Definitely not defenseless.

Finally you're correct. He was not defenseless

Anyone think I should try to explain sarcasm to Vandy?

aggiedad7 said:

---

Thompson said:

---

I can recall at least two instances within the last season or two where less egregious 'side hits' by A&M defenders were called targeting and 'confirmed' after review. Anyone remember which plays / have videos? Apparently the rule is A&M = targeting, texas = not targeting.

---

It depends on whether the ball carrier is deemed a runner vs a QB or receiver making a catch. As the QB took off on a designed run he's no longer a QB and deemed a runner. It's not that complicated, but somehow on TexAgs it is. As a runner you have to hit him with the crown of the helmet to be targeting which he didn't. He hit him with the side. Now.... the call would have stood against us, I'm just saying the replay guy made the right call per the rules.

---

The point of all of this BS was to limit head injuries.

Does the rule at this point in its insane nuance limit head injuries if this kind of hit is allowed?

Either ditch the rule, or ditch the stupid nuance.

IslanderAg04 said:

---

Then why have similar plays been called for targeting? He lunged at his head and made helmet to helmet contact. The crown of the helmet is just speculative.

Thats a massive fine and a suspension in the nfl. Thats how bad it was.

---

Helmet to helmet is not targeting. Crown of helmet. Or hitting a defenseless player about the neck or head. Also, he is a runner at that point.

Logos Stick said:

---

IslanderAg04 said:

---

Then why have similar plays been called for targeting? He lunged at his head and made helmet to helmet contact. The crown of the helmet is just speculative.

Thats a massive fine and a suspension in the nfl. Thats how bad it was.

---

Helmet to helmet is not targeting. Crown of helmet. Or hitting a defenseless player about the neck or head. Also, he is a runner at that point.

---

Doesn't matter how many times you post the rule they will still deny the obvious.

vander54 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

IslanderAg04 said:

---

Then why have similar plays been called for targeting? He lunged at his head and made helmet to helmet contact. The crown of the helmet is just speculative.

Thats a massive fine and a suspension in the nfl. Thats how bad it was.

---

Helmet to helmet is not targeting. Crown of helmet. Or hitting a defenseless player about the neck or head. Also, he is a runner at that point.

---

---

It looked to me like he hit him with the crown. Most people are less concerned if it was/wasn't targeting and the fact that that play is called targeting 9/10 times, but was picked up because it was Sip. Luckily it didn't affect the outcome of the game.

Doesn't matter how many times you post the rule they will still deny the obvious.

The same player keeps doing it and yet it's not enforced. That player is going to be paralyzed sooner than later.

It was targeting...just like the tu hit in A&M game should have been targeting also, period. Refs paid off by tu and Sankey.

OP cleverly left out Article 4.

ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting. When in question, it is a foul. ...

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 indications of targeting (emphasis NCAA's) 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

2004FIGHTINTXAG said:

---

vander54 said:

---

Bill Superman said:

---

It was helmet to helmet. That's a foul.

It was a million times worse than what they called against us in 2011 to give sip the game.

---

Only on a defenseless player

---

Except that it has been called many, many times on players that have been able to defend themselves.

---

One of our receivers (Walker maybe) was called for a far less hit on a block on and LB that was looking straight it. This is a subjective term that gives the league an out by determining who is "defenseless" and who isn't.

That hit last night was a harder hit by the crown of the helmet than I've seen in any other game.

It got overturned because it was the sips.

WestTexAg12 said:

---

OP cleverly left out Article 4.

ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting. When in question, it is a foul. ...

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 indications of targeting (emphasis NCAA's) 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

---

The bold part is true when the player is defenseless but not a ball carrier.

vander54 said:

---

Finally you're correct. He was. It defenseless

---

He was a runner avd hit from the front. By definition not defenseless.

He had an opponent hanging on him impeding forward progress. Defenseless.

Quote:

---

When in question, it is a foul.

---

Sure seems like it's in question.

TexasRebel said:

---

Quote:

---

When in question, it is a foul.

---

Sure seems like it's in question.

---

By people that don't know the rule

greg.w.h said:

---

vander54 said:

---

Finally you're correct. He was. It defenseless

---

He was a runner avd hit from the front. By definition not defenseless.

---

It should have said not defenseless. Missed the typo last night.

vander54 said:

---

TexasRebel said:

---

Quote:

---

When in question, it is a foul.

---

Sure seems like it's in question.

---

By people that don't know the rule

---

The bunch of people that threw flags?

TexasRebel said:

---

vander54 said:

---

TexasRebel said:

---

Quote:

---

When in question, it is a foul.

---

Sure seems like it's in question.

---

By people that don't know the rule

---

The bunch of people that threw flags?

---

Yes they are told to throw the flag and let replay work it out.

We had a wr kicked out for grazing a helmet while run blocking.

The laughable inconsistency of targeting enforcement on a team by team basis is destroying trust in the game.

SunrayAg said:

---

We had a wr kicked out for grazing a helmet while run blocking.

The laughable inconsistency of targeting enforcement on a team by team basis is destroying trust in the game.

---

Difference was in that situation the "victim" was considered defenseless.

I agree the rule still needs work but by definition it was a foul on us and not tu.

You keep dismissing that he was defenseless.

TexasRebel said:

---

You keep dismissing that he was defenseless.

---

You again keep refusing to actual read the rule

Second week in a row you refuse to read the rule and just argue to argue.

What part of this seems like he was moving forward with a defender on his back and able to defend himself?

TexasRebel said:

---

What part of this seems like he was moving forward with a defender on his back and able to defend himself?

---

Lol. After the hit was made. Great screenshot

Just like the ball did not break the plane even though it was a few feet past the pylon.

Defenseless player is a completely different definition in the rule book. Targeting is defined as "no player shall target and make forceful contact against an opponent with the crown of his helmet."

And it has to meet one of the four criteria:

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

A crouch, followed by an upward 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 "

That's it. There is a provision for defenseless players as well, but there is no requirement of defenseless players for there to be targeting. But pedants gonna pedant.

To be targeting without defenseless player must be contact from crown. Under the revision of the rule a couple of years ago, this is not the crown of the helmet. Very very clearly.

Therefore the only provision that could apply is defenseless. The ball carrier is not defenseless unless his forward progress is STOPPED prior to the hit. He was moving forward at the time of the hit, albeit with a guy hanging on.

Logos Stick said:

---

IslanderAg04 said:

---

Then why have similar plays been called for targeting? He lunged at his head and made helmet to helmet contact. The crown of the helmet is just speculative.

Thats a massive fine and a suspension in the nfl. Thats how bad it was.

---

Helmet to helmet is not targeting. Crown of helmet. Or hitting a defenseless player about the neck or head. Also, he is a runner at that point.

---

Most here understand that. However, as many have stated the very nature of the rule is to protect players from brutal head injuries. No one can look at that hit from last night and think a hit of that nature should be allowed simply because the crown of the helmet was not used and the player was not defenseless. If the point of the rule is to protect players from TBI then let's protect them from TBI.

I just finally watched the hit. Great hit.

It's embarrassing that the game gets a little physical and people start to loose their crap about it.

I hope we come to ours senses and go back to teaching kids to keep their head on a swivel and to be smart.

You can't assume you're not gonna get hit all the time and then get mad when someone plays football.

Man alive

bigjag19 said:

---

To be targeting without defenseless player must be contact from crown. Under the revision of the rule a couple of years ago, this is not the crown of the helmet. Very very clearly.

Therefore the only provision that could apply is defenseless. The ball carrier is not defenseless unless his forward progress is STOPPED prior to the hit. He was moving forward at the time of the hit, albeit with a guy hanging on.

---

Missing the forest for the trees. Was it a completely dangerous play? Is it the exact type of play that football is trying to get rid of? The answer is yes to both.

I am not going to argue about how you interpret the rule. I don't give a ****. That was a dangerous play that needs to be gone from the game.

Never said it wasn't dangerous. But the nature of the rules are it has to meet the definitions. When it doesn't, they can't call it.

bigjag19 said:

---

Never said it wasn't dangerous. But the nature of the rules are it has to meet the definitions. When it doesn't, they can't call it.

---

Exactly. The rule is still bad but by current rules it was a legal hit.

It did and they did.

The same replay booth that ****ed us, ****ed up here, too.

Agsrback12 said:

---

I just finally watched the hit. Great hit.

It's embarrassing that the game gets a little physical and people start to loose their crap about it.

I hope we come to ours senses and go back to teaching kids to keep their head on a swivel and to be smart.

You can't assume you're not gonna get hit all the time and then get mad when someone plays football.

Man alive

---

It's a game that kids play. Two key words in that sentence... "game" and "play". Hits like that, which can cause serious brain injury that impact people for life, have no place in the sport. Not a great hit.

Show me the rule. Show me why it was targeting. Real time it looked like it so flag was thrown. Replay says nope, doesn't meet definition so must pick up. That is the exact way the rule is written.