stop the vid at :37 when contact is made. The crown is not making contact. The crown is actually facing the ball itself.
Westbrook may not play again.....
- Thread starter CTOkie
- Start date
Advance the clip one more second and tell me if the defender's helmet is making contact with Dede's?
You might argue where the crown begins and ends.
But, this year, it doesn't have to be the crown. Helmet-to-helmet is targeting.
That was a penalty that was missed by the officials.
I'm with you on agree to disagree, but one question: Do you really not see helmet-to-helmet at the :38 mark?
Meh I don't see it that way. It was an ugly hit. But to me it looks like the OSU player was trying to lead with his shoulder and put the side of his helmet into Dede's chest. If he had kept his head straight to make sure the crown hit, then I would be more apt to agree with you. But I've seen lots of hits like that get called for targeting and stand up after the review. So I'm not saying you are wrong. I just don't see enough to call it targeting.
This is what blatant targeting looks like...
I know that's how the NCAA clarified it earlier this year. But going by that, there should be targeting calls literally every other play. If players were ejected for targeting every time helmets hit, then neither team would have enough players left to even finish games.
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/9/7/12829482/targeting-penalty-rulebook-ncaa-football
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). (A.R. 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:
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). (A.R. 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 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
That's great that it reads that way. Still doesn't bother me one bit that targeting wasn't called.
Doesn't me really, either. I didn't believe it was targeting initially. The targeting rules suck in my opinion. Too many players are ejected from games for playing hard.
Playing hard and playing dirty are two different things.
So, this thread's being going for a couple of days now and no consensus as to whether or not it was targeting...... yet we expect the stripes to get it right, either on the spot or via replay, in a matter of a minute or so. Every single time.
Perspective
Perspective
Really, defenders should have to keep their eyes up and on the ball IMO.
I agree that a lot of these targeting calls probably don't start with intention, but when these guys take their eyes off the ball in order to deliver a hit, it's too often that they end up striking where they didn't mean to.
Ever try kicking a soccer ball that's falling from the sky before it hits the ground? It can make the most athletic person look like a bumbling idiot. Now try it with your eyes closed at the last second.
I agree that a lot of these targeting calls probably don't start with intention, but when these guys take their eyes off the ball in order to deliver a hit, it's too often that they end up striking where they didn't mean to.
Ever try kicking a soccer ball that's falling from the sky before it hits the ground? It can make the most athletic person look like a bumbling idiot. Now try it with your eyes closed at the last second.
Stop trying to bring order to our chaos with rational posts.
Watching it live I didn't think it was targeting. After watching the replay 15 times, they probably could have called it.
I had my binoculars on DeDe when it happened. When a player is moving in one direction and his head pops back in the opposite direction the only thing that can cause that is contact from a helmet.. The OSU player made an illegal tackle hitting the face mask and helmet. It was an illegal hit. The sad part is it happened several times in the game. The officials were negligent in not calling targeting several times in the game.
Like I said earlier, it was a Bang-Bang play. When one has to start watching replays on every hard hit to determine the 'legality' of a hit, I'll quit watching football. I hate that DeDE got hit and out of the game, but that's pure hard hitting football. It's part of the game. Or at least it used to be.
