Whiskey_Clear
Banned
- Messages
- 10,486
If that is a penalty by rule.....it's a bad rule and needs to be changed.
Gotsis targeting
- Thread starter GTBandit22
- Start date
crl85
Jolly Good Fellow
- Messages
- 434
- Location
- Greenville, SC
We will get better. We will beat Georgia and finish 7-5 and everybody will stfu.
Chris Freeman
Jolly Good Fellow
- Messages
- 128
- Location
- Hampton, Georgia
I don't give a damn what the rule book says, doesn't say, there is no way in Hell you call a penalty there. It was a clean hit. He stood his guy up, wrapped his arms, and kept his head up. Sure he was high but who cares. There was no intent to cause harm and he didn't make contact with the crown of his helmet. I think the call was BS and was stunned when they came back and confirmed it
Buzztheirazz
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 2,401
Nah. He hit dude straight in the head. They had a D-lineman go out too. No excuses. We sucking.
- Messages
- 3,281
Maybe if you look at the rule book and take a literal view of the description you could support the call. My answer to you would then be: well then, there must be about 30 targeting calls a game, correct? Look, I love the rule and think it is good for the game, however, the rule is all about intent and, in this case, Gotsis was just making a routine football play and the contact of the helmets incidental. I can't see any interpretation of that play claiming he was using the crown of his head as a weapon to deliver an intentional blow to the head and neck area. As refs, we can't forget that our heads are attached to our necks, which are pretty short and connected to our shoulders. Just how is any player supposed to wrap up without their helmet getting involved? Bad call that had an impact on the game.
GlennW
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,189
My problem with the Gotsis ejection is that the UNC QB is a dual-threat and runs quite a bit, so if Adam DIDN'T keep his head up to make a tackle, then the QB could easily spin out and run away/elude him. It happened that the QB and Gotsis ended up facing each other when the tackle took place, but it WASN'T Targeting as he didn't lead with his helmet but his whole body as he was wrapping up the QB. If there was a evidence he was "spearing" the QB, then I could see targeting, but in THIS case, it was clear he was sacking the QB while being BLOCKED, so there shouldn't have been any penalty in my opinion.
Frenchise
Ramblin' Wreck
- Messages
- 713
- Location
- Atlanta, Georgia
Exactly. I don't know how you play football anymore if this is targeting. You must keep your head up against these QBs. Also, this is the most BS defenseless player of all time. He saw Adam coming the whole time. That's not defenseless, I don't care what the rule book says.
InsideLB
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,896
Gotsis won't play the first half of Clemson either, right?
Also, this is Gamble's second straight missed game from the concussion. The more a concussed guy misses the more nervous I get. Hope it isn't too serious. Great kid and an important part of our DL.
Also, this is Gamble's second straight missed game from the concussion. The more a concussed guy misses the more nervous I get. Hope it isn't too serious. Great kid and an important part of our DL.
Frenchise
Ramblin' Wreck
- Messages
- 713
- Location
- Atlanta, Georgia
No he's available from the first snap.
JacketFromUGA
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 4,897
The educational program being taught at all levels of football right now is called the Heads Up program. I don't know how that program can hold any water if you are still punished for tackling with your head up.
- Messages
- 3,281
I just watched the play again for the first time on DVR. That call is just crazy. AG was fighting his way off a block and might have had half a step to gather himself to make the tackle. He didn't even have a chance to launch himself. His arms were totally wrapped around the QB when they went down together. How many targeting calls have you ever witnessed where the tackler was wrapping up? My total is now 1.
Stinger90
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,999
- Location
- Greensboro (area) North Carolina
Like I said, a text book (hit) tackle. I was thinking with some these other posts that I didn't know what I was talking about. Anyway, we sure did miss having AG on the field after that.
deeeznutz
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 2,329
To clarify here, because a lot of people seem to be confused...there is no carry over to the Clemson game. Penalty in first half: sit the rest of the game (ie Gotsis). Penalty in second half: sit rest of game and first half of next game (ie Duke DB who hit Golden).
- Messages
- 19,556
I hate the call and am as certain as could be that there was no illegal intent from Gotsis.
That said, a primary goal of the rules is to avoid putting referees in a position to judge intent. The minute referees start making judgment calls on intent is the minute the SEC finds another "competitive" advantage. I hate it, but it was called correctly based on the rules in my opinion.
I thought Demond Smith's (I think) ejection last year was equally bad. He even turned his body sideways to avoid a head on collision, but once the helmets hit he was done for.
I also agree that you could eject about 15-20 guys a game as a result of helmets colliding. I really don't know what to do about it.
That said, a primary goal of the rules is to avoid putting referees in a position to judge intent. The minute referees start making judgment calls on intent is the minute the SEC finds another "competitive" advantage. I hate it, but it was called correctly based on the rules in my opinion.
I thought Demond Smith's (I think) ejection last year was equally bad. He even turned his body sideways to avoid a head on collision, but once the helmets hit he was done for.
I also agree that you could eject about 15-20 guys a game as a result of helmets colliding. I really don't know what to do about it.
Eastman
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,289
- Location
- Columbia, SC
I think the rule is the problem. Both were upright. Gotsis wasn't spearing with his head. Intentional spearing should be against the rule but head to head contact is going to naturally occur. To know the qb's head was being "targeted" would require some visual proof that didn't occur. Bad call.
Yaller Jacket
Ramblin' Wreck
- Messages
- 979
It seemed to me that his helmet did meet with a glancing blow, so by the rule the call is right. But there ought to be some wiggle room for the refs to decide if there was intent to injure or if the blow was serious or something like that. Kinda like they have two types of face mask penalty. It was one of the best tackles I've ever seen; it was a beautiful hard tackle. Which made the penalty worse.
I would argue too that it cost us the game. I don't know why a single DT should make that much difference, but our defense was never sharp from the point we lost Gotsis.
I would argue too that it cost us the game. I don't know why a single DT should make that much difference, but our defense was never sharp from the point we lost Gotsis.
GlennW
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,189
THIS is what SHOULD have been the determining factor for the Refs: If the tackle WASN'T made face-to-face but if Adam would have tackled him from the side or from behind, would THAT have gotten the same flag? I suggest it WOULDN'T because there would NEVER be a inadvertant touching of the face masks when Gotsis was wrapping up on his FORM TACKLE. Therefore, if it WOULDN'T have been a penalty in any other case, then it shouldn't have been in this case, either.