SJB - Targeting Rule discussion

[knapplc]

What this thread really needs is someone to explain the rule again, or post the rule again, or talk about what the rule is for. Again.

 

Because if there's anything that's true about this thread, it's that all the people pissed off about this just don't understand the rule.

 

I think 37, maybe 38 more times should be good. Could those of you telling "everyone else" how stupid we are for being upset about this please get on that?

[whateveritis1224]

What don't you people get about this? Where are SJB's eyes when he makes the hit? HE IS STARING AT THE GROUND. Which means he was leading in for the hit with the crown of his helmet. In any fundamental tackling drill, I've never heard a coach tell you not to look at who you are tackling. Head up, wrap up, drive through with your shoulders. In many cases, you will jam your neck up pretty good when tackling like SJB did.

 

Like I said before, I don't like how football is being pussified either but this rule is in existence, and that hit was illegal in accordance with the rule. Period. We all like big hits, but anymore it seems the bigger the hit, the more it costs your team. Especially now with the ejection rules. So the simple fix is to stop f'ing tackling this way. I don't see them changing this rule.

/ thread.

 

I don't think the majority of people have a problem with targeting being called. It's the fact that the ejection was upheld when worse and more egregious hits (even later in the day) haven't had the player disqualified.

[Count 'Bility]

What don't you people get about this? Where are SJB's eyes when he makes the hit? HE IS STARING AT THE GROUND. Which means he was leading in for the hit with the crown of his helmet. In any fundamental tackling drill, I've never heard a coach tell you not to look at who you are tackling. Head up, wrap up, drive through with your shoulders. In many cases, you will jam your neck up pretty good when tackling like SJB did.

 

Like I said before, I don't like how football is being pussified either but this rule is in existence, and that hit was illegal in accordance with the rule. Period. We all like big hits, but anymore it seems the bigger the hit, the more it costs your team. Especially now with the ejection rules. So the simple fix is to stop f'ing tackling this way. I don't see them changing this rule.

/ thread.

But regardless, his intent is not targeting the head. That's the problem with the rule. Yeah, I guess it was the correct call by rule, but that's the issue with the rule is that the officials are being asked to interpret intent.

[EZ-E]

Can someone find the Anthony Barr (UCLA) hit on Taylor, that was obviously helmet-helmet that the announcers got a major boner over? I can't find it anywhere.

 

There's one in this video at :57 where the dude puts the crown of his helmet straight into Taylor's facemask, but I don't think it's Barr

 

 

I actually remember saying this from my seat in the North Endzone.

[True2tRA]

What this thread really needs is someone to explain the rule again, or post the rule again, or talk about what the rule is for. Again.

 

Because if there's anything that's true about this thread, it's that all the people pissed off about this just don't understand the rule.

 

I think 37, maybe 38 more times should be good. Could those of you telling "everyone else" how stupid we are for being upset about this please get on that?

 

 

Said "people" shouldn't spend four days of their lives arguing the same logic about a rule they have not read or don't understand. Its pretty black and white, and not hard to grasp.

 

Don't tackle someone as if you are a missile striking you target. As if your helmet is a war head. Keep your head up, and these calls go away. SJB was staring at the ground leading in for a tackle. A very strange form of tackling IMO.

 

[knapplc]

If everyone who kept their head up didn't get a penalty, or everyone who kept their head down did get ejected, you'd have a point. But that's not how the rule is being enforced, and that's what everyone is up in arms about for the past four days.

[JJ Husker]

What this thread really needs is someone to explain the rule again, or post the rule again, or talk about what the rule is for. Again.

 

Because if there's anything that's true about this thread, it's that all the people pissed off about this just don't understand the rule.

 

I think 37, maybe 38 more times should be good. Could those of you telling "everyone else" how stupid we are for being upset about this please get on that?

 

Dangit! And I was under the false impression that I didn't like it because I did understand it. Silly me. Hopefully the "experts" stop by to explain once again that we shouldn't expect the rule to make sense and be equally enforced because, after all, this is the rule.

[True2tRA]

If everyone who kept their head up didn't get a penalty, or everyone who kept their head down did get ejected, you'd have a point. But that's not how the rule is being enforced, and that's what everyone is up in arms about for the past four days.

 

 

Well pardon the f#*k outta me. I swore when I entered the thread it was titled SJB. I swore scrolling through I saw not only debates particularly focused in the SJB hit, (the title of the thread) and even replays of the hit that is in discussion. I thought with all of that it was quite clear EXACTLY what penalty we were discussing. Of course I could go through and quote all the comments in which the discussion was clearly calling this particular SJB hit bogus. I could also point out the fact that that hit was the only hit I was clearly focused on discussing......but what good would that do.

 

Hell, shows once again what I know.........

[JJ Husker]

Don't get all butthurt. I think everyone realizes that the crown of SJB's helmet grazed the guys face mask. According to the rule, that is a penalty. We all realize he could've used better mechanics that would've placed him in an eyes up position and thereby possibly dodging the penalty and ejection.

 

The problems are obvious though-

 

1- There was no intent to target or injure and, in the case of that specific SJB, it should not have resulted in an ejection. If anyone wants to maintain that hit is what they should be enforcing and ridding the game of, then football is dead.

 

2- Also, most people realize that what happens/happened on other hits or in other games doesn't have anything to do with SJB. BUT, those other hits are relevant and should be considered. When other conferences, other games, other hits are not treated equally, the rule is creating unfair circumstances. You really can't have a sporting contest when players/teams/games/conferences are held to differing standards of enforcement. When/If that is the case, football is dead.

 

3- I think we all have a basic idea of what type of hits should not be allowed in the game. Launching with the intent to spear or contact with the crown of the helmet is what needs to be ejection worthy. Not incidental, glancing blows that are going to happen no matter how hard a guy tries to avoid it. A 15 yard penalty is stiff. An ejection could be a game deciding event.

[True2tRA]

JJ I think I have already made it clear where I stand on points 1 and 3. Matter of fact, those points are specifically what I responded to in my above posts. I felt what he did was by definition of the rule ejection worthy.

[JJ Husker]

JJ I think I have already made it clear where I stand on points 1 and 3. Matter of fact, those points are specifically what I responded to in my above posts. I felt what he did was by definition of the rule ejection worthy.

 

I understand that, I don't agree with it but I understand it. However, the issue most of us are really talking about is, do we want or need the rule that makes that type of hit ejection worthy? Can football continue to be a viable sport if that rule is enforced the way it was Saturday (and by that I mean SJB being ejected while in other games more flagrant hits the ejection was overturned).

 

I'm all for player safety and I can handle some stepped up enforcement to help assure that but, the SJB hit? Really? that's not what I want the game to go to.

[GSG]

Is this the one from the Ole Miss game that was mentioned earlier?

 

[HuskerShark]

If they want to stop players from using their helmet as a weapon, they shouldn't keep making rules against it. Just make it with padding on the OUTSIDE so it isn't so damaging when it hits another player. Problem solved.

[JJ Husker]

Is this the one from the Ole Miss game that was mentioned earlier?

 

 

That is one of the hits I saw Saturday that made me question things. There was another in that same game as well that the ejection was overturned. Both of which were worse than the SJB hit imo.

[NUance]

What they would rather is for the defense to hit the guys low and cut them for a flip only to land on their head and break their neck. I mean watch the NFL and there have already been a few knees blown out this season for the safteys coming in low and not hitting high. Those guys are damned if they do and damned if they dont.

 

Yeah, no targeting call here, on this play from last weekend. No one ejected from the game. So apparently the ncaa thinks this isn't as bad as the SJB hit. (Note: There was a 15 yard penalty on this hit.)