Yes as someone who isn’t a child and understands the call was correct and confirmed on replay.You would....
it’s not debatable
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes as someone who isn’t a child and understands the call was correct and confirmed on replay.You would....
You make a tackle instead of a high hit
Yes as someone who isn’t a child and understands the call was correct and confirmed on replay.
it’s not debatable
Dude even the folks in studio are saying what’s a guy supposed to do there you obviously never played DB because until we adopted powder puff rules that was a great play
Db Should aim For the waist to tackle. And wrap- just like everyone is taught how to form tackle since peewee.Dude even the folks in studio are saying what’s a guy supposed to do there you obviously never played DB because until we adopted powder puff rules that was a great play
Not debatableIt’s so debatable and anyone who thinks like you should watch tennis
The one guy did say that, but you will notice that all of them agreed that it was a penalty.
Look, we can all not like it, but in 2019, with the way the game is called today, that's going to get called a penalty 100% of the time. I don't like that the rule is the way that it is, but until they change the rule interpretation that's going to get called all the time.
It’s so debatable and anyone who thinks like you should watch tennis
That can’t be an ejectable offense is football. Ford turns to hit the WR with his shoulder. The guy ducks his head. Wtf is he supposed to do?
I understand
But he went high and went for a clock cleaner .
So I understand the call
that can’t be a penalty. The offensive player lowered his head.
You should really read the actual rulethat can’t be a penalty. The offensive player lowered his head.
Targeting by definition should be about intent
The only way that someone can think that's not a penalty in 2019 is if they don't know how the rule is being interpreted and they don't actually watch much college football.
You should really read the actual rule
Note the second to last bullet point
“
Targeting does not solely occur when players initiate helmet-to-helmet contact. It's defined as occurring when a player "takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball." Instances include, but are not limited to:
- Launch--a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area.
- A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground.
- Leading with helmet, shoulder forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area.
- Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of his helmet.”
that isn’t the argument. The argument is that it is a terrible rule the way it is currently written. I don’t know why you can’t admit that the rule, as is, is broken.
I was actually just watching another game in which an identical play happened. They reversed the call, and the guy stayed in the game.Actually I have said numerous times, including the first post that I made about the hit right after it happened, that I don't like the way the rule is being interpreted.
What I don't understand is why people keep insisting that it shouldn't have been called a penalty when anyone who watches any significant amount of college football knows that hits like that get called targeting all the time.
I was actually just watching another game in which an identical play happened. They reversed the call, and the guy stayed in the game.
The receiver should have been called for leading with his head. That would have been the correct call.Actually I have said numerous times, including the first post that I made about the hit right after it happened, that I don't like the way the rule is being interpreted.
What I don't understand is why people keep insisting that it shouldn't have been called a penalty when anyone who watches any significant amount of college football knows that hits like that get called targeting all the time.
You should really read the actual rule
Note the second to last bullet point
“
Targeting does not solely occur when players initiate helmet-to-helmet contact. It's defined as occurring when a player "takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball." Instances include, but are not limited to:
- Launch--a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area.
- A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground.
- Leading with helmet, shoulder forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area.
- Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of his helmet.”
BUT WE WON!
Well, yes it is debatable. Players get hit in the head virtually every play. Lineman take head shots every snap. RB’s take head shots on 50% of carries. If you want to get picky it is debatable merely by the fact that it was reviewable. We have all seen targeting called on the field and reversed even when there was some contact to the head. And in this particular play, at least one view seemed to indicate that any contact to the head was incidental and the main force of the blow was shoulder to upper body, not head.Yes as someone who isn’t a child and understands the call was correct and confirmed on replay.
it’s not debatable
Be happy, trust me. Watch the game-winning TD and strip sack to end the game and you’re good.Wow...I go to sleep with 5-6 minutes left in the 3rd at 26-3 because I had to leave for the airport at 4am this morning and I wake up to a headline reading “Pitt rallies to bear Duke.”
I don’t know if I should happy or upset that I missed the last hour of the game.
Targeting Should be to penalize a cheap shot or to protect a defenseless receiver. That play was neither.What I don't like about that call is that the receiver ducked his head down into the hit. Had he not ducked his head the hit would have been to his upper chest and no one would have given it a second thought.
The way the rule is currently called that's a penalty, but they need to take into account what the receiver is doing in situations like that.
Everything is debatable.Yes as someone who isn’t a child and understands the call was correct and confirmed on replay.
it’s not debatable
The rule is any hit above the shoulders to a defenseless playerWell, yes it is debatable. Players get hit in the head virtually every play. Lineman take head shots every snap. RB’s take head shots on 50% of carries. If you want to get picky it is debatable merely by the fact that it was reviewable. We have all seen targeting called on the field and reversed even when there was some contact to the head. And in this particular play, at least one view seemed to indicate that any contact to the head was incidental and the main force of the blow was shoulder to upper body, not head.
I also think that adding to my personal outrage over that call was the other more obvious wrong calls, and the huge disparity in penalties.
He wasn’t defenseless - he was a ball carrier trying to make yards, and he had enough presence of mind to duck and tuck. We disagree. But that’s ok - the team learns from it, and either way you and I are happy we won the game.The rule is any hit above the shoulders to a defenseless player
Look, I don’t agree with the call but it isn’t necessary to make up stuff.He wasn’t defenseless - he was a ball carrier trying to make yards, and he had enough presence of mind to duck and tuck. We disagree. But that’s ok - the team learns from it, and either way you and I are happy we won the game.
Look, I don’t agree with the call but it isn’t necessary to make up stuff.
He was in no way a runner, he didn’t take a single step before getting hit. His front foot was planted and his back foot was dragging across the grass. His momentum was carrying him forward, but he hadn’t taken a single step.
Second, you don’t need presence of mind to duck and cover, that’s your brain’s natural response. He had less than a tenth of a second between catching the ball and getting hit. He didn’t have the “presence of mind” to think “oh shit”, let alone make a conscious decision about anything.
No one is arguing that they can, but for years now it has been made clear that the onus is on the defender. It’s like rear-ending a car, you are expected to take precautions to make sure you can react to a sudden change in the car in front of you.on the flip side I can argue no one has presence of mind or reaction time to avoid someone’s head when THEY lower it into your shoulder a tenth of a second before you hit them.
Not debatable
Sorry-
feel better after your tantrum ?
He wasn’t defenseless - he was a ball carrier trying to make yards, and he had enough presence of mind to duck and tuck. We disagree. But that’s ok - the team learns from it, and either way you and I are happy we won the game.
the receiver had one foot down when ford hit himNot a tantrum at all and it’s extremely debatable no matter how smart you think you are. You can’t make a form tackle in every situation. I’m far from a blind homer either there are just certain situations that can’t be avoided especially when a receiver ducks down into a tackle. Had he not ducked Paris hits him square in the chest. They debated this on the FAN last night and on the ACC network so to say it’s not debatable is a joke and you obviously don’t like any opinion other than your own. You’d make a perfect liberal.
No one is arguing that they can, but for years now it has been made clear that the onus is on the defender. It’s like rear-ending a car, you are expected to take precautions to make sure you can react to a sudden change in the car in front of you.