UNC vs Tech point spread

Augusta_Jacket

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
7,897
Location
Augusta, Georgia
I my memory has it much more violent than that. I thought the refs threw the flag more because they felt bad for the guy. I know he put his face mask on his chest and the top of his helmet hit the face ask if the qb. I think that was the justification.

The rule is as follows:

Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player

ARTICLE 4.
No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1- 4-I-VI)


A couple of things to note:

1. If the player is defenseless, helmet to helmet is illegal, regardless of whether it is the crown or the facemask.
2. If it's in question, the ref's are instructed by rule to throw the flag.

Gotsis call stunk for us, and changed the game, but was probably the right call per point 2 of the rule.
 

ibeattetris

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,553
The rule is as follows:

Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player

ARTICLE 4.
No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1- 4-I-VI)


A couple of things to note:

1. If the player is defenseless, helmet to helmet is illegal, regardless of whether it is the crown or the facemask.
2. If it's in question, the ref's are instructed by rule to throw the flag.

Gotsis call stunk for us, and changed the game, but was probably the right call per point 2 of the rule.
That wasn't the rule in 2015 and it was much more nebulous at the time. I never thought it was a good call, I am just explaining what I think their justification was at the time.
 

GTpdm

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,872
Location
Atlanta GA
b3b0c9bb1decc37f73061b018e37caf1c07b673f
Ugghhh! Carolina deserved a team unsportsmanlike conduct penalty just for wearing such ugly uniforms.
 

bobongo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,060
The rule is as follows:

Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player

ARTICLE 4.
No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1- 4-I-VI)


A couple of things to note:

1. If the player is defenseless, helmet to helmet is illegal, regardless of whether it is the crown or the facemask.
2. If it's in question, the ref's are instructed by rule to throw the flag.

Gotsis call stunk for us, and changed the game, but was probably the right call per point 2 of the rule.
Throwing the flag was right, but the question is, should the call have been upheld upon mandatory review.
 

Augusta_Jacket

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
7,897
Location
Augusta, Georgia
Throwing the flag was right, but the question is, should the call have been upheld upon mandatory review.

It was a helmet to helmet hit on a defenseless player, which per the rule I referred to above, met the definition of targeting. Yes, it should have been upheld upon review.

Now, don't get me wrong, there is a LOT that I do not like about the targeting rule and the way it is enforced, but that doesn't change the underlying facts behind the call.
 

bobongo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,060
It was a helmet to helmet hit on a defenseless player, which per the rule I referred to above, met the definition of targeting. Yes, it should have been upheld upon review.

Now, don't get me wrong, there is a LOT that I do not like about the targeting rule and the way it is enforced, but that doesn't change the underlying facts behind the call.
I'm not arguing otherwise. I think it was a foul, too. Just saying it's not really just up to the ref because they're all reviewed.
If the ref had any question at all, he was right to throw the flag.
 

85Escape

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,450
I'm not arguing otherwise. I think it was a foul, too. Just saying it's not really just up to the ref because they're all reviewed.
If the ref had any question at all, he was right to throw the flag.

I disagree. Strongly.

The QB has the ball and was looking at Gotis. He was not in the act of throwing and was braced for the hit. How is a 'defenseless player?'

That was a BS call. Throw the flag if you must...if you are a weak ref and can't see it live time like the rest of us that were there.

But upon review that should have been thrown out and the ref given a quality control demerit.
 

Augusta_Jacket

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
7,897
Location
Augusta, Georgia
I disagree. Strongly.

The QB has the ball and was looking at Gotis. He was not in the act of throwing and was braced for the hit. How is a 'defenseless player?'

That was a BS call. Throw the flag if you must...if you are a weak ref and can't see it live time like the rest of us that were there.

But upon review that should have been thrown out and the ref given a quality control demerit.

Your memory is faulty. Gotsis drilled him just as he released the pass. The rulebook states that:

Defenseless Player
ARTICLE 14. A defenseless player is one who because his physical position and
focus of concentration is especially vulnerable to injury. When in question, a player is
defenseless. Examples of defenseless players include but are not limited to:
a. A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
b. A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a
backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to
protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
c. A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return.
d. A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has completed
a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly
become a ball carrier..
e. A player on the ground.
f. A player obviously out of the play.
g. A player who receives a blind-side block.
h. A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress
has been stopped.
i. A quarterback any time after a change of possession.
 

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,110
Location
North Shore, Chicago
It was a helmet to helmet hit on a defenseless player, which per the rule I referred to above, met the definition of targeting. Yes, it should have been upheld upon review.

Now, don't get me wrong, there is a LOT that I do not like about the targeting rule and the way it is enforced, but that doesn't change the underlying facts behind the call.
RB's are not defenseless. So, no, not the right call.
 

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,110
Location
North Shore, Chicago
Gotsis call was a bad call. Originally, his facemask made contact with the chest of the QB. As he was being tackled, Gotsis pulled the QB into him and his facemask slid up the chest and into the bottom of the the QB's facemask, causing it to unbuckle and pop off. It was a totally legitimate tackle and the refs and the replay officials totally blew the call.
 

Augusta_Jacket

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
7,897
Location
Augusta, Georgia
Gotsis call was a bad call. Originally, his facemask made contact with the chest of the QB. As he was being tackled, Gotsis pulled the QB into him and his facemask slid up the chest and into the bottom of the the QB's facemask, causing it to unbuckle and pop off. It was a totally legitimate tackle and the refs and the replay officials totally blew the call.

Gotsis call was textbook targeting according to the rule book, from which I posted the rules as they stood in 2015. Helmet to helmet is a no no regardless of whether it's the crown or not.

Edit to add I just rewatched it and the helmet did not come off.
 
Top