|
New Story: O'Daniel looks to put "criminal" feeling of ejection behind him
storage
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
|
Replies: 31
| visibility 218
|
Webmaster [∞]
TigerPulse: 100%
∞
Posts: 45353
Joined: 2012
|
New Story: O'Daniel looks to put "criminal" feeling of ejection behind him
Dec 20, 2016, 8:05 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Ultimate Clemson Legend [103345]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 67878
Joined: 2002
|
I really dislike the whole targeting rule.***
Dec 20, 2016, 8:21 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3999]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
Re: I really dislike the whole targeting rule.***
Dec 20, 2016, 8:36 AM
|
|
Me too. The concept may be good but the idea of calling a penalty where intent is implied in the very name of the penalty, but where little consideration appears to be given to intent in reviewing them is a little off
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [71]
TigerPulse: 63%
8
|
Intent rightly has no place in the rule. There is absolutely
Dec 20, 2016, 9:35 AM
|
|
no way to tell intent, the only thing that can and should be evaluated is the actual action. Of course there can be disagreements in how bad something was, or tv angles can confuse what did and didnt occur, but that is much easier to discern.
I'm all for player safety. You can bet he will be more attentive to his method going forward. Which is what the rule is intended to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Conference [401]
TigerPulse: 100%
17
|
Re: I really dislike the whole targeting rule.***
Dec 20, 2016, 8:57 AM
[ in reply to I really dislike the whole targeting rule.*** ] |
|
|
|
The rule makes no sense because it is so subjective. Take a look at these 2 pics. One is Dorian's targeting call and the other is Bouleware's big hit. What is the difference??? Not that I wanted a penalty on Ben but what is the difference. Both times helmets collide. How do you avoid that? And it looks like to me that Dorian was leading with the shoulder and the heads got in the way. I wish they would rescind the rule and go back to spearing. Everybody understands leading with the crown of the helmet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [71]
TigerPulse: 63%
8
|
So as long as its not with the crown of the helmet, you'd
Dec 20, 2016, 9:36 AM
|
|
be ok with going after the head of the opponent? I like the throwback mentality, but that is not ever happening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3573]
TigerPulse: 100%
34
|
You can almost always look at the arms
Dec 20, 2016, 9:37 AM
[ in reply to Re: I really dislike the whole targeting rule.*** ] |
|
Boulware has his arms in position to make a "form tackle" whereas O'Daniel is in position to make a big hit.
By rule O'Daniels was a pretty clear case of targeting, but its not the kind of hit that you can legislate out of football. I'll give you the 15 yards, but they need to do something about intent if you are going to also throw in an ejection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Icon [154200]
TigerPulse: 100%
68
Posts: 45144
Joined: 2007
|
The key seems to arm position
Dec 20, 2016, 9:48 AM
|
|
As with head position on pass interference.
The good thing is this is technique and can be coached.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [1178]
TigerPulse: 99%
26
|
The key is to wrap him up with the arms like any good tackle***
Dec 20, 2016, 10:45 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [71]
TigerPulse: 63%
8
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3573]
TigerPulse: 100%
34
|
Launching, headhunting, completely defenseless player etc
Dec 20, 2016, 1:26 PM
|
|
its pretty easy to look at something and tell if it is a dirty hit/designed to injure or just a helmet to helmet hit that happens during the course of a play like O'Daniels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Sports Icon [59970]
TigerPulse: 100%
59
Posts: 61356
Joined: 2007
|
Re: I really dislike the whole targeting rule.***
Dec 20, 2016, 11:17 AM
[ in reply to Re: I really dislike the whole targeting rule.*** ] |
|
Exactly, after all the head is attached in between the shoulders, and the head is going where ever the shoulders go....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Conqueror [11251]
TigerPulse: 100%
46
|
I don't disagree necessarily with you.
Dec 20, 2016, 12:03 PM
[ in reply to Re: I really dislike the whole targeting rule.*** ] |
|
I think the problem comes down to trying to judge the impact of the hit. How can you look at a relay and say it wasn't intentional but the helmet contact was acceptable or too much? That judgement is too difficult and the inconsistency between refs would cause allot of problems and unhappy teams as they compare different games. The rule wasn't created to prevent this particular hit but where's the cut off?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Conqueror [11251]
TigerPulse: 100%
46
|
Re: I don't disagree necessarily with you.
Dec 20, 2016, 12:06 PM
|
|
So it then comes down to technique. He said he should have brought his arms up.. The bottom line is that you have to use the proper technique even if you make contact so that you aren't ejected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [581]
TigerPulse: 100%
20
|
Re: I really dislike the whole targeting rule.***
Dec 20, 2016, 4:33 PM
[ in reply to Re: I really dislike the whole targeting rule.*** ] |
|
You can get away with helmet contact every time as long as you are looking at the player you are hitting. i.e. Helmet up hitting face mask first
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Sports Icon [59970]
TigerPulse: 100%
59
Posts: 61356
Joined: 2007
|
Re: I really dislike the whole targeting rule.***
Dec 20, 2016, 11:12 AM
[ in reply to I really dislike the whole targeting rule.*** ] |
|
The targeting rule would be a good rule if it was called using just a tiny bit of common sense. But the way most of the refs make that call is a one size fits all type of call, and that alone makes that rule a God awful rule for FB at any level!!! It really seems like the refs believe that they get a bonus for making the call without any kind of common sense being used. The targeting rule badly needs a serious overhaul during the off season bc when they kick players out of the game when they meant no harm without any bad intentions what so ever, it makes the rule a very bad rule for the entire game of Football and everybody that plays or coaches the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scout Team [81]
TigerPulse: 100%
9
|
Re: I really dislike the whole targeting rule.***
Dec 20, 2016, 11:47 AM
|
|
I agree with all these points. We all seem to agree with the spirit of the rule, but have problems with the application. At the core of the problem is the clause that states that when in doubt, it's a violation of the rule. This takes away any room for discretion from the officials. The rule as written assumes malicious intent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Conference [401]
TigerPulse: 100%
17
|
Re: I really dislike the whole targeting rule.***
Dec 20, 2016, 11:53 AM
|
|
Seriously? I did not know that presumption was in there. That is like guilty until proven innocent!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Conference [401]
TigerPulse: 100%
17
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [4696]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
Re: New Story: O'Daniel looks to put "criminal" feeling of ejection behind him
Dec 20, 2016, 8:57 AM
|
|
|
|
Dorian got just a little taste! Lol. Now he knows!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Conference [416]
TigerPulse: 100%
17
|
Re: New Story: O'Daniel looks to put "criminal" feeling of ejection behind him
Dec 20, 2016, 9:49 AM
|
|
Although I don't believe he should be relegated to the locker room it's cool that he got to experience a game the way a lot of people do. I have friends who stare at the wall sometimes, friends who watch in a different room, friends who watch on delay... it's crazy. One friend is forced to wear a Clemson helmet when she is being overly distraught. Watching on TV makes you feel so helpless.. ??
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3194]
TigerPulse: 99%
34
|
Will he miss the first half of the fiesta bowl?
Dec 20, 2016, 10:09 AM
|
|
I remember a couple of years ago Stephone Anthony got the bs targeting call against SC and had to miss the first half of the bowl game against Oklahoma (not that we really needed him that game lol). Just wondering if the rules still apply to the targeting penalty
|
|
|
|
|
|
MVP [510]
TigerPulse: 100%
19
|
No the foul happened in the first half
Dec 20, 2016, 10:15 AM
|
|
so no time missed in the bowl game due to this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [39163]
TigerPulse: 100%
57
Posts: 51707
Joined: 2004
|
It happened in the first half, so he's good to go.
Dec 20, 2016, 10:16 AM
[ in reply to Will he miss the first half of the fiesta bowl? ] |
|
The carry over to the next game only applies to a penalty taking place in the second half of the previous game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [961]
TigerPulse: 100%
24
|
Often It's too easy for ball carrier to create this
Dec 20, 2016, 10:22 AM
|
|
Foul. Once a defender commits his motion to the number area of the offensive player, a simple duck, slide or crouch will assure the head contact. See Newton's laws of motion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gridiron Giant [16034]
TigerPulse: 100%
50
Posts: 17550
Joined: 1999
|
I'm not defending the rule but in this case, I really
Dec 20, 2016, 10:22 AM
|
|
think O'Daniel just messed up. Nothing malicious, just a lapse in judgement. We can complain about the rule and there are numerous times that it is questionable but O'Daniel had the opportunity to make the play without there being any debate. He needed to execute the tackle cleanly.
No harm done. On to the playoffs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recruit [97]
TigerPulse: 92%
10
|
Re: New Story: O'Daniel looks to put "criminal" feeling of ejection behind him
Dec 20, 2016, 11:08 AM
|
|
Targeting is a good rule, problem is each ref interprets it a little different. Good clean hits is what we want.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11934]
TigerPulse: 100%
46
Posts: 16363
Joined: 1998
|
The hit on Gallman by NC State player was so much worse, but
Dec 20, 2016, 11:44 AM
|
|
it was shrugged off.
I realize the situations were different (ALL situations are different) but, the NC State player obviously led with the crown of his helmet and hit Gallman in the side of the head with such force that he knocked him out.
If they are going to dwell on the "inherent danger" of leading with the crown of the helmet and actually eject a guy for something fairly innocent like what O'Daniel did, or worse yet, for the little "tap" that got Stephone Anthony thrown out vs SCAR year before last, then they simply have to penalize a vicious hit like the NC State guy put on on Gallman.
The rule as it's applied right now is far too unevenly enforced. It needs to be addressed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [6896]
TigerPulse: 99%
41
|
hit on Gallman by NC State player was so much worse - AGREE***
Dec 20, 2016, 3:03 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [10957]
TigerPulse: 100%
45
|
Re: The hit on Gallman by NC State player was so much worse, but
Dec 20, 2016, 9:14 PM
[ in reply to The hit on Gallman by NC State player was so much worse, but ] |
|
woofies hc should have drawn a flag for his commenting after their loss that one of their positives was taking out our running back.might cost them next year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Immortal [168426]
TigerPulse: 100%
69
Posts: 70066
Joined: 2013
|
If he were only a gamecock.......
Dec 20, 2016, 1:30 PM
|
|
there'd be zero shame in feeling like a criminal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [6896]
TigerPulse: 99%
41
|
Also, like Boulware learned to do, use shoulder instead of
Dec 20, 2016, 3:02 PM
|
|
head. Just move your head to the side and bust them good with shoulder or forearm shiver that Boulware used very effectively against B.C. GO TIGERS, O'DANIEL!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 31
| visibility 218
|
|
|
|
50
