»
Topic: Was the hit on Gallman targeting?
Replies: 37   Last Post: Oct 18, 2016 12:44 PM by: Johnnyupstate
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.


[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 37  

Was the hit on Gallman targeting?

[1]
Posted: Oct 15, 2016 6:57 PM
 

Missed almost all the game to go to my daughter's cheer competition.


It was the definition of the term, although...

[1]
Posted: Oct 15, 2016 7:03 PM
 

I hate the rule. It's football!


Re: It was the definition of the term, although...

[1]
Posted: Oct 15, 2016 7:57 PM
 

you hate a rule that limits concussions and neck injuries?

2020 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Re: Was the hit on Gallman targeting?

[2]
Posted: Oct 15, 2016 7:05 PM
 

By definition absolutely


It was definitely. But there was no flag thrown.***

[2]
Posted: Oct 15, 2016 7:08 PM
 



military_donation.jpg

decide for yourself

[1]
Posted: Oct 15, 2016 7:09 PM
 
IMG_3265.PNG(977.7 K)

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

2020 student level member

Not from that bad shot, but in HD slo-mo, it was clear***


Posted: Oct 15, 2016 7:34 PM
 



J. Marc Edwards
Cary, NC


It was the definition of targeting. They should use that clip and train the refs***

[2]
Posted: Oct 15, 2016 7:09 PM
 



2020 student level member

All necessary components of targeting were present

[1]
Posted: Oct 15, 2016 7:15 PM
 

1) Forcible contact to head/neck of ball carrier
2) With the crown of defender's helmet.

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg


No.***


Posted: Oct 15, 2016 7:27 PM
 



2020 white level member

Re: Was the hit on Gallman targeting?


Posted: 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.

military_donation.jpg

ABSOLUTELY...AND NOT ONE STINKING WORD ABOUT IT...

[1]
Posted: 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.

J. Marc Edwards
Cary, NC


I have seen many cleaner hits that were called...


Posted: 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.


Re: Was the hit on Gallman targeting?


Posted: 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.


Doesn't matter if he's a runner if the defender is

[1]
Posted: 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.


Re: Was the hit on Gallman targeting?

[1]
Posted: Oct 18, 2016 10:12 AM
 

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)

2020 student level member

If this isnt called then there is no need for the rule.


Posted: Oct 15, 2016 7:39 PM
 



military_donation.jpg

Re: If this isnt called then there is no need for the rule.


Posted: Oct 15, 2016 7:50 PM
 

The question is which player initiates contact?

badge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg

"Smelley, Garcia, and Beecher are going to lead you to 4-8." - york_tiger


With the crown of the helmet?

[1]
Posted: Oct 15, 2016 7:55 PM
 

You need to ask?


you're full of cr*p......when have you seen and offensive


Posted: Oct 15, 2016 7:56 PM
 

Player called for targeting


Re: you're full of cr*p......when have you seen and offensive


Posted: Oct 15, 2016 8:17 PM
 

Why do you have to be called for targeting to initiate contact?

badge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg

"Smelley, Garcia, and Beecher are going to lead you to 4-8." - york_tiger


Clearly you are just trolling. Get a life.***


Posted: Oct 18, 2016 10:13 AM
 



2020 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: you're full of cr*p......when have you seen and offensive


Posted: Oct 18, 2016 10:16 AM
 

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.

null


From that hit...


Posted: Oct 15, 2016 7:57 PM
 

Gallman appeared to lose his consciousness while he's sill in the air.


Re: If this isnt called then there is no need for the rule.


Posted: Oct 18, 2016 12:44 PM
 

Agree


I say yes

[1]
Posted: Oct 15, 2016 7:52 PM
 

and the safety should have been ejected

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg




The definition of awesome!


Re: Was the hit on Gallman targeting?


Posted: 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.


Re: Was the hit on Gallman targeting?


Posted: Oct 15, 2016 8:34 PM
 

Yes....can't believe a flag was not thrown, my 2cents


no. he was a runner. he wasn't defenseless.***


Posted: Oct 18, 2016 10:13 AM
 




Re: no. he was a runner. he wasn't defenseless.***

[1]
Posted: 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)

2020 student level member

Not the part of the rule that applies here. How do so many


Posted: Oct 18, 2016 10:16 AM
 

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.

2020 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Yes. Textbook example of the first definition of the rule***


Posted: Oct 18, 2016 10:20 AM
 



2020 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Dabo said,


Posted: 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.



Re: Dabo said,


Posted: Oct 18, 2016 11:24 AM
 

so the ACC confirmed it wasn't targeting?

badge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg

"Smelley, Garcia, and Beecher are going to lead you to 4-8." - york_tiger


That's what he said .


Posted: Oct 18, 2016 11:29 AM
 

.


Re: Was the hit on Gallman targeting?


Posted: Oct 18, 2016 11:20 AM
 

Yes. 100%.

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: Was the hit on Gallman targeting?


Posted: Oct 18, 2016 11:32 AM
 

I'd say no because he wasn't a defenseless player.

2020 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: Was the hit on Gallman targeting?


Posted: 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.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg

"Smelley, Garcia, and Beecher are going to lead you to 4-8." - york_tiger


Replies: 37  

TIGER TICKETS

FB GAME: Season Tickets
FOR SALE: To the person claiming I sold multiple tickets Add this to your police list I will get you for def...

Buy or Sell CU Tickets and More in Tiger Tickets!

[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
2981 people have read this post