Alabama targeting no call

[NUSouth]

i know it was on at the same time as our game but did anybody see the hit by Alabama that was completely ignored by the officials. I think this one was worse than the one by Texas versus Norte dame

It was on a kick off return and put one of A&Ms best receivers out of the game with a concussion. It was strait up crown of the helmet to the face. CBS showed it over and over again and even put up the rule. Officiating outcome was nothing. No call, no review, nothing. If that had been Nebraska the player would have been suspended for 5 games

Than the really bad thing he did it again on a later kick off. Returner was not hurt the second time and "mysteriously" CBS did not replay it at all. Almost as if they were told to drop it. Only verbal mention that it as the same player.

It's good to be the Crimson Slide in the SEC.

 

[StrongArm517]

Must admit and am not proud of it but I have become a complete cynic. From the way the media has portrayed the presidental race to things like the above,,, I believe the fix is in and there are just some that always get away with it.

 

[oldzebra2000]

Too bad Ed Targetingham wasn't calling that game.

 

[huskerfan66]

Too bad Ed Targetingham wasn't calling that game.

Probably wouldn't have mattered...... wrong shade of red.

 

[HuskerO]

I saw the first one and I didn't think the Bama player used the crown of his helmet. I mean it definitely was helmet-to-helmet.

I don't think the returner was thought of as "defenseless". Does that matter if it's helmet-to-helmet (without using the crown of your helmet)?

 

[jedihusker]

I saw the first one and I didn't think the Bama player used the crown of his helmet. I mean it definitely was helmet-to-helmet.

I don't think the returner was thought of as "defenseless". Does that matter if it's helmet-to-helmet (without using the crown of your helmet)?

The rule was clarified earlier this year to say that the crown of the helmet includes any part of the helmet above the face mask, and after watching the replay of the hit, that certainly would apply to this hit.

There are two types of targeting according to the rule; targeting and making forcible contact with the crown of the helmet and/or targeting and making forcible contact to head or neck area of defenseless player. The rule for the former reads like this:

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.

This rule only requires that contact be made with the crown of the helmet, which as I stated, with the rule clarification, this would certainly qualify. Other than that, it only requires one indicator of targeting, which is listed in this note:

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

In this instance, because the hit was made with the crown of the helmet, the fact the player wouldn't be considered defenseless doesn't matter. It then only needs to qualify for one of the stipulations above, and based on what I watched, it would qualify for at least two (the last two bullet points) and probably even a third (launch). It should have been targeting, as should have the hit by the Purdue player on TA, though that isn't being discussed here.

 

[jedihusker]

To add to my post above, this just proves more and more a couple things. First, how screwed up and complicated the targeting rule is. It's constantly being applied differently. You see one player get tossed for a hit that, for all intents and purposes, appears to be just a good clean hard hit, and most anyone thinks shouldn't have been called. Then you see another player make a hit that has numerous indicators for the targeting rule, and not even a flag is thrown, let alone anything done on review.

Second, the disturbing lack of rules knowledge of officiating crews and even the head offices for officiating crews. From what I read, the SEC head officiating office defended the no call, saying the player wasn't defenseless, and therefore it shouldn't have been called. Based on what I read in the rules, the fact that he wasn't a defenseless player shouldn't matter, because contact was made with the crown of the helmet. It's absolutely baffling to me that people who are entrusted with enforcing rules, don't even know the rules themselves; and targeting is far from the only thing they screw up.

 

[TwinsRRUs]

Sounds like they changed the wording to make sure it included Kenny Bell's awesome hit.

"A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust...even though one or both feet are still on the ground."

 

[HuskerO]

The rule was clarified earlier this year to say that the crown of the helmet includes any part of the helmet above the face mask, and after watching the replay of the hit, that certainly would apply to this hit.

There are two types of targeting according to the rule; targeting and making forcible contact with the crown of the helmet and/or targeting and making forcible contact to head or neck area of defenseless player. The rule for the former reads like this:

This rule only requires that contact be made with the crown of the helmet, which as I stated, with the rule clarification, this would certainly qualify. Other than that, it only requires one indicator of targeting, which is listed in this note:

In this instance, because the hit was made with the crown of the helmet, the fact the player wouldn't be considered defenseless doesn't matter. It then only needs to qualify for one of the stipulations above, and based on what I watched, it would qualify for at least two (the last two bullet points) and probably even a third (launch). It should have been targeting, as should have the hit by the Purdue player on TA, though that isn't being discussed here.

Thank you for clarifying the rule. Yeah, they definitely missed that one. What I'm more shocked with is that the booth didn't buzz down to the refs to review the hit. Usually they error on the side of caution.

 

[dtrain87]

i know it was on at the same time as our game but did anybody see the hit by Alabama that was completely ignored by the officials. I think this one was worse than the one by Texas versus Norte dame

It was on a kick off return and put one of A&Ms best receivers out of the game with a concussion. It was strait up crown of the helmet to the face. CBS showed it over and over again and even put up the rule. Officiating outcome was nothing. No call, no review, nothing. If that had been Nebraska the player would have been suspended for 5 games

Than the really bad thing he did it again on a later kick off. Returner was not hurt the second time and "mysteriously" CBS did not replay it at all. Almost as if they were told to drop it. Only verbal mention that it as the same player.

It's good to be the Crimson Slide in the SEC.

A kick returner is not a defenseless player. The kid just got blown up. A back carrying the ball is not defenseless... The only way this play was a targeting it would have had to have been spearing with the crown of the helmet or while the player was wrapped up and in the process of going down...

 

[kcopsker]

To add to my post above, this just proves more and more a couple things. First, how screwed up and complicated the targeting rule is. It's constantly being applied differently. You see one player get tossed for a hit that, for all intents and purposes, appears to be just a good clean hard hit, and most anyone thinks shouldn't have been called. Then you see another player make a hit that has numerous indicators for the targeting rule, and not even a flag is thrown, let alone anything done on review.

Second, the disturbing lack of rules knowledge of officiating crews and even the head offices for officiating crews. From what I read, the SEC head officiating office defended the no call, saying the player wasn't defenseless, and therefore it shouldn't have been called. Based on what I read in the rules, the fact that he wasn't a defenseless player shouldn't matter, because contact was made with the crown of the helmet. It's absolutely baffling to me that people who are entrusted with enforcing rules, don't even know the rules themselves; and targeting is far from the only thing they screw up.

Serious question, how is "defenseless" defined?? I would think any football player who is on the field during a live play would not count unless he is far away from the play and doesn't see the guy hitting him. Even then it's iffy in my mind as his head should always "be on a swivel". I really don't how an official makes the defenseless determination.

 

[mwulf]

The even more scary thing is the kid who laid that guy out was a true freshman ..Alabama is a damn factory of athletes ...did you see the clip of their DT basically flying...they are unreal