JDCAG (NOT Colin) said:

---

Quote:

---

There was helmet to helmet contact, but Wilson did not lead with the crown of his head, which would have made it targeting.

---

I just don't understand what world they're living in where they can claim this. The top of his helmet was the first thing to contact speedy, right in his facemask.

I suppose if you just deny the truth of something, it makes it very easy to explain why it wasn't a penalty, but there are still photos showing this.

---

Phenomenal Absolutism at its finest.

Why would anyone do something so dumb?

Well, that just puts my mind at ease then. Even if the game was close (in the 4th) the refs wouldn't have allowed us to win. Should have just forfeited the game.

Every situation is justified with a different interpretation. In my observation, it usually goes against us and favors tu. But the officials always have a new explanation.

John Francis Donaghy said:

---

Ag1985 said:

---

Quote:

---

CBS reported during the game that the SEC did not think it was targeting because Noil was not a defenseless player. There was helmet to helmet contact, but Wilson did not lead with the crown of his head, which would have made it targeting.

---

So is the reasoning that he was not defenseless or is it that Wilson did not lead with the crown?

They can't even keep their story straight. This targeting rule needs to be fixed.

---

Both.

There are two targeting rules.

One that requires the victim to be defenseless, which did not apply to the Speedy hit because he was an established ball carrier.

And the other which applies to hits with the crown of the helmet, which absolutely did apply to the Speedy hit.

The league saying Wilson didn't lead with the crown of the helmet is absurd. He obviously did.

---

Absurd indeed. When CBS showed the slow mo replay of the hit, you could plainly see Speedy's face mask bending inward due to the impact of the top of the Bammer's helmet.

...and a toof.

Ok I'll ask the dumb question...what's the official definition of the crown of the helmet then?

The SEC needs to get their tongues out of Saban's *******

Not trying to argue here, but how is this hit any different than our 12th Man stud's hit on the Tennessee kick returner 2 weeks ago?
1st thing I thought of when I saw this Saturday.

I will admit Noil's was twice as bad, but same helmet to helmet...

Fire away!

Helmet (Rule 9-1-3)

No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.

My emphasis. A defenseless player expands the definition of targeting but is not required. Somebody tell Rolling Stones Boy.

He obviously led with the crown. This ruling sucks.

I would like someone to explain what would have to be different about that play to make it targeting. Does the defender need to use the middle of the stripe on his helmet instead of the edge of the stripe to drive Speedy's face mask through his frontal lobe? Does he need to literally fly from the top of the stadium WWE-style rather than the more prosaic launching off two feet? Is there a minimum of three lost teeth required to call targeting or maybe you have to knock the guy out for several weeks instead of just a couple quarters?

Ulrich said:

---

I would like someone to explain what would have to be different about that play to make it targeting. Does the defender need to use the middle of the stripe on his helmet instead of the edge of the stripe to drive Speedy's face mask through his frontal lobe? Does he need to literally fly from the top of the stadium WWE-style rather than the more prosaic launching off two feet? Is there a minimum of three lost teeth required to call targeting or maybe you have to knock the guy out for several weeks instead of just a couple quarters?

---

Needs to be wearing a different colored uniform with a different HC 30 yards away on the sideline.

Did not know that was even a factor. Thanks Sbisa

The non-defenseless player part of the rule requires "forcible contact with the crown" meaning the guy needs to brace himself and forcibly launch, leave his feet, etc. If he's just running toward and through the tackle and he leads with the crown I still think thats not a foul by the rule.

The rule needs to be changed so that, no longer matters. Player safety and the quality of football would be improved if it was illegal to hit another player in the head with your helmet ever, and only judge on who initiates that contact. Of course, like trying to eliminate big wrecks in NASCAR, I imagine it wont go over well with the masses who want to see people "git layed out!"