Gotsis targeting

[BufordJacket]

I was at the game and loved the fact everybody boooooed and then booooed some more. I wanted so bad to throw everything in my pockets on the field. At the same time I knew that might draw a flag.

 

[gtcole]

I think the slight (really slight) head tuck right before the hit is what made it look so bad.

 

[GTJake]

I was floored by the ejection, I guess I'm wrong but I thought there were two rules; 1) Helmet-to-Helmet Contact and 2) Targeting.

Helmet-To-Helmet - Unintentional with 15 yd unsportsmanlike penalty
Targeting - Intentional with penalty and ejection

IMO, Gotsis lunged at the QB and his helmet unintentionally hit the facemask

 

[iceeater1969]

Hit was right by our seats and it was incidental - face mask to face mask.
Plus Gotsis did not drive into ground with all his wait.

I sure had fun booing the ref and stirring up the crowd. Can't do that at work!

But surely something good will come
Since we only have 4dt and one was injured with ejection we were down to 2.
1. Kallon was not so good but got lots of reps as unc moved up and down field.
2. Had to play true freshman to get some experience for this year and next. Looked small in height, but very agile and stout . By sr should be very good.
3. Also the senior hunt (but first year as DT) Played a lot and seemed to see the game better at end. He looked tired.
4. Any top 20 high school DT recruit or many second string stud DT who can transfer, will see they have excellent (100%)chance of a lot of playing next year.
5. We got to work on the agressive 5 man line - which I hop is how we go the balance of year

Be positive!!!

 

[ramblin' wagon]

I was floored by the ejection, I guess I'm wrong but I thought there were two rules; 1) Helmet-to-Helmet Contact and 2) Targeting.

Helmet-To-Helmet - Unintentional with 15 yd unsportsmanlike penalty
Targeting - Intentional with penalty and ejection

IMO, Gotsis lunged at the QB and his helmet unintentionally hit the facemask

There is no specific helmet to helmet rule that I know of. It is all wrapped up in the two targeting rules, 9-1-3 and 9-1-4. You can't initiate contact with the crown of your helmet and you cant initiate contact to the head of neck area of a defenseless player with any part of your body. No where does it say that helmet to helmet contact is a always a penalty. It is all about where the initial contact occurred and whether the crown of the helmet was used.

I think the targeting rules are good rules and are called correctly a high percentage of the time. I believe in this instance it was the wrong call. It is the first time I have seen a player keep his head up and wrap up and be called for targeting.

 

[IronJacket7]

I'm all for protecting the players but this....

This is demasculinization of football imo.

 

[augustabuzz]

There is no specific helmet to helmet rule that I know of. It is all wrapped up in the two targeting rules, 9-1-3 and 9-1-4. You can't initiate contact with the crown of your helmet and you cant initiate contact to the head of neck area of a defenseless player with any part of your body. No where does it say that helmet to helmet contact is a always a penalty. It is all about where the initial contact occurred and whether the crown of the helmet was used.

I think the targeting rules are good rules and are called correctly a high percentage of the time. I believe in this instance it was the wrong call. It is the first time I have seen a player keep his head up and wrap up and be called for targeting.

Incidental contact is not a foul. It must be forcible.

 

[00Burdell]

I'm all for protecting the players but this....

This is demasculinization of football imo.

You should have watched the Redskins yesterday. Two players collided - helmets never touched - never got within 12 inches of each other - they called targeting. I'm serious.

 

[danny daniel]

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.

I think the call was made because the QB gets protection from head shots (not just launching and targeting) and there is new rule on hits below the knee to the QB as well. Any player other than the QB and I doubt this would have been called.

 

[Skeptic]

..."
I think the targeting rules are good rules and are called correctly a high percentage of the time. I believe in this instance it was the wrong call. It is the first time I have seen a player keep his head up and wrap up and be called for targeting.

That was my thought watching from home when we got several replays. I thought it was a text book, form tackle and Gotsis drove straight in put him into the cheap seats. There was some contact but no way it was targeting. Had he wanted to target, he literally could have taken his head off. On the other hand just maybe it will give the D a mean reputation they will live up to. I love the guy.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I know CPJ seems to have given up on the pointless exercise of submitting bad calls to the league office but......this needs to be done on this one. I'm still pissed about it. For the principle of it...not its outcome on the game.

 

[Madison Grant]

We just got bitten by a controversy initiated by one of our own (concussion lawsuits). The very word 'targeting ' implies intent. Obviously there was no intent on Gotsis's part. But every ref on that field is not going to put himself at risk to be named later in a lawsuit because he did not make the most extreme ruling to take full responsibility for whether or not any player wound up with health issues from playing football.

 

[B Lifsey]

I know CPJ seems to have given up on the pointless exercise of submitting bad calls to the league office but......this needs to be done on this one. I'm still pissed about it. For the principle of it...not its outcome on the game.

KenS reporting that Johnson agreed that it was targeting by current rules. But, he doesn't agree with how rule is written. CPJ called it "an old school form tackle."

 

[Boomergump]

Once again, Gotsis wrapped up his victim. How can targeting ever be called when you have your arms completely wrapped around the ball carrier? Think about it. It's pretty much impossible to do.

 

[Ash]

Once again, Gotsis wrapped up his victim. How can targeting ever be called when you have your arms completely wrapped around the ball carrier? Think about it. It's pretty much impossible to do.

I was yelling for the refs to call targeting on most of the tackles after Gotsis was ejected. If what he did was the standard, then there was a lot more blown calls.

 

[Skeptic]

Once again, Gotsis wrapped up his victim. How can targeting ever be called when you have your arms completely wrapped around the ball carrier? Think about it. It's pretty much impossible to do.

I think even in agreeing with the rigid, rulebook ejection, Johnson referred to it as a textbook tackle. As as you noted earlier, if that was to be called then a bunch of people are gone before the game is over because that contact can't be avoided without giving the contact. Lord, we have seen so few textbook tackles by this team it is a shame that one gets punished.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Lord, we have seen so few textbook tackles by this team it is a shame that one gets punished.

THIS.

 

[Eastman]

To me one other factor is the time the player has before the hit. I certainly targeted players when I had time to decide how and where I was going to deliver the blow. If Gotsis was free (unblocked) for several steps prior to contacting the qb and then hit him head to head I would have understood the call. As it was, his path was altered by the off lineman and his goal was just to get to the qb. The fact that they were lined up perfectly was just how it worked out. Typically you want to come in "high" since you also are trying to block/disrupt the throw.

 

[AE 87]

To me one other factor is the time the player has before the hit. I certainly targeted players when I had time to decide how and where I was going to deliver the blow. If Gotsis was free (unblocked) for several steps prior to contacting the qb and then hit him head to head I would have understood the call. As it was, his path was altered by the off lineman and his goal was just to get to the qb. The fact that they were lined up perfectly was just how it worked out. Typically you want to come in "high" since you also are trying to block/disrupt the throw.

You're right, but intent is not part of the rule. So, they can't overturn on that basis. It should play a role in the initial call--which was probably your point--but GT.

 

[Eastman]

You're right, but intent is not part of the rule. So, they can't overturn on that basis. It should play a role in the initial call--which was probably your point--but GT.

Candidly I think intent (as best it can be ascertained) should become part of the rule since it appears that (head hunting) is what they are trying to stop. The point I was trying to make was that intentional targeting "helmet to helmet" should require the conditions to do so, For example if 2 defensive players make the same contact with an offensive player but the first player was unblocked and the second was altered by a blocker right before contact then the penalty (if any) should be different (at least like a flagrant foul is in basketball).