Targeting

[Mr Peabody]

Is this the same high school gym teacher that made you swim naked in class gym class?

one and the same - only had one injury during swim class - playing water polo and a guy cut one of the veins in his arm on a broken tile on the pool edge. blood all over - looked like Jaws was in the pool

 

[Brooky03]

And yet, it has been more internationally adopted than football.

Why don't you just come out and say why you think football isn't internationally adopted?

 

[rrlbees]

Did you actually watch the game or just the 4 second vine? He wasn't holding him up, he was tackling from behind. The guy tacking from behind actually was hurt more than the "defenseless receiver".

Both and I was commenting on the people saying the receiver was running at the defender. Tackling from behind stopped him from running at the other defender.

 

[rrlbees]

I'm not seeing that at all edit: I'll give you the steps, but he did not lower his helmet. I don't think he even made contact with his helmet; Burgess moved his head to the side and hit the WR in the chest with, predominately, his shoulder.

His head is down.

 

[Brooky03]

His head is down.

making contact with nothing... maybe the receiver's shoulder at most.

 

[longtimefan]

Why don't you just come out and say why you think football isn't internationally adopted?

Because I like to be obtusely subtle.

The point is, we Americans think our football is the greatest thing since sliced bread. The rest of the world looks and says "What's the big deal?".

 

[Brooky03]

Because I like to be obtusely subtle.

The point is, we Americans think our football is the greatest thing since sliced bread. The rest of the world looks and says "What's the big deal?".

Probably because we're right and just better than those barbarians

My original comment that kicked this sub-discussion off was more related to it being different from a team-building and cooperation perspective than most sports.

 

[Macky44]

The game is no more dangerous now than it was decades ago; the equipment has probably made it safer. The awareness of the dangers of the sport is heightened though, which I would also consider a good thing.

I'm not saying keeping your son out of football is a good or bad decision, but I think it's a decision that should be revisited if your son develops a love for the sport. Football is a team sport like no others, imo, so it has benefits.

He can play tackle football with friends without equipment i guess. That's what i did, and trust me..i was built to play football and didn't at the high school or college level.

 

[ssmorol]

I think people are watching the wrong video. People saying the defensive player is standing there and the WR coming towards him. Huh? The WR is held up by another defender and the guy making the hit takes a good 2 steps at him and lowers his helmet.

Not sure what video you are watching...he turns his head to the side and hits him in the chest with his shoulder! A perfectly clean hit. Because his brain got rattled a little bit should be attributed to the game of football, not the player making a hard clean hit.

 

[Crusty]

In looking at the video posted in this thread the following is what I see:

1. The defender ran towards the receiver who was in the grasp of another defender.
2. The defender lowered his helmet and struck the receiver in the chest. When I froze the video and enlarged the clip it appears the defender's helmet made contact either just below the chin or possibly at the bottom of the chin.
3. The receiver was clearly defenseless.

As I understand the rule, from the AFCA, the call appears to be correct. At the very least, the neck area was involved, the defender used either his shoulder, helmet or both and the receiver, being in the grasp of another player and his forward progress stopped, meets the definition of a defenseless player. The rule also says "When in doubt it is a foul".

Based on the rule the official made the right call. Whether or not the rule is good is another matter.

AFCA
With the 2013 rule change that makes ejection from the game a part of the penalty for targeting fouls coaches, players and officials need to have a clear understanding of Rules 9-1-3 and 9-1-4. It is very important to understand that thesefouls have not changed from previous years, and officials should officiate these plays as in the past. The characterization of defenseless players has been expanded (see below), but otherwise these rules for the fouls remain as they have been. It is the penalty that has changed.

These guidelines are intended to assist everyone involved in the game to understand these rules, which are so important in protecting the safety of the student-athlete.

RULES

Targeting and Initiating Contact With the Crown of the 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.

Targeting and Initiating Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player (Rule 9-1-4)

No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 2-27-14)

Note: Beginning in 2013, ejection from the game is a part of the penalty for violation of both Rule 9-1-3 and Rule 9-1-4.

EDIT - add photo

 

[longtimefan]

In looking at the video posted in this thread the following is what I see:

1. The defender ran towards the receiver who was in the grasp of another defender.
2. The defender lowered his helmet and struck the receiver in the chest. When I froze the video and enlarged the clip it appears the defender's helmet made contact either just below the chin or possibly at the bottom of the chin.
3. The receiver was clearly defenseless.

As I understand the rule, from the AFCA, the call appears to be correct. At the very least, the neck area was involved, the defender used either his shoulder, helmet or both and the receiver, being in the grasp of another player and his forward progress stopped, meets the definition of a defenseless player. The rule also says "When in doubt it is a foul".

Based on the rule the official made the right call. Whether or not the rule is good is another matter.

AFCA
With the 2013 rule change that makes ejection from the game a part of the penalty for targeting fouls coaches, players and officials need to have a clear understanding of Rules 9-1-3 and 9-1-4. It is very important to understand that thesefouls have not changed from previous years, and officials should officiate these plays as in the past. The characterization of defenseless players has been expanded (see below), but otherwise these rules for the fouls remain as they have been. It is the penalty that has changed.

These guidelines are intended to assist everyone involved in the game to understand these rules, which are so important in protecting the safety of the student-athlete.

RULES

Targeting and Initiating Contact With the Crown of the 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.

Targeting and Initiating Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player (Rule 9-1-4)

No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 2-27-14)

Note: Beginning in 2013, ejection from the game is a part of the penalty for violation of both Rule 9-1-3 and Rule 9-1-4.

Injecting facts into a controversy is always a good thing.

 

[ClkWrkOrange]

Watched it several more times. Receiver is in the grasp of another player and the second defender goes top of his helmet to the front of receivers helmet.

shoulder to chest.There is no helmet to helmet at all.

 

[Crusty]

shoulder to chest.There is no helmet to helmet at all.

That is simply not required. Read the rule.

 

[Orangeman]

In looking at the video posted in this thread the following is what I see: [*]The defender ran towards the receiver who was in the grasp of another defender. [*]The defender lowered his helmet and struck the receiver in the chest. When I froze the video and enlarged the clip it appears the defender's helmet made contact either just below the chin or possibly at the bottom of the chin. [*]The receiver was clearly defenseless. As I understand the rule, from the AFCA, the call appears to be correct. At the very least, the neck area was involved, the defender used either his shoulder, helmet or both and the receiver, being in the grasp of another player and his forward progress stopped, meets the definition of a defenseless player. The rule also says "When in doubt it is a foul". Based on the rule the official made the right call. Whether or not the rule is good is another matter. AFCA With the 2013 rule change that makes ejection from the game a part of the penalty for targeting fouls coaches, players and officials need to have a clear understanding of Rules 9-1-3 and 9-1-4. It is very important to understand that thesefouls have not changed from previous years, and officials should officiate these plays as in the past. The characterization of defenseless players has been expanded (see below), but otherwise these rules for the fouls remain as they have been. It is the penalty that has changed. These guidelines are intended to assist everyone involved in the game to understand these rules, which are so important in protecting the safety of the student-athlete. RULES Targeting and Initiating Contact With the Crown of the 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. Targeting and Initiating Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player (Rule 9-1-4) No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 2-27-14) Note: Beginning in 2013, ejection from the game is a part of the penalty for violation of both Rule 9-1-3 and Rule 9-1-4.

Disagree.

 

[Crusty]

Disagree.

Lol that was certainly eloquent.

 

[ClkWrkOrange]

That is simply not required. Read the rule.

Never said it was.

 

[Mr Peabody]

Lol that was certainly eloquent.

 

[Crusty]

Judge for yourself

 

[Crusty]

Never said it was.

Sorry, then what is your point?

 

[Crusty]

I think that is this was a hit on Dungey, everyone would have the torches and pitchforks out.

 

[ClkWrkOrange]

Sorry, then what is your point?

My point was obvious if you read the post I was replying to.There was no helmet to helmet contact.

 

[Crusty]

My point was obvious if you read the post I was replying to.There was no helmet to helmet contact.

Sorry, my bad. However, I do think that the still image looks like Bees may be correct.

 

[ClkWrkOrange]

Sorry, my bad. However, I do think that the still image looks like Bees may be correct.

Yes it does,but the clip at the beginning of this thread shows he isn't.

 

[Crusty]

Yes it does,but the clip at the beginning of this thread shows he isn't.

The photo is a still from that video.

 

[ClkWrkOrange]

Sorry, my bad. However, I do think that the still image looks like Bees may be correct.

Look at the 3rd angle in the clip in the 3rd post in this thread.It's pretty clear in my mind that his helmet is below and to the defenders left/receivers right of the receivers chin.Still a targeting call I guess but not helmet to helmet.