Everyone of these officials need suspended

Donate To GopherHole

MaxyJR1 said:
The thing people miss is that the official calling the foul gets one live look at it.

The philosophy is that when in doubt, it is targeting. Just like when it is in doubt, the pass is incomplete and not a catch and fumble.

The replay showed that Rallis lead with crown. The replay doesn't clearly show the helmet to helmet contact. Yes there was shoulder contact.

It's a judgement call that if not called, likely the game just moves on.

It's not as cut and dry as people think.

Are there stats out there? Do Gophers lead country in ejections? Does Big Ten lead country in ejections?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I'm assuming because this was called so late that it was actually the replay official that called down to say we need to look at it? If not, then the whole thing makes no sense. Why would an official throw a flag 15-20 seconds after the play was over?
 

MaxyJR1 said:
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)




Note 1: “Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball.

Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:

• Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area

• A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground

• Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
Click to expand...

Not sure where you see the necessity of a defenseless player in this?
 


MaxyJR1 said:
Read note #1.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Note 1 doesn't say anything about defenseless players


I'm done debating you.


You are either
A - trolling me
Or
B - can't read very well
 


Some guy said:
Not sure where you see the necessity of a defenseless player in this?
Click to expand...

It's not necessary, but a key component. If they are not defenseless then the official needs to determine if the player goes beyond the points in Note #1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

MaxyJR1 said:
It's not necessary, but a key component. If they are not defenseless then the official needs to determine if the player goes beyond the points in Note #1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
There are two types of targeting.

Article 3 does not require a defenseless player.
Article 4 does.

Only article 4 tells you to go to note #2
 

Some guy said:
Note 1 doesn't say anything about defenseless players


I'm done debating you.


You are either
A - trolling me
Or
B - can't read very well
Click to expand...

There isn't a necessity for the player to be defenseless, but it's a key component. If they're not defenseless, then for it to be targeting it has to go beyond "making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball." As stated in Note #1.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

MaxyJR1 said:
There isn't a necessity for the player to be defenseless, but it's a key component. If they're not defenseless, then for it to be targeting it has to go beyond "making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball." As stated in Note #1.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Article 3 it is not only not a key component, it is literally not in the rule. Simply having your head down and being near the neck is sufficient to call an A3 targeting.

Okay really done now. I'm being trolled. Or you are illiterate
 



Some guy said:
There are two types of targeting.

Article 3 does not require a defenseless player.
Article 4 does.

Only article 4 tells you to go to note #2
Click to expand...

Correct. Article 3 leads to note #1.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

MaxyJR1 said:
Correct. Article 3 leads to note #1.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Which doesn't require a defenseless player. It requires 1 of 3 things.


an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball.

Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:

• Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area

• A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground

• Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area


If any of those three occur it is a target
 

Some guy said:
Which doesn't require a defenseless player. It requires 1 of 3 things.


an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball.

Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:

• Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area

• A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground

• Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area


If any of those three occur it is a target
Click to expand...

Now you lost me again. Are you saying you can't launch or crouch to make a legal tackle, block or play the ball? This is why all launches and helmet contact is not a foul. Sometimes it's part of a legal play.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

MaxyJR1 said:
Now you lost me again. Are you saying you can't launch or crouch to make a legal tackle, block or play the ball?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I'm not, but the rulebook is
 



Some guy said:
Which doesn't require a defenseless player. It requires 1 of 3 things.


an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball.

Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:

• Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area

• A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground

• Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area


If any of those three occur it is a target
Click to expand...

When have you ever seen this called in a college football game? Have to agree with Maxy defenseless is part of the targeting rule. They don't call article 3 fouls. Ever.
 






Pompous Elitist said:
I've never seen it. Give me an example.
Click to expand...

The hit by Iowa against Mitch on the sideline would be a potential Article #3 call.

When the rule first came out under Brewster, I believe our DB was called for it by putting crown in the side of Wisconsin RB in Madison. There wasn't ejections then.

I agree it's not called often.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

MaxyJR1 said:
The hit by Iowa against Mitch on the sideline would be a potential Article #3 call.

When the rule first came out under Brewster, I believe our DB was called for it by putting crown in the side of Wisconsin RB in Madison. There wasn't ejections then.

I agree it's not called often.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Honestly, if that's the case just burn the whole thing down. A hit to the head is a hit to the head. Torque, no torque, 100 gs, 80 gs; these things can't be parsed by officials. However, one knows TARGETING when one sees targeting. INTENT absolutely has to be part of it. Does the player have time to lower? Iincidental contact or headhunting?

Does anyone think that TAMU player deserved that hit? The Michigan returner? Mitch?

I'm aghast.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom