Key on 680 The Fan Today

[bke1984]

Whatever guys. King should have just held on to the damn ball and we wouldn't even be arguing about it. I feel bad for the kid.

 

[Root4GT]

It's 100% clear. The mutt drops his head right before he makes contact with King. His facemask is pointed straight at the ground. When he comes off of King, again, his facemask is pointed directly at the ground with the crown of his helmet planted against King. It is undeniable by anyone except SEC officials, mutts, and GT-opponent sympathizers such as yourself. NFL refs with absolutely zero skin in the game are calling it out as crystal clear targeting.

Except you can't see where the crown of the helmet actually impacts. It appeared that the crown of the helmet would hit King in the midsection but there is no video of that impact. The Only video is that part of the helmet hitting part of King's facemask. Review needs conclusive evidence. What conclusive evidence on Targeting has been all over the place this season.

 

[stinger78]

It's not explicit. What diameter of the top of the helmet constitutes the crown? What angle of the neck constitutes attacking with that crown? What if the runner ducks their head at the last second and causes the defender to duck a little lower in defense? Throw more subjectivity like launching and intent and whatever else on top of that and it's all a big mess. College referees are awful in general and we are expecting them to make sense of this. If you personally think its very easy and that you could do it with no problem then go for it. Become a college referee. Otherwise we are just going to have to deal with this nonsense. It's never going to be consistently called no matter how explicit you seem to think it is. If they went the other way and tried to be super strict by the book then everyone on here would be crying about the 10-15 players they had ejected last game. It's a no win situation.

What's the diameter? It has been defined at 6" from the apex. In other words the 12" across in diameter from the apex of the helmet.
The neck angle is inconsequential, the crown is defined (above) as one of The. Determining. Actions that constitute targeting.
If you think it would be called too often, then don't duck - and I would absolutely open targeting to a 2-way penalty. It is to protect the neck, and both O and D players have necks. You don't have to eject, just penalize, penalize, penalize.

Look, you and I both know that spearing with the top of the helmet is very dangerous: compression fractures, disc issues, pinched nerves, CTE, all come from those actions. If they want to stop it, then penalize it - whenever it happens. Know what will result? Players will stop lowering the head, that's what.

 

[forensicbuzz]

You think ABC would’ve shown it?
They would’ve gone to commercial and told us the replay was inconclusive and showed us the same angle we all saw before.

For what it’s worth, I think it was targeting…. but if there was no better angle, it would not be called. He clearly drops his head, leads with the crown and launches. However, he was coming from the side and the crown may have been on the ball. No way to conclusively tell from what we saw. The fact that NO OTHER angle has been shown means either they don’t have it or they don’t want to have it. In either case, we weren’t getting the call. That’s BS. CLEARLY

So, you’re saying if it wasn’t targeting, then it was just plain old spearing, also a penalty.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Does it?
I don’t see that but the head is irrelevant. Forceable contact with the crown is the rule… doesn’t matter if contact is to head, back, chest, etc.
If it had snapped back, that would’ve been a clearer indicator.
I don’t think we were going to get that call, even if it had been called on the field. I’d love to see another angle, but there is a reason why we didn’t…
A. No better angle / inconclusive
B. “They” didn’t want us to see another angle

View attachment 17349

I’d have settled for the indisputable spearing.

 

[forensicbuzz]

What's the diameter? It has been defined at 6" from the apex. In other words the 12" across in diameter from the apex of the helmet.
The neck angle is inconsequential, the crown is defined (above) as one of The. Determining. Actions that constitute targeting.
If you think it would be called too often, then don't duck - and I would absolutely open targeting to a 2-way penalty. It is to protect the neck, and both O and D players have necks. You don't have to eject, just penalize, penalize, penalize.

Look, you and I both know that spearing with the top of the helmet is very dangerous: compression fractures, disc issues, pinched nerves, CTE, all come from those actions. If they want to stop it, then penalize it - whenever it happens. Know what will result? Players will stop lowering the head, that's what.

No. A 6” circle centered at the apex of the helmet. 3” radius, 6” diameter.

 

[WreckinGT]

What's the diameter? It has been defined at 6" from the apex. In other words the 12" across in diameter from the apex of the helmet.
The neck angle is inconsequential, the crown is defined (above) as one of The. Determining. Actions that constitute targeting.
If you think it would be called too often, then don't duck - and I would absolutely open targeting to a 2-way penalty. It is to protect the neck, and both O and D players have necks. You don't have to eject, just penalize, penalize, penalize.

Look, you and I both know that spearing with the top of the helmet is very dangerous: compression fractures, disc issues, pinched nerves, CTE, all come from those actions. If they want to stop it, then penalize it - whenever it happens. Know what will result? Players will stop lowering the head, that's what.

Players aren't going to stop lowering their head. Its a natural football move in self defense. If you want to stop it then you will have to outlaw helmet contact at all. That is the only real way. Otherwise we are going to continue seeing officials try to calculate how far from the apex of the helmet the defender was while also determining if he launched or crouched upward on the same play. I know, you think its really easy at home when your team gets screwed by it. Considering how bad these guys are at it, im guessing its not that easy. There are probably hundreds of controversial targeting calls or no calls a year. It's not because all of these guys are braindead morons (well some probably are).

 

[4shotB]

Whatever guys. King should have just held on to the damn ball and we wouldn't even be arguing about it. I feel bad for the kid.

this is the same thing King himself said in the post game presser. This is probbly the single most impessive thing about him imo. Very few people these days take responsibilty and ownership. Most point fingers and blame others.

They say this cat HmfK is a bad mother
(Shut your mouth)
I'm talkin' about HmfK
(then we can dig it)

 

[stinger78]

No. A 6” circle centered at the apex of the helmet. 3” radius, 6” diameter.

 

[bobongo]

Whatever guys. King should have just held on to the damn ball and we wouldn't even be arguing about it. I feel bad for the kid.

Well, I guess but man, I can imagine how hard it is to hang on when somebody puts a full force helmet on the ball. It's not like he just dropped it on the ground apropos of nothing.
I think the impact of the helmet was mostly on the ball, with a somewhat glancing blow to King's facemask. Don't know if that's targeting.

 

[stinger78]

Players aren't going to stop lowering their head. Its a natural football move in self defense. If you want to stop it then you will have to outlaw helmet contact at all. That is the only real way. Otherwise we are going to continue seeing officials try to calculate how far from the apex of the helmet the defender was while also determining if he launched or crouched upward on the same play. I know, you think its really easy at home when your team gets screwed by it. Considering how bad these guys are at it, im guessing its not that easy. There are probably hundreds of controversial targeting calls or no calls a year. It's not because all of these guys are braindead morons (well some probably are).

Baloney. Look, we all played tackle football at some point. Players can be taught to tackle w/o using the helmet. There will always be incidental contact. You as a coach will actually have to train them. Novel idea.

We're talking now with concussion awareness and CTE, the game just needs to change. That technique is dangerous. I was taught years and years ago not to lower my head on a tackle. Head up, facemask in the numbers... do NOT hit with the crown of our helmet. That was 40+ years ago.

And the rule is defined as a 6" RADIUS, not diameter, so it's a 12" diameter area - the entire top of the helmet.

You of all folks should know this.

 

[forensicbuzz]

While I 100% agree it was a blown call and clearly targeting, I do remember this year us being introduced to this new nuance where a player can make contact with the crown of the helmet, just as long as he doesn’t launch. Supposedly this is what kept Efford from being ejected at the end of the NCSU game. Again, I’m not sure why that has become a thing this year, but I remember it being said a lot during the Miami game and the Efford hit against NCSU.

While it’s pure conjecture at this point, I feel like that phrase would have been how the $ECheatrefs would have explained it away.

No. Crown of the head is a penalty. PERIOD!!!!! It’s either targeting or spearing. Penalty either way.

 

[forensicbuzz]

View attachment 17355

Okay. That’s different than how it was spelled out by head of officials on one of the broadcasts yearly in the season. Even more clear.

 

[CEB]

I saw this elsewhere. Should this also have been targeting? I feel like ducking your head and leading with the crown happens several times a game.

This is shameless (or maybe utterly shameful) trolling.
Can guarantee this is not targeting. This looks like virtually every play made in the open field by a DB.
DB is getting low to get into legs and back is trying to get lower to keep DB out of his legs.
Generally a snapshot is without context. In this case, the second snapshot adds enough context to show the defender getting even lower, so he not launching. No targeting.

The guy who posted this actually did some pretty good video analysis of our NCSt game so he knows something about football… He’s stirring trouble and he’s apparently a Dwag to boot. I find it delightful that someone like him has posted something so silly in defense of his beloved Dwags, because they are catching hell in the internets

 

[stinger78]

Okay. That’s different than how it was spelled out by head of officials on one of the broadcasts yearly in the season. Even more clear.

If a head of officials missed that, then that explains the issue.

 

[CEB]

So, you’re saying if it wasn’t targeting, then it was just plain old spearing, also a penalty.

I think it WAS targeting.
I just don’t think review was going to get us the call.
I’m not sure spearing is still a penalty… I think with the refining of the targeting rules, spearing is now encompassed within the realm of targeting. In any case, forceable contact with the crown of the helmet is targeting… this was targeting.

 

[stinger78]

I think it WAS targeting.
I just don’t think review was going to get us the call.
I’m not sure spearing is still a penalty… I think with the refining of the targeting rules, spearing is now encompassed within the realm of targeting. In any case, forceable contact with the crown of the helmet is targeting… this was targeting.

Irony of ironies...

Below is an sEcSPN article about spearing which became targeting in the last10-15 years.

NCAA strengthens spearing penalty rule

The NCAA changed its spearing rule in the offseason to remove any reference to intent and improve safety on the football field.

www.espn.com

The NFL and HS football outlawed hitting with the crown of the helmet in 1976, and the NCAA outlawed intentionality. The NCAA brought their rule in line with the NFL in 2006.

The leader of that movement was none other than UGAg's head trainer. Ha!

 

[minorityoption]

Irony of ironies...

Below is an sEcSPN article about spearing which became targeting in the last10-15 years.

NCAA strengthens spearing penalty rule

The NCAA changed its spearing rule in the offseason to remove any reference to intent and improve safety on the football field.

www.espn.com

The NFL and HS football outlawed hitting with the crown of the helmet in 1976, and the NCAA outlawed intentionality. The NCAA brought their rule in line with the NFL in 2006.

The leader of that movement was none other than UGAg's head trainer. Ha!

“Head trainer”… punny

 

[Spalding Jacket]

This video is why targeting needs to be enforced penalty wise to stop players from using their helmet. The next day at my HS practice an email must have come down to all HS coaches to focus on tackling with your head up or risk winding up paralyzed
like Kevin Everett. They drilled that everyday in practice the rest of the year. This is meant to protect ball carrier and tackler.

 

[WraleighWreck]

ESPN did have a camera view from behind on the left side of the non-targeting targeting play. They showed that angle after the hit when the ball was recovered. Why did they not show the whole play from that angle? Because it would have been too obvious.