Replies: 15
| visibility 1,988
|
Athletic Dir [865]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 987
Joined: 11/27/15
|
Defenseless Player
Oct 24, 2016, 11:00 PM
|
|
The reason why Gallman hit was not targeting is because he was not a "defenseless" player. It was forecible contact but he was a runner with an ability to protect himself. With hat being said Inthink all hits to the head should be ruled as targeting regardless. It'll make players learn how to tackle instead of just lunge at each other.
|
|
|
|
Standout [305]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 229
Joined: 4/11/99
|
Watch the film
Oct 24, 2016, 11:19 PM
|
|
The other player was using his helmet aimed at Gallman's helmet as the primary means to stop him. There were no football moves here; strictly turning your body into a spear with your helmet as the point, and the opposing player's earhole as the "target". Maybe technically, the lawyers can say this doesn't meet the definition of targeting since a running back typically isn't a defenseless player, but again, view the video. He was defenseless in this case because of the position he was in at the time and the flagrant way in which the defender came in helmet first. No way for Gallman to defend against that hence defenseless.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4661]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6065
Joined: 10/20/15
|
Re: Defenseless Player
Oct 24, 2016, 11:20 PM
|
|
Can we stop with these posts please? You, like 90% of the referees, clearly do not understand the targeting rule.
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10727]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9325
Joined: 12/29/06
|
^^^^^^^^^double this^^^^^^^^*****
Oct 24, 2016, 11:36 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [116]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 183
Joined: 2/5/15
|
Re: Defenseless Player
Oct 24, 2016, 11:26 PM
|
|
Actually according to the rule book. There are two separate rules for targeting. The hit on Gallman in my opinion is a clear violation of Rule 9-1-3
RULES
Targeting and Initiating Contact With the Crown of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3)
No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.
Targeting and Initiating Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player (Rule 9-1-4)
No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 2-27-14)
Note: Beginning in 2013, ejection from the game is a part of the penalty for violation of both Rule 9-1-3 and Rule 9-1-4.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2680]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1174
Joined: 10/20/12
|
Re: Defenseless Player
Oct 25, 2016, 6:14 AM
|
|
Finally someone that has read the "official rule on targeting" and presented it here. The hit was a violation of rule 9-1-3.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1676]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2113
Joined: 8/27/11
|
Re: Defenseless Player
Oct 25, 2016, 6:26 AM
|
|
For the 195th time
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [68205]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 115604
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Defenseless Player
Oct 24, 2016, 11:30 PM
|
|
the crown of helmet can not be used. defenseless player or not.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [32740]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14932
Joined: 6/29/11
|
You CLEARLY do not understand the rule as it is written.
Oct 24, 2016, 11:32 PM
|
|
Why do you even bother to post ????
Seriously - why ????
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15925]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7802
Joined: 11/15/09
|
A little harsh there pal. Settle down man, you come across
Oct 25, 2016, 1:14 AM
|
|
a way I'm going to assume you don't mean to.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [32740]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14932
Joined: 6/29/11
|
Thanks - but I came across exactly as intended. I don't get
Oct 25, 2016, 8:48 AM
|
|
why folks post stuff as if it is the Gospel when it is clearly incorrect.
Could be just trolling - sure - but this guy seems legit.
And it is about the 1000th post on this and it seems half of them are stating the rule incorrectly even though the rule has been C&P'd on here AT LEAST a dozen times.
The first section of the rule - which is a stand alone section - says if a player leads with the crown of the helmet - it is a foul.
Period.
Nothing more.
And one of our guys was KNOCKED OUT ! ! ! And their coach PRAISES it as a good thing he took away from the game. And the NCSU Admin CLARIFIES what the Coach "meant" instead of just calling him out as a ##### canoe.
I'm with epifunny from this morning - this needs to stay at the forefront if there has EVER been a thing that needs to stay at the forefront.
I came across just fine, thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3405]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5216
Joined: 1/26/09
|
Re: Defenseless Player
Oct 24, 2016, 11:34 PM
|
|
Go and read the rule, a player doesn't need to be defenseless to get a targeting call in his favor. Leading with the crown of the helmet is a targeting foul, regardless if the player is defenseless or not or if the hit is to the head, neck, chest, crotch, etc... It doesn't mater, leading with he crown is targeting.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1239]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1922
Joined: 10/25/15
|
There were like 100 threads about this.
Oct 24, 2016, 11:45 PM
|
|
What I wonder is the thought process that allows one to gain confidence or to believe what they know is right. Who/what are their sources? It's all about if one thinks that source is reliable.
For football, it can range from rule book to commentators. We sure as heck we cannot fully believe what commentators say. Not that they're wrong all the time, but if they're always right, they wouldn't have hired "rule experts" to refer to during a game.
Personally, I always read the rule book when I am not sure about something. Then, it's all about my interpretation of the rules.
That said, as people have already said it for like 100 times, it doesn't necessarily have to be a defenseless player on targeting.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [64674]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 89028
Joined: 3/27/01
|
It wasn't targeting, it was spearing.***
Oct 24, 2016, 11:48 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2425]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 4862
Joined: 6/1/04
|
Don't feed the coot troll
Oct 25, 2016, 1:39 AM
|
|
They are incapable of interpreting rules
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [105574]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44178
Joined: 12/22/08
|
Yay, this argument again!***
Oct 25, 2016, 8:42 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 15
| visibility 1,988
|
|
|