- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Posted on 10/20/24 at 9:29 am to DalenSA
quote:
Anybody have a gif of the hit? He brought the boom
This is the only one I could find:
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.
Posted on 10/20/24 at 9:29 am to DalenSA
Double post
This post was edited on 10/20/24 at 9:30 am
Posted on 10/20/24 at 9:29 am to mikecno
You cannot completely avoid contact to another players head. That facemask sticks out a good ways. In addition, you aren't in control of the other players reaction. When bracing for a hit, the body tightens up, causing the head to lower a bit. It's a natural reaction. Intent HAS to be taken into consideration. In this case, Sage was clearly trying to not hit him in the "head or neck area". The ONLY part of the targeting rule that he fulfilled was the launch. But that's not enough. However, the commentators leaned on that as of it was the anchor point of the rule.
Posted on 10/20/24 at 9:29 am to LSBoosie
Boosie,
You say launch, I say he simply was leaning into the contact as the tackler must do.
He did hit the face mask because the offensive player lowered his head.
I do not know how the rule is worded, but you are 100% correct in saying that the refs used common sense to apply the spirit of the rule. No matter how it may be worded.

You say launch, I say he simply was leaning into the contact as the tackler must do.
He did hit the face mask because the offensive player lowered his head.
I do not know how the rule is worded, but you are 100% correct in saying that the refs used common sense to apply the spirit of the rule. No matter how it may be worded.

Posted on 10/20/24 at 9:32 am to LSBoosie
quote:
launch
If you could, please define this word in this context.
Posted on 10/20/24 at 9:34 am to mikecno
All that said, I’m glad the kid was ok because that was BRUTAL. How is Sage this morning?
Posted on 10/20/24 at 9:45 am to Screaming Viking
quote:
I do not know how the rule is worded
here is the text of the rule straight from the rulebook (bold is my emphasis):
quote:
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) (AR 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 their 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
has to be "forcible contact" to the head/neck area.
so you can contact the head/neck, just not "forcible contact" to that area.
all of the force of Ryan's hit was to the chest area, which made it a legal hit.
This post was edited on 10/20/24 at 9:47 am
Posted on 10/20/24 at 9:45 am to Guava Jelly
quote:
If you could, please define this word in this context.
definition according to rule book
quote:
Launch A player leaving their 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
Posted on 10/20/24 at 9:48 am to mikecno
quote:
Props to him for a good clean hit that separated the receiver from the ball. And to the replay ref who reversed the call.
Reminded me of Jacoby Stevens hit in the Clemson Natty game. Incidently I saw him on the sidelines coaching up Ashton Stamps for blowing a coverage assignment in the game. Forgot he is on staff now
Posted on 10/20/24 at 9:49 am to BengalBen
quote:
At that point, I was done with those announcers.
Those announcers were terrible. Also Joe Tessitore has now become unlistenable with his cringy, fake and over the top enthusiasm.
Posted on 10/20/24 at 9:58 am to BengalBen
That's when I started cussing at the TV is when those shitty announcers we above and beyond trying to saw how that was a dirty hit. If you cant make that play then In done watching the game I love so much. It's a contact sport
Posted on 10/20/24 at 10:05 am to Nutriaitch
quote:
Nutriaitch
You are the man

Posted on 10/20/24 at 10:06 am to BengalBen
quote:
The player ducked his head and while his facemask was hit, the direct point of impact was the upper chest. Sage braced himself, he didn’t launch. He had one foot on the ground at impact.
Exactly what happened.
Posted on 10/20/24 at 2:26 pm to Nutriaitch
quote:
definition according to rule book
So, this was not (by the letter of the law) a launch?
Posted on 10/20/24 at 9:51 pm to LSUStar
That UGA/TX call was 100% targeting after they altered the definition of 'crown' this year.
You cant dart-board your head into ANY part of the player now. It's a modified version of spearing tucked into the targeting penalty.
Look at the UF player who got ejected vs A&M, dude went dome first into the player's arse cheek and still got tossed for it.
You cant dart-board your head into ANY part of the player now. It's a modified version of spearing tucked into the targeting penalty.
Look at the UF player who got ejected vs A&M, dude went dome first into the player's arse cheek and still got tossed for it.
This post was edited on 10/20/24 at 9:52 pm
Posted on 10/20/24 at 10:29 pm to USAFTiger42
2 ga players were ejected because their helmets hit the offensive player.
I am wondering/waiting to the first call on the runner with the ball lowering his ramming helmet into the defensive player trying to tackle the runners legs? I still don't know why the Tex Rb wasn't called for ramming with his helmet and the ga player was dismissed because he couldn't get his helmet lower than the rb. If there is no launch then there should never be a targeting call. No defender can determine in less than a split second where the runners is going to put his helmet.
I am wondering/waiting to the first call on the runner with the ball lowering his ramming helmet into the defensive player trying to tackle the runners legs? I still don't know why the Tex Rb wasn't called for ramming with his helmet and the ga player was dismissed because he couldn't get his helmet lower than the rb. If there is no launch then there should never be a targeting call. No defender can determine in less than a split second where the runners is going to put his helmet.
Posted on 10/20/24 at 10:30 pm to mikecno
Targeting calls are out of control
Posted on 10/20/24 at 10:46 pm to MiketheTigerMask
quote:
That UGA/TX call was 100% targeting after they altered the definition of 'crown' this year.
You cant dart-board your head into ANY part of the player now. It's a modified version of spearing tucked into the targeting penalty.
The old spearing rule has been tucked into targeting for years. Maybe since inception.
The point of emphasis this year has been to more tightly define the “crown” of the helmet. The definition hasn’t actually changed but they are focusing on not calling targeting (the non-defenseless player variety; based on the spearing rule as you mentioned) in cases where the contact is actually just with the top of the facemask or something.
Posted on 10/21/24 at 12:00 am to lostinbr
Basically what I meant; I know spearing was attached to targeting already, but everyone still thinks targeting purely as 'helmet to helmet' despite spearing being tucked in there and not requiring helmets to remotely touch hence the UF example.
Miss St had the guy spear Jayden in the gut and got tossed for it too and people complained that it wasnt actually targeting cause 'no helmet to helmet!'
Miss St had the guy spear Jayden in the gut and got tossed for it too and people complained that it wasnt actually targeting cause 'no helmet to helmet!'
Popular
Back to top
