Targeting Appeal Denied

Makes one wonder what would have happened if Charles Jefferson had to play under these patty-cake rules...

 

I suppose you need to approach the "defenseless" QB gingerly, tap him on the shoulder and say, "Hey, I'd like to hit you...better get ready." . .And then let him defend himself by stiff arming, ducking, spinning, or otherwise evading and throwing a completion or running for the first down.
Some real true crap right there now....of course the guy being tackled needs to be defenseless lest he defend himself by avoiding the tackle.
What would make him not defenseless in that scenario? The tackler has to approach the tackle in that situation with an assumption that at any moment the QB will react and defend or evade..leading to no tackle....just as we saw with Watts and Bryce in the Bama game. Im quite sure Dem0 was as surprised as anyone including the QB that he was able to come right up the gut in his face and make a head up bear hug mask to mask textbook tackle without an evasive move from the QB. It is EXACTLY what you hope for...and almost never get...in that situation.
Outstanding play by Dem0 and certainly not one he should be penalized for....doubt seriously that QB would disagree.

 

The week before, against Alabama, the ‘defenseless’ QB escaped a sack and ran 27 yds to set up the game winning FG. Who holds up the ‘defenseless’ sign and where does he/she/it stand?

 

This is yet another example of the soft power that has countered longhorn football since the early seventies. It’s out of our control. Too many to list. The lead dog always gets bit in the ***.

 

No wonder we see so many arm tackles, or lack thereof.

 

wonder why Ewers was not a "defenseless player" when he was planted in the 1st qtr.

 

He might have been “defenseless” but there wasn’t helmet to helmet contact on that tackle (that I remember).

But he was “planted,” as you say; which, while not “targeting” is a foul in itself.

 

There was no helmet to helmet on Overshown and Harris either.

Besides Turner “planting” Ewers he came down with all his weight on top of Ewers.

There are several fouls on the same play.

 

65
I agree. That was a chicken chit play.

 

NCAA = Farthing Iceholes!

 

I mean... I'm a homer too but it's kind of blind to say that there was no helmet to helmet. Facemasks are part of the helmet.



I don't like it either, but like I said, I'll be surprised if it's called against one of our opponents this year or any other.

 

Face mask to face mask isnot a violent collision. That happened in another game I was watching, maybe Penn State v Auburn and was NOT considered targeting by revue by Booth.

 

Sorry, but that QB was pivoting to run. Had the QB not pivoted, Overshown wouldn't have hit him face to face.

It's a ******** call.

 

You people stay full of piss and vinegar.

 

How do you run towards something or somewhere without leading with the helmet? The rule violates basic physiology.

 

How come the QB was not penalized for targeting the tackler with a head butt?

 

They explained to Sark that it was in combo with the defenseless player part that he attached in his twitter thread. I don't like how McAulay is explaining it, but I get it.

We'll never know, and that's why it's a foul. Like McAulay said, plenty of legal hits can happen in that exact situation. Several others have alluded to it on this thread... arm tackling has been more rampant and that's probably a symptom of these rules. It would have needed Overshown to make a decision to take one fewer step and lean into the hit on the chest/ball area instead of the face, which would have taken him a twentieth of a second to realize, which seems unreasonable, and I get it. It just "is."

 

I'm all for the targeting rule (when properly applied & ruled on). This was a HORRID call and not to overturn it is even worse. Not worried about hurting ref's feelings--Get the damn call right!!

 

hic

 

The NCAA is making rules in the name of safety that are wrecking the sport. They should ask NASCAR how that works out.

 

I understand the intent of the rule, but it is way too harsh. I’m fine with a “flagrant” call which ends up with the suspension. However, there needs to be an unintentional version which ends up in penalty yards only.

 

Good point. Like the 5 yard rushing into punter vs roughing (automatic 1st down).

 

I was told, even on intentional grounding, you can't prove intent.

 

Didn't read prior posts in this thread, so I apologize in advance if I repeat.

How many flags would Tommy Nobis get today? He lead with head on face mask tackles.... punishing the player.

I played Center in HS but my coaches strongly instilled in our D players to tackle direct - head on and up like Nobis did. Again, head UP, not down to avoid neck injuries.

Our Sr. LB Sherman Lee tackled like that ... earned a scholarship to play for DKR, 1971-1974.

Not advocating crown of helmet or viscous head hits to vulnerable players...

But let 'em play play football.

 

Are you saying intent can be proven?

Flagrant may be a better word choice.

 

My mom always taught me that if you're going to maliciously head-butt someone, never, ever cradle the back of their head.


CLICK PIC 4 FULL SIZE

 

In Sarcastiball that's a very nice hug.

 

An absolutely horrible call during the game - and even worse that's it's not overturned.