Targeting, without a doubt? Jimbo thinks so.

[Skeptic]

I may be remembering this wrong, but I believe his face mask was in Marquese's chest...about an inch of his helmet touched the facemask. It's a form tackle and a BS call.

Either way, the player shouldn't be ejected unless the ref believes he has bad intent, which I don't believe Gotsis had.

Well, if he intended to target him he did a right bad job of it. I have to think Adam Gotsis knows a sitting duck when he sees it, in any language.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I may be remembering this wrong, but I believe his face mask was in Marquese's chest...about an inch of his helmet touched the facemask. It's a form tackle and a BS call.

Either way, the player shouldn't be ejected unless the ref believes he has bad intent, which I don't believe Gotsis had.

Fwiw, I think tossing Adam for that hit was excessive, imo. The rule needs tweaking.

Here's what I'd do if I were on the rules committee. I'd propose they'd allow the replay official to review the hit and decide the severity of the penalty if one should be given. Right now, they can review it, but have to eject guys if the letter of the rule is broken. Reality is not that black and white. Sometimes the contact is incidental, sometimes it's intentional and sometimes it's unintentional, but the player in question is being reckless.

A range of penalties is appropriate, imo, kinda like the 5 yard running into the kicker as opposed to the 15 yard roughing call. Sometimes an ejection is warranted, but many times it is not.

I think the spirit of the rule is good, the exact wording, not so much.

 

[augustabuzz]

You must not know what the crown of the helmet is

Well, we're waiting on your definition!

 

[LongforDodd]

Hat tip to @thebugman10 at FTRS for finding this:

“[We wanted to] rest his arm a little bit. He took some shots, got him back today, he was practicing,” Fisher said Tuesday. “He was fine. He did get hit a couple times. The worse was in the pocket. It should’ve been a targeting. It was a targeting, without a doubt.”​

Article LINK.

I didn't think the UNC hit by Gotsis should have been targeting, and I don't think any of the hits on Golson were targeting last week. What do you guys think? Was there targeting? Is this penalty too subjective?

What I saw from my recording of Uverse's replay on Tuesday night was Gotsis facemask going into the QB's upper numbers area. His hit on the UNC QB was more facemask to helmet.

 

[Ash]

Side note : A FSU fan on Reddit said that Golson was not taking all of the snaps in prep for the Syracuse game this week. Alluded to the helmet to helmet as the reason.

 

[1979jacket]

targeting - we caught a beak for a change

 

[Skeptic]

targeting - we caught a beak for a change

Okay. This is the week's winner and new season leader. The lead seems insurmountable to me.

 

[furant]

meh... Golson's a big boy. He flattened that BC Defender and that was a legitimate part of the game.

 

[Boomergump]

I agree with the spirit of the rule. I will say that much. However, as I have said, along with many others, it needs to be re-written. IMHO the rule as written, with a slight tweak, involving tacklers wrapping up should suffice. I really don't see how a tackler who is wrapping up can actually commit that foul. They are incongruent actions. Helmets contacting each other happens 200 times a game. That alone cannot be the standard.

If you watch that Golson blocking video, to me, that is closer to the targeting situation than either of Gotsis's tackles. Although I would stop short of saying a flag should have been thrown in his case either. He was blocking so he can't wrap up anyway, but his helmet rammed the pursuer.

We all know what it looks like when a tackler launches himself at a player. It never involves wrapping up.

I look at it like the blocking in the back penalty. When it is close, look at how the victim falls. If he doesn't fall on his front side, don't even talk to me. It may look like it is more from behind, but if the guy falls on his back or side, it simply can't meet the definition. This is pure physics I am talking about here.

 

[augustabuzz]

The Seattle Seahawks teach a variety of tackling forms based on rugby style tackling. The head is never in play for either the tackler or the target. (They do not teach plant the facemask into the upper numbers.)

For defenseless players, they attack what they call the "strike zone" of the target. This is the space below the neck and above the knees. The strike is made with the shoulder, not the head.

18:25 for strike zone, but the whole video is very good.



The coach stresses they take great pride in playing physical football. These techniques do not diminish the physicality of football, but they do make it safer.

This is how we were taught to tackle 50 years ago! Your head was up, your butt was down and you led with your shoulder.

 

[TomOReilly]

[QUOTE="Boomergump, This is pure physics I am talking about here.[/QUOTE]

Now your speaking my language!

 

[bke1984]

I think FSU's offensive line should have been slapped with a 15 yard penalty and ejected from the game for being reckless and putting Golsen in a situation where he could be eaten alive by Gotsis

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I think FSU's offensive line should have been slapped with a 15 yard penalty and ejected from the game for being reckless and putting Golsen in a situation where he could be eaten alive by Gotsis

Actually, I think they should get an award on Comedy Central or Tosh. Go back and watch how funny it was when both the center and guard assigned to Gotsis try to cut block him and all he does is take one little step to his left and goes right by untouched. They both completely wiffed and ate grass in the process.

 

[B Lifsey]

Actually, I think they should get an award on Comedy Central or Tosh. Go back and watch how funny it was when both the center and guard assigned to Gotsis try to cut block him and all he does is take one little step to his left and goes right by untouched. They both completely wiffed and ate grass in the process.

That's 'cause all our D practices against is cut blocks

 

[daBuzz]

I agree with the spirit of the rule. I will say that much.

I don't disagree with the spirit of the rule. Protecting defenseless players is a good intention.
However, I greatly disagree with the punishment of the rule.
15 Yard penalty and an automatic first down is a pretty severe penalty. But an automatic ejection is way over the line and should not be something handed out so easily.

 

[LongforDodd]

I agree with the spirit of the rule. I will say that much. However, as I have said, along with many others, it needs to be re-written. IMHO the rule as written, with a slight tweak, involving tacklers wrapping up should suffice. I really don't see how a tackler who is wrapping up can actually commit that foul. They are incongruent actions. Helmets contacting each other happens 200 times a game. That alone cannot be the standard.

If you watch that Golson blocking video, to me, that is closer to the targeting situation than either of Gotsis's tackles. Although I would stop short of saying a flag should have been thrown in his case either. He was blocking so he can't wrap up anyway, but his helmet rammed the pursuer.

We all know what it looks like when a tackler launches himself at a player. It never involves wrapping up.

I look at it like the blocking in the back penalty. When it is close, look at how the victim falls. If he doesn't fall on his front side, don't even talk to me. It may look like it is more from behind, but if the guy falls on his back or side, it simply can't meet the definition. This is pure physics I am talking about here.

Isn't the intent of the rule to prevent the actions that cause the most serious of injuries during the act of tackling and that is helmet-to-helmet contact. HtoH contact can occur just prior to the act of wrapping up.

I agree that the language of the rule needs to be clarified but the NCAA needs to train the officials to interpret whatever new language is chosen in such a way that their on the field judgments justify and support the true intent of the rule.

 

[Jerry the Jacket]

Just announced Golson is out for today's game with Syracuse. Problems with passing the concussion protocol. This is why Jimbo is whining. Doctors won't let him play his QB.

Go Jackets!

 

[gtg936g]

I too think the spirit of the rule is good. I think there should be multiple levels of punishment, and I think all players should be treated the same. No special treatment for QBs.

If you obviously try to hurt soneone (like UGA tried to do against an Auburn DL) then 15 yards and an ejection. Get 2 in a year and you sit for the remainder of the year.

A hit on a defensless player is a 15 yard penalty. Get 2 in a game then you are out of the game.

Incidental helmet to helmet contact, and you don't wrap up would be an unnecessary roughness penalty.

 

[deeeznutz]

Nothing Gotsis did was dirty, and to me it's a good sign that our defense was able to rock a QB like that. UVAs OL better take notice or we might kill their QB.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Late hits don't get ejected but incidental helmet to helmet does. There is a disconnect here.