Started By
Message

re: Like it or not, the call was correct (by the letter of the law)

Posted on 10/21/18 at 11:07 am to
Posted by Meldedee
Louisiana
Member since Dec 2011
3373 posts
Posted on 10/21/18 at 11:07 am to
If he is guilty... fine... take out White but take out bama's guy that INJURED the Tennessee QB that very same day (without a flag).... WITH.. OUT.. A.. LINK FLAG!!!!!
Posted by JPLSU1981
Baton Rouge
Member since Oct 2005
27015 posts
Posted on 10/21/18 at 11:07 am to
quote:

Registered on 10/15/2018
Posted by Red Stick Tigress
Tiger Stadium
Member since Nov 2005
18923 posts
Posted on 10/21/18 at 11:11 am to
quote:

He shouldn’t be suspended for the next game. Take that rule out


I just watched the last 6 minutes of the game.

Announcers said it "could" be targeting. Seemed they were iffy until the call was made then they were on board. They also said there should be different penalties for how egregious the targeting is... Targeting 1, Targeting 2, etc. and that the players should not be suspended for the next game.

Rule needs a re-write.
Posted by The Mick
Member since Oct 2010
44475 posts
Posted on 10/21/18 at 11:41 am to
I agree he led with his hands but it looked to me like his facemask hit QB's facemask shortly after and thats what I meant by they call that often. I think the ref also got fooled a bit because White was leaning/lunging forward (not launched but lunged) and the angle of his body might have appeared as a launch-type action.

The call was weak AF no matter what.

ps - i was most disappointed with how quickly and nonchalantly they treated the review. Ref had the headset on for 30 seconds maximum.
This post was edited on 10/21/18 at 11:43 am
Posted by rthomas628k
natchitoches, louisiana
Member since Jan 2013
160 posts
Posted on 10/21/18 at 12:00 pm to
quote:

Like it or not, the call was correct (by the letter of the law


What “letter of the law” are you relying on? Have you read said law (actually a “rule “)
Here’s the present “Targeting” provision in the NCAA Football rules manual:

“...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 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)
Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head
or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player
ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)
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
• Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet
Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14). When in question, a player is defenseless. Examples of defenseless players include but are not limited to:
• A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
• A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive
a backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had
time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
• A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or
the return.
• A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has
completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect himself
or has not clearly become a ball carrier..
• A player on the ground.
• A player obviously out of the play.
• A player who receives a blind-side block.
• A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward
progress has been stopped. A quarterback any time after a change of possession
• A ball carrier who has obviously given himself up and is sliding feet-
first....”

Devin pushes the QB down via force applied with his hands primarily but certainly no use of his helmet. And, NO BLOW TO THE QB’s head or neck!

And hass “roughing the passer” been totally replaced with “Targeting”! No. By the most liberal interpretation, a roughing call or late hit as sometimes used generically, but targeting ain’t even remotely a viable call.

Complicating the issue in this game specifically, and many others, is the “dual capability” of some QB’s vs. the traditional “pocket passer”, which even the recruiting services breakdown as distinct categories. Here, we have a dual threat guy who had 102 rushing yards in the 1st 1/2 alone. And in the specific play, note how Fitzgerald initiatially makes a lurching move to confuse the defensive players into thinking he was going to run, then drops back into the traditional throwing posture. So the defenders, including and especially a blitzing linebacker, has to guard against either a run or a throw. How does he do this! By getting to the QB as fast as possible and not committing to either a run or pass.
When Fitz fakes the run, he opened himself up to being defended and brought down like any other runner.
So hit em late and hit em often. Just don’t target them. You’ll be penalized but won’t be ejected or suspended!
Posted by bfniii
Member since Nov 2005
17840 posts
Posted on 10/21/18 at 5:45 pm to
quote:

by the way the rule is written White’s hit was indeed “targeting”
wrong

quote:

I realize he “led with his hands”
exactly, which proves it wasn't targeting. he also didn't have his head down. he didn't launch. the hit wasn't late. the hit wasn't egregious. the bama/tenn hit was MUCH MUCH more forceful and it wasn't called at all. then it was reviewed and missed again. then the league office issued a statement. they essentially tripled down on stupid

that play wasn't even roughing the passer much less targeting. if that was targeting, then you have to call it on pretty much every play of every cfb game
Posted by bfniii
Member since Nov 2005
17840 posts
Posted on 10/21/18 at 5:45 pm to
quote:

I’ve still not seen conclusive evidence their helmets touched
me neither. not at all
Posted by bfniii
Member since Nov 2005
17840 posts
Posted on 10/21/18 at 5:58 pm to
quote:

LINK

This is targeting. White’s shove at the chest, is not
THAT is what the rule is designed to prevent. white's hit is not even close to that
Posted by I20goon
about 7mi down a dirt road
Member since Aug 2013
17726 posts
Posted on 10/21/18 at 6:01 pm to
quote:

quote:
I’ve still not seen conclusive evidence their helmets touched
me neither. not at all
it's moot. Must be forceable contact to head or neck area. Incidental occurs all the time. IF their helmets touched, or Devin's forearm was high on the chest into the neck, it doesn't matter... it's incidental contact. He did not drive for strike with those into the head or neck area.
Posted by bfniii
Member since Nov 2005
17840 posts
Posted on 10/21/18 at 6:02 pm to
quote:

that gets called 9/10 times
no it does not. it didn't even get called in another game being played at the same time. someone provided a link to the wsu/usc game where a WORSE hit was not called.

quote:

It was not a bad call
it wasn't even roughing the passer much less freaking targeting. then they made the same mistake again in review. then the league office missed it again with their statement
Posted by bfniii
Member since Nov 2005
17840 posts
Posted on 10/21/18 at 6:05 pm to
quote:

Announcers said it "could" be targeting. Seemed they were iffy until the call was made then they were on board. They also said there should be different penalties for how egregious the targeting is... Targeting 1, Targeting 2, etc. and that the players should not be suspended for the next game
no, mcelroy was clear and repeatedly said it was the right call. what they were objecting to was the suspension in the next game. they even agreed with the ejection.

they were totally premature and there was no angle, no conclusive video evidence of helmet to helmet contact. for them to agree with the call was completely stupid
Posted by lsudemon52
Member since Jan 2014
192 posts
Posted on 10/21/18 at 6:24 pm to
Helmets can't touch because his right hand is on the left shoulder!
first pageprev pagePage 4 of 4Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram