|
Replies: 21
| visibility 1
|
All-In [27374]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31825
Joined: 8/19/03
|
Just saw the Gallman
Oct 16, 2016, 12:21 PM
|
|
Hit on the replay for the first time. No question about that being targeting. How did they miss that?
|
|
|
|
 |
Trainer [48]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 61
Joined: 9/16/16
|
Re: Just saw the Gallman
Oct 16, 2016, 12:24 PM
|
|
Seriously. I don't know if I'm getting better at seeing this stuff when it happens or if the refs were just blindfolded
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5021]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 8274
Joined: 12/9/12
|
Re: Just saw the Gallman
Oct 16, 2016, 12:25 PM
|
|
They missed it because they are human and make mistakes on plays that split second. Wayne will be ok and we won. Let's move on for god sakes
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [119698]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 54467
Joined: 6/24/09
|
The review people at ACC office in GSO
Oct 16, 2016, 12:30 PM
|
|
Had time to review it while Wayne was being attended to.
Can't believe we didn't throw red flag and force a decision..
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27374]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31825
Joined: 8/19/03
|
Re: The review people at ACC office in GSO
Oct 16, 2016, 12:34 PM
|
|
That's the point. Not even a review. We have all seen reviews of much less obvious calls
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27374]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31825
Joined: 8/19/03
|
Re: The review people at ACC office in GSO
Oct 16, 2016, 12:38 PM
|
|
If you have reviews to see where the ball should be spotted you should have reviews of a hit with the player on the ground with possible head injuries. Just my thoughts
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10345]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12803
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Re: Just saw the Gallman
Oct 16, 2016, 12:37 PM
[ in reply to Re: Just saw the Gallman ] |
|
It can't be reviewed if it isn't called. The booth can't make a targeting call for the refs. That's why they are told to call it when in doubt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10492]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7759
Joined: 12/5/15
|
Re: Just saw the Gallman
Oct 16, 2016, 12:56 PM
|
|
The replay booth CAN make a targeting call. Even when it was not called on the field.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10492]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7759
Joined: 12/5/15
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10345]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12803
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Re: Just saw the Gallman
Oct 16, 2016, 11:56 PM
[ in reply to Re: Just saw the Gallman ] |
|
I stand corrected. If that is the case then why can't they call holding? That would really help us out! LOL
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [50635]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 43019
Joined: 12/3/98
|
they rarely call it on hits to a running back
Oct 16, 2016, 12:32 PM
|
|
runner and tackler lowering heads
hard to assign blame
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1239]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1922
Joined: 10/25/15
|
The only defense that I can think of...
Oct 17, 2016, 12:02 AM
|
|
is Gallman was among NC State's players and so all refs were in a position where they couldn't see it.
Otherwise, that NC State player should be flagged and ejected. Gallman fell asleep in the air from that hit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6678]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 9739
Joined: 9/22/11
|
That noncall & Gallman's injury turned the game around to
Oct 17, 2016, 12:09 AM
|
|
to State's favor. It would have not been close otherwise!
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1453]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2045
Joined: 9/10/16
|
Re: Just saw the Gallman
Oct 17, 2016, 12:10 AM
|
|
The announcers on TV didn't even mention the slight possibility of targeting. They completely ignored it. Not even a cursory nod.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trainer [28]
TigerPulse: 85%
Posts: 62
Joined: 12/14/05
|
How do none of you know the rules???
Oct 17, 2016, 12:17 AM
|
|
It can NOT be targeting unless he's a defenseless player. A runner is never a defenseless player. The announcers even said this during the broadcast. Targeting will essentially only be called when the player that's hit is: A QB who is a passer and hasn't tucked the ball and become a runner OR a receiver who hasn't caught or is in the process of catching the ball OR a punt returner waiting to catch the ball.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1239]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1922
Joined: 10/25/15
|
You may want to check this--it *IS* targeting
Oct 17, 2016, 12:41 AM
|
|
According to the most recent rule book (2016-2017):
https://www.ncaapublications.com/p-4430-2016-and-2017-ncaa-football-rules-and-interpretations.aspx
There are two separate articles concerning targeting (ARTICLE 3 and ARTICLE 4), page FR-87:
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. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 9-6) (A.R. 9-1-3-I)
and
2) Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player
ARTICLE 4. 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)
Download it and read it for yourself.
If you want something easier to read, check out this article:
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/9/7/12829482/targeting-penalty-rulebook-ncaa-football
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trainer [28]
TigerPulse: 85%
Posts: 62
Joined: 12/14/05
|
Re: You may want to check this--it *IS* targeting
Oct 17, 2016, 12:46 AM
|
|
I stand corrected. Thanks for the links. I guess I just never see it called on ball carriers and have been misled by broadcasters saying it's limited to defensless players or saying it can't be targeting because he wasn't a defenseless player, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1239]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1922
Joined: 10/25/15
|
Commentators aren't always right, you know.***
Oct 17, 2016, 12:48 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1239]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1922
Joined: 10/25/15
|
To sum it up...
Oct 17, 2016, 12:47 AM
[ in reply to You may want to check this--it *IS* targeting ] |
|
It is always targeting when a defensive player leads the tackle with the crown of the helmet.
It doesn't have to be so if it's against a defenseless player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93668]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95419
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Actually, they did have a pithy comment on the hit.
Oct 17, 2016, 6:42 AM
[ in reply to Re: Just saw the Gallman ] |
|
They said it looked like targeting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [390]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 536
Joined: 1/5/13
|
Re: Actually, they did have a pithy comment on the hit.
Oct 17, 2016, 7:57 AM
|
|
Looked like targeting from 70 yards away from where I was sitting close to field level. No clue how not a single ref considered a review. He didn't appear to move at all for a bit either while players were piling on top of the all close by. The far ref on that side of the field continually made nc st leaning decisions all game though so makes sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [80298]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23591
Joined: 8/21/06
|
Agreed, and I can almost guarantee you that Dabo will send
Oct 17, 2016, 9:22 AM
|
|
tape of the hit to acc this week and they will admit it was an error. However it does Clemson no good now. Hopefully Gallman gets well soon and is ready to roll by fsu.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 21
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
