»
Topic: Question about the targeting penalty, maybe answer
Replies: 19   Last Post: Nov 7, 2014 12:01 PM by: summeyd®
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.


[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 19  

Question about the targeting penalty, maybe answer


Posted: Nov 7, 2014 10:59 AM
 

Everyone keep bringing up either hit to the head or leading with the helmet, but i don't think that is why the penalty was upheld. It was an upward launch on a defenseless receiver. Both of Smith's feet left the ground and the Wake Forest player hadn't established himself as a runner.

Isn't that two of the keys to the targeting penalty? It isn't just leading with the helmet. Smith was guilty.


From what I understand, the targeting penalty is a hit


Posted: Nov 7, 2014 11:01 AM
 

Where the player leads with the crown of his helmet, OR where a hit to the head/neck area is made on a defenseless player (hit can be made with head, shoulder, arm, whatever).


By rule


Posted: Nov 7, 2014 11:04 AM
 

The "launching" part only enters into the discussion when the forceful hit is to the "head and neck area".

Simpy launching yourself is not enough for targeting. You actually have to either make contact with their head/neck (and forceful contact at that), or lead with the crown of your helmet (the old "spearing" penalty).

He did neither

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg


Re: By rule


Posted: Nov 7, 2014 11:06 AM
 

...and this is where I think the confusion on the refs part came from. They probably thought that by just launching into the receiver that it was a foul but according to the rules, it's not.


Re: By rule


Posted: Nov 7, 2014 11:07 AM
 

To add, hopefully even though there is no appeals process, the ACC will do the right thing and overturn the half game suspension.


I think it's more likely that their interpretation of


Posted: Nov 7, 2014 11:07 AM
 

"head/neck" area extended to where the player was hit.


Chest is not the same as head/neck.***


Posted: Nov 7, 2014 11:10 AM
 



badge-donor-05yr.jpg

I would agree, but they might not have.


Posted: Nov 7, 2014 11:11 AM
 

Or, maybe they didn't have irrefutable video evidence to the point where they could say there was no contact to the head/neck.


That would be true if it wasn't false.


Posted: Nov 7, 2014 11:21 AM
 

They had clear video evidence that showed there was no illegal hit. .. and there was no head to head or head to chest contact.


BUT the head bone's connected to the.... neck bone


Posted: Nov 7, 2014 11:52 AM
 

the neck bone's connected to the.... chest bone.

Medically they are pretty close.

2020 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

If they did the play would have been confirmed


Posted: Nov 7, 2014 11:56 AM
 

The preview said that there wasn't enough evidence to overturn, which is a load of bs

2020 student level member

Brad Brownell: more losses than any other coach in school history.


Launching is simply something that refs are advised


Posted: Nov 7, 2014 11:38 AM
 

to watch for that may (or may not) be an indication of targeting.

http://www.tigernet.com/forums/message.jspa?messageID=16185058#16185058

2020 purple level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
- H. L. Mencken


Importantly, the rule also says..."when in doubt,


Posted: Nov 7, 2014 11:08 AM
 

it is targeting".


I don't have a problem with the call on the field....

[1]
Posted: Nov 7, 2014 11:19 AM
 

It was a bang bang play that occurred at full speed.

The problem I have is that they revieed it and still managed to **** it up and as a result a kid and a team gets punished twice for a good clean legal football play.




2020 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

Sometimes good things fall apart so better things can fall together.


Re: I don't have a problem with the call on the field....


Posted: Nov 7, 2014 11:32 AM
 

the fact that shoulder hit chest, the helmet made contact with head, and in between lies the neck is the problem. When you also throw in he left his feet and he was a defenseless receiver, I just can't see that there's any way it will be reversed.

if he didn't leave his feet and he was hitting a RB then it's a bogus call. But launching upward on a receiver and hitting him high is going to draw a flag and be held up almost every time. The rule states "lower your target"

Smith made a decision to leave his feet and hit the receiver very high, enough so that their heads made contact. His decision was worse than the replay officials.


I could agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong***


Posted: Nov 7, 2014 11:35 AM
 



2020 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

Sometimes good things fall apart so better things can fall together.


This is the sissification of America.

[1]
Posted: Nov 7, 2014 11:36 AM
 

It had nothing to do with the rule book. It was a violent hit and that must stop or somebody might get hurt.

2020 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Re: This is the sissification of America.


Posted: Nov 7, 2014 11:41 AM
 

Soon all players will be outfitted with a device to monitor their running speed. If you run too fast, that's a penalty. Not fair to the others who can't run that fast. Of course, there will be different settings for different positions that will be determined by a large committee of experts.


Wrap the player up and all of this goes away.***


Posted: Nov 7, 2014 11:57 AM
 




Re: Question about the targeting penalty, maybe answer


Posted: Nov 7, 2014 12:01 PM
 

If a WR puts himself in a defenseless position because he wants to make a play coming across the middle of the field like that, I think the DBs should engage him in a tickle fight to get him to the ground. The way Smith came up and put a good hard hit on him was just mean. Is that really the kind of stuff we want our kids seeing on a Thursday night football game?

military_donation.jpg

Replies: 19  

TIGER TICKETS

FB GAME: Season Tickets
FOR SALE: Two tickets together, Section R, Row P, Seats 21 and 23. $2,500.00 for the pair, includes one parki...

Buy or Sell CU Tickets and More in Tiger Tickets!

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