was shoulder to shoulder. The refs got a lot of things wrong yesterday, but that wasn't one them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [44488]
TigerPulse: 100%
57
Posts: 11682
Joined: 2015
|
Re: Targeting
Dec 30, 2023, 11:55 AM
|
|
Always thought launching into a defenseless player was a penalty. Seen called for a lot less.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1977]
TigerPulse: 90%
31
|
Re: Targeting
Dec 30, 2023, 12:15 PM
|
|
Launching is an indicator of targeting, not targeting on its own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Offensive Star [349]
TigerPulse: 92%
15
|
Re: Targeting
3
Dec 30, 2023, 11:07 AM
[ in reply to Re: Targeting ] |
|
They missed the face mask on Klubnik and the zebra was right there. Numerous holdings also. I think I will get certified and have the game in my hands. 😳😳😳
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1977]
TigerPulse: 90%
31
|
Re: Targeting
1
Dec 30, 2023, 11:14 AM
|
|
Nothing the refs did was as egregious as the most blatant OPI that's ever existed going uncalled to basically hand Kentucky a TD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Conqueror [11511]
TigerPulse: 98%
46
Posts: 13991
Joined: 2021
|
Re: Targeting
Dec 30, 2023, 11:28 AM
[ in reply to Re: Targeting ] |
|
Yep, the official was looking right at the face-mask on Klubnik same as if he were looking at a big fat hamburger before the first bite.
No flag.
SEC, SEC, SEC!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Master [16191]
TigerPulse: 100%
51
|
No. I thought so at first. He didnt launch, hit him in the chest.
5
5
Dec 30, 2023, 11:05 AM
|
|
BUT, it def met criteria for defenseless player and should have been a 15yr penalty and 1st down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1977]
TigerPulse: 90%
31
|
Re: No. I thought so at first. He didnt launch, hit him in the chest.
Dec 30, 2023, 12:17 PM
|
|
There is no penalty for hitting a defenseless player in college football that is not targeting. If it's not targeting the contact has to rise to the levels of unnecessary roughness for it to be a penalty. That contact didn't. That's the kind of clean big hit that's still allowed under the rules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Offensive Star [308]
TigerPulse: 100%
15
|
Re: No. I thought so at first. He didnt launch, hit him in the chest.
Dec 30, 2023, 1:05 PM
|
|
This hit was not targeting. In many fans minds, a violent hit has to be something. Targeting, unnecessary roughness, etc. It's not. It's a good, hard, clean hit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3766]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
Re: Targeting
1
Dec 30, 2023, 11:15 AM
|
|
It didn't strike me as targeting after seeing the replay. It was unnecessary roughness if anything, but I thought it was bang-bang enough for a no-call.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [152]
TigerPulse: 100%
12
|
Re: Targeting
2
Dec 30, 2023, 11:52 AM
|
|
Maybe not targeting as others have pointed out, but IMO should have been a personal foul for hit on defenseless player. Ball was well past receiver and DB just decided to unload. Looked like the DB looked around for a flag afterwards. I realize in bowl games officials want to “let them play” as much as possible, but rules need to be enforced for the safety of the players.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1977]
TigerPulse: 90%
31
|
Re: Targeting
Dec 30, 2023, 12:18 PM
|
|
There is no personal foul for a hit on a defenseless player that is not targeting. That does not exist in the rulebook.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [44488]
TigerPulse: 100%
57
Posts: 11682
Joined: 2015
|
Re: Targeting
Dec 30, 2023, 2:02 PM
|
|
I do believe it is in the NFL version of the rule. College not so much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [5056]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
Not targeting, but clear unnecessary roughness
Dec 30, 2023, 1:50 PM
|
|
Defenseless receiver.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 32
| visibility 2262
|
|
|
50
