|
Replies: 98
| visibility 2262
|
Head Coach [961]
TigerPulse: 100%
24
|
Skalski targeting call was more than I could take yesterday
Jan 2, 2021, 2:26 PM
|
|
|
|
Maybe it is the letter of the law, but I think that rule is going to do more to introduce ladies to college football than the Vandy kicker.
The rule as it was probably first intended to do was to prevent defensive players running and launching like a missile at receivers who had no idea that they were about to get hit. Then it morphed into not hitting a quarterback who was standing still with multiple linebacker moving at top speed to sack him.
Fields chose to run, Skalski was holding ground (not coming at him with a head of steam), Fields SAW him clearly, and the collision occurred.
Football has changed too much.
|
|
|
|
 |
Top TigerNet [29893]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 36614
Joined: 2000
|
That was clear targetting
Jan 2, 2021, 2:32 PM
|
|
Skalski made his bed when he lowered his head to lay the hit. Had he had his head up, then it wouldn't have been targetting.
And that exact sort of play is why the rule was initially put into place. It obviously hurt Fields worse this time, but that sort of hit is the kind that has paralyzed numerous defenders in the past. Used to be called spearing, but that's been a rule for a long time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trainer [34]
TigerPulse: 27%
4
|
Re: That was clear targetting
Jan 2, 2021, 2:35 PM
|
|
Thank you for talking sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1896]
TigerPulse: 82%
31
|
Re: That was clear targetting
Jan 2, 2021, 7:08 PM
|
|
Actually it fit more with spearing than targeting. Targeting states to head and neck area correct? I thought it should've unnecessary roughness or something that was a 15yd penalty? They use targeting for every hard tackle that isnt covered by a rule. This rule is ruining football because it is over applied.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [704]
TigerPulse: 88%
22
|
Re: That was clear targetting
Jan 8, 2021, 6:39 PM
|
|
Every time a top player (Skalski) gets suspended that teams many followers always think it’s a bad call. I don’t see the call being overused and in fact I have thought some hits that wasn’t reviewed could have been called .that call with Skalski was text book as far as targeting is concerned
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [2044]
TigerPulse: 99%
31
|
Re: That was clear targetting
Jan 6, 2021, 11:17 PM
[ in reply to Re: That was clear targetting ] |
|
Sense? Maybe the rule should make sense? It's so nebulous, its an interpretation with no guidance... the only clarity on the rule is head to head contact initiated with the crown of helmet... what exactly is forceable contact? Not your idea of it the rules idea of it. What exactly is "launching" it is used frequently in the descriptions of what "targeting is" ... yet there is no description of what constitutes launching. Seems like we all should just know it when we see it? That leaves room for alot of interpretation. They need to clearly define the rules.
By definition, a runner that lowers his head to make contact is also commits "targeting" but you will never see that called.
lastly, human instinct and anatomy dictate that if your trying to make a tackle below the ribcage and actually stop a player your head will be down, you can make an effort to hit the player with your pads and not your helmet but you head will be down. It happens many many times a game, the difference on this play Fields spun into Skalski. That is reality.
It is their call at the end of the day not mine.
IMHO they need to fix the rules, they need to more clearly define what the rule is. And change it so they specifically separate out malicious hits vs incidental hits, and define what "malicious" means... malicious hits are an ejection, incidental hits are 15 yard personal foul. And they call it on the field or they don;t call it at all... this replay nonsense needs to end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Spirit [9539]
TigerPulse: 70%
44
|
Wrong.
1
Jan 2, 2021, 3:03 PM
[ in reply to That was clear targetting ] |
|
Fields tried to spin at the last second, causing the helmet to rib contact.
Had Skalski kept his head up and Fields had not spun, then it would have been helmet to helmet contact. That’s on the naughty list, too.
Conclusion: To avoid getting kicked out of the game, Skalski should have let the ball carrier run by him and not attempted a tackle.
Got it ??
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [29893]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 36614
Joined: 2000
|
That is just not how I see the play
Jan 2, 2021, 3:12 PM
|
|
Heads up by Skalski doesn't mean head up at Fields head level, it means he doesn't lower his helmet and sees the tackle.
I just see it as a clear penalty, and evidently Skalski agrees per his earlier tweet. But we can disagree, that's cool.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Immortal [168417]
TigerPulse: 100%
69
Posts: 70066
Joined: 2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [29893]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 36614
Joined: 2000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2219]
TigerPulse: 89%
32
|
Re: Fair enough
Jan 2, 2021, 3:41 PM
|
|
"This Skalski guy sounds like "coot".
-Signed,
Every t-netter who started a thread about targeting today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Spirit [9539]
TigerPulse: 70%
44
|
That’s Skalski just taking the high road...which is fine.
1
Jan 2, 2021, 3:54 PM
[ in reply to Fair enough ] |
|
I guarantee he believes he made a football play.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gridiron Giant [16034]
TigerPulse: 100%
50
Posts: 17550
Joined: 1999
|
That’s awesome that he said that and of course he’s right.
Jan 2, 2021, 5:33 PM
[ in reply to Fair enough ] |
|
But when I watch that play, it seriously looks like he’s be putting himself in danger getting his head up.
But regardless, the rule is the rule and you e got to train and prepare for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [5748]
TigerPulse: 98%
39
|
All of that could be avoided if he kept his head up...
Jan 2, 2021, 3:14 PM
[ in reply to Wrong. ] |
|
Why is he trying to tackle while looking at the ground. See what you tackle, any coach will tell you that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [14054]
TigerPulse: 100%
48
Posts: 23287
Joined: 2004
|
You are actually incorrect
Jan 2, 2021, 4:24 PM
[ in reply to Wrong. ] |
|
Fields was the ball carrier on the play which means he was NOT defenseless. Helmet to helmet contact is legal in that situation so long as the defender does not LEAD WITH THE CROWN OF THE HELMET... which is 100% what Skalski did there. Had he kept his head up it would not have mattered if he hit Fields in the ribs, face, or #### - it would've been a legal hit.
Lowering the helmet and leading with the crown is how you get targeting penalties the vast majority of the time, and that's precisely what happened here. It was 100% the correct call.
Also, that hit on Matt Ryan was text book spearing and should have been flagged. In today's game it would have been booth reviewed and Dunham would've been ejected for targeting. Obviously we didn't have targeting or replay that year, but it was an illegal hit that somehow got missed by the officials.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [1292]
TigerPulse: 73%
27
|
Re: You are actually incorrect
Jan 7, 2021, 10:22 AM
|
|
Unless you have your head up your ### the crown of your helment will always be in play...if you tackle someone with your head up you can break your neck and still be called...Skalski had his feet on the ground and was in a tackling position and was not launching his body! The Turner call was BS as well...great way for the Zebras to control the game...the only reason why the OSU QB was hurt was that he was spinning and presented his back to Skalski...maybe he should have been ejected for not sliding and 'inciting a targeting'! Head shots to Trevor in our last two OSU games were only called once...that one was head to head with launching while the all world left defensive end was trying to tear Trevors head off (not called of course) OSU QB was a running back unless he was sliding and the call should never have been made! Now we have great ammunition for the next time we play O310 State!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [2044]
TigerPulse: 99%
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [133]
TigerPulse: 58%
11
|
Re: Wrong.
Jan 2, 2021, 6:05 PM
[ in reply to Wrong. ] |
|
Conclusion: to avoid being kicked out of the game Skalski should have kept his head up. As I'm sure Venables taught him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mascot [15]
TigerPulse: 89%
2
|
Re: Wrong.
Jan 2, 2021, 10:23 PM
[ in reply to Wrong. ] |
|
Spot on
|
|
|
|
|
|
Playmaker [376]
TigerPulse: 89%
16
|
Somewhere along the way you really have to think
Jan 2, 2021, 8:55 PM
[ in reply to That was clear targetting ] |
|
The targeting thing through. They based their call upon perceived intent. If he did not know where the runner was going and at a burst of speed he makes a tackle, that is not targeting. If a runner is going on a sweep and a player dives at his legs(guess what, he leads with his head) maybe they should have called unnecessary roughness like when shuey hit Braxton Williams too hard(bs then too). Rbs and wrs lead with their head all the time and their is head to head contact on every snap. The intent of the rule is above the shoulders and that call was only made because it was a hard hit and fields got hurt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [133]
TigerPulse: 58%
11
|
Re: Skalski targeting call was more than I could take yesterday
Jan 2, 2021, 2:33 PM
|
|
He led with the crown of his helmet, and that is targeting. Nothing more in your narrative matters a bit. A senior should know better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [845]
TigerPulse: 67%
23
|
Re: Skalski targeting call was more than I could take yesterday
Jan 2, 2021, 2:48 PM
|
|
Unless he doesn't agree with the rule of targeting. Some rules are changing the game. Although it was not t hff e intent when made. It's becoming an offensive high scoring shoot out now. Defenses are not allowed to stop offenses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [29893]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 36614
Joined: 2000
|
Sure they are
Jan 2, 2021, 2:50 PM
|
|
If Skalski keeps his head up, then he just tackled Fields 1 yard short and it's 4th and 1, and he's still in the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [62147]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 48081
Joined: 2000
|
If what Skalski did is against a rule, then it's clear that
Jan 2, 2021, 2:33 PM
|
|
we have a bad rule that needs to be changed. I don't know how much more obvious it could be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trainer [34]
TigerPulse: 27%
4
|
Re: If what Skalski did is against a rule, then it's clear that
Jan 2, 2021, 2:34 PM
|
|
Agreed, we need to teach kids that 1.) using their helmet as a weapon is ok, and 2.) becoming paralyzed is cool.
#### with this nonsense. Even Skalski came out and said he's at fault and needs to do better.
Further, y'all weren't winning that game last night with or without Skalski.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [62147]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 48081
Joined: 2000
|
1. You're full of ####, and 2. You're full of ####.
Jan 2, 2021, 2:56 PM
|
|
Skalski did not use his helmet as a weapon, and I am in no wayy suggesting that doing so should not be penalized. Spinal injuries are not cool. However, football is NOT a safe game, and it never will be as long as big men are running fast and tackling each other. Injuries are a part of the game - sometimes thay are serious, even with the targeting rule in place and properly applied.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Offensive Star [335]
TigerPulse: 61%
15
|
|
|
|
|
|
Offensive Star [335]
TigerPulse: 61%
15
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3508]
TigerPulse: 100%
34
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [14054]
TigerPulse: 100%
48
Posts: 23287
Joined: 2004
|
Why do you think that?
Jan 2, 2021, 4:28 PM
[ in reply to If what Skalski did is against a rule, then it's clear that ] |
|
It was dangerous and unnecessary. He could've made that same tackle with his head up which would've lowered the risk of him injuring his neck, injuring Fields, and being ejected. Seems like a win-win-win to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [62147]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 48081
Joined: 2000
|
I strongly disagree. If you bend over that far and keep your
Jan 2, 2021, 5:53 PM
|
|
chin/face up, it's unnatural and places your neck in a very very weak, vulnerable position. In line with the spine is a much stronger position; not too forward, not too far back. Natural. That allows all of the muscles of the neck and shoulders to more fully engage and support the cervical spine. Skalski's head was at Field's lower back level, his upper body was nearly parallel to the ground. He was bent over low to hit with the shoulder, and potentially avoid helmet-to-helmet contact. The intent was obviously to hit with the shoulder, and wrap up with the arms. Thi pictures confirm this. When bending over that far, the head naturally goes down and forward too. Fields rotated at the last second, and Skalski's helmet caught him in the lower back. Skalski did not appear to take aim with the crown of the helmet, which is required for targeting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [133]
TigerPulse: 58%
11
|
Re: I strongly disagree. If you bend over that far and keep your
Jan 2, 2021, 6:08 PM
|
|
I am curious. Are you saying Skalskik had to "take aim" to get targeting called? Because if you are that is nonsense. Targeting is targeting, intentional or not. Whether the offensive guy spins, turns, ducks, makes no difference. Lead with the crown, get tossed. And I gather from the board that Skalski has checked into say yes, he led with the crown of the helmet and should have been tossed. But what does he know?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [62147]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 48081
Joined: 2000
|
I'm telling you what the rules say.
Jan 2, 2021, 7:00 PM
|
|
Rule 9, Section 1, Article 4
ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an
opponent with the crown of his helmet.
What does it mean to "target"?
Note 1: “Targeting” means that 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.
Those aren't my words, they are from the rules of the game, 2020 NCAA Football Rules and Interpretations. Check it out for yourself. Targeting means taking aim, with purpose, which requires intent. Targeting, by rule, cannot happen incidentally or accidentally.
Also, Skalski did say he has to do better and keep his head up. He also said he thought he made a good tackle and he thinks the NCAA needs to reevaluate the targeting rule:https://theclemsoninsider.com/2021/01/02/skalski-believes-ncaa-needs-to-reevaluate-targeting/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [2044]
TigerPulse: 99%
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trainer [34]
TigerPulse: 27%
4
|
Re: Skalski targeting call was more than I could take yesterday
Jan 2, 2021, 2:33 PM
|
|
Now do what you thought about Wade's targeting last year that changed the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [105576]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 44178
Joined: 2008
|
You know you have issues when OSU beat the heck out of
Jan 2, 2021, 2:36 PM
|
|
us last night and you're still here crying about a call from last year. I bet you like to smell your own farts too.
Message was edited by: GWPTiger®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trainer [34]
TigerPulse: 27%
4
|
Re: You know you have issues when OSU beat the heck out of
Jan 2, 2021, 2:40 PM
|
|
Haha, Clemson fans haven't gotten OSU out of their heads for a century. Inferiority complex at its finest, all lead by the lead Napoleon - William Swinney.
Answer the question, big boy, what did you think of last year's call in light of what you think was a wrong call on skalski?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [105576]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 44178
Joined: 2008
|
Link to where I said it was the wrong call on Skalski?
Jan 2, 2021, 2:44 PM
|
|
Or are you too dumb to know who's saying what? I'm gonna go with the latter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trainer [34]
TigerPulse: 27%
4
|
Re: Link to where I said it was the wrong call on Skalski?
Jan 2, 2021, 2:48 PM
|
|
Oh yeah, cuz I definitely comb TigerNet for its intellectual takes. I'll make it easier for you - give your take on Skalski's ejection and Wade's ejection, because that's what the OP is talking about before you sidetracked the thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [29893]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 36614
Joined: 2000
|
Both were the right call.***
Jan 2, 2021, 2:49 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [105576]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 44178
Joined: 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Conqueror [11846]
TigerPulse: 100%
46
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [78596]
TigerPulse: 100%
62
Posts: 29184
Joined: 2018
|
Re: Link to where I said it was the wrong call on Skalski?
Jan 2, 2021, 10:22 PM
[ in reply to Re: Link to where I said it was the wrong call on Skalski? ] |
|
Does anyone else assume this is wade’s mother while changing Day’s alcohol soaked Tampon?
Oh yeah, cuz I definitely comb TigerNet for its intellectual takes. I'll make it easier for you - give your take on Skalski's ejection and Wade's ejection, because that's what the OP is talking about before you sidetracked the thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [29893]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 36614
Joined: 2000
|
Hold on a second
Jan 2, 2021, 2:47 PM
[ in reply to Re: You know you have issues when OSU beat the heck out of ] |
|
I'm not arguing at all about the call last night, or really anything about the game last night... but we aren't constantly thinking about y'all. I think perhaps you have the roles reversed from the year long "revenge against Clemson" drumbeat coming from Columbus all year.
Come on now, be rational... do you think the team that had (prior to last night) NEVER lost to you is somehow fixated on you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14439]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
|
They're a fan base that suffers from fetal alcohol syndrome
Jan 2, 2021, 2:51 PM
|
|
on a massive scale. Please be more understanding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [105576]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 44178
Joined: 2008
|
And inbreeding
Jan 2, 2021, 2:52 PM
|
|
don't forget inbreeding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14439]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
|
Yep and widespread meth use.***
Jan 2, 2021, 2:55 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34487]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 13513
Joined: 2019
|
And living in Ohio***
Jan 2, 2021, 2:56 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [725]
TigerPulse: 99%
22
|
1-4 St shouldn't be on Clemson mind
Jan 2, 2021, 3:23 PM
[ in reply to Hold on a second ] |
|
after this season, it will be a couple of years before 1-4 St makes it back to the playoffs. They will not even win the Big Ten next year, unless the rules get changed...yet again.
Clemson is there every year. 1-4 St will be back on the radar in a couple of years and then Clemson will collect what your ButtNuts rent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [142]
TigerPulse: 99%
11
|
Re: You know you have issues when OSU beat the heck out of
Jan 2, 2021, 2:59 PM
[ in reply to Re: You know you have issues when OSU beat the heck out of ] |
|
Oh dear God, Clemson has an inferiority complex???? We've kicked your fannies every time we’ve played until you finally win one last night.
Most arrogant fanbase in college football.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2219]
TigerPulse: 89%
32
|
Re: Skalski targeting call was more than I could take yesterday
Jan 2, 2021, 2:48 PM
|
|
Skalski himself tweeted this morning that he was guilty and needs to do better, yet here you are starting threads about this targeting call. Move on dude. You sound like an OSU fan from last year.
We got smoked because:
a) we're getting out-recruited,in non-skill positions - consistently.
b) giving quality reps to family members rather than actual athletes,
c) NOT developing O-line talent, and ...
d) MOST IMPORTANTLY....ignoring the transfer portal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2328]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
Re: Skalski targeting call was more than I could take yesterday
Jan 2, 2021, 2:57 PM
|
|
You have the handle of secgrowa but refer to why "we" lost the game. Maybe you need to figure out where your allegiances lie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2219]
TigerPulse: 89%
32
|
Re: Skalski targeting call was more than I could take yesterday
Jan 2, 2021, 3:09 PM
|
|
LOL...guess what???? CLEMSON has the letters S-E-C in it's name too. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26663]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 46333
Joined: 2010
|
Guess what... ??? You're a trolling idiot.***
Jan 2, 2021, 3:35 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [78596]
TigerPulse: 100%
62
Posts: 29184
Joined: 2018
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [62147]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 48081
Joined: 2000
|
Skalski actually led with the shoulder ... Skalski did not
Jan 2, 2021, 2:51 PM
|
|
"spear" Fields; Fields turned at the last second. This play, like most football plays, was dynamic, meaning that both players were moving in different directions at high speed on different multiple planes, which makes targeting as it is now defined in the rules unavoildable much of the time during the normal course of a game. If you are bent over as far as Skalski was and try to keep your face up, your neck is in a very weak and unnatural position, and would seem to be much more succeptable to injury than were it lower and in line with the spine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trainer [34]
TigerPulse: 27%
4
|
Re: Skalski actually led with the shoulder ... Skalski did not
Jan 2, 2021, 2:53 PM
|
|
I'm gonna go ahead and get you scheduled for an eye appointment, maybe a new 4G TV too.
Do you have any braille books in your house?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [62147]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 48081
Joined: 2000
|
Best case scenario - it will take you fools at least 3 more
Jan 2, 2021, 3:01 PM
|
|
years to catch up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Conqueror [11846]
TigerPulse: 100%
46
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Master [17093]
TigerPulse: 91%
51
Posts: 27268
Joined: 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [105576]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 44178
Joined: 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [14054]
TigerPulse: 100%
48
Posts: 23287
Joined: 2004
|
You could see him lower his helmet and lead with the crown
Jan 2, 2021, 4:31 PM
[ in reply to Skalski actually led with the shoulder ... Skalski did not ] |
|
in the replay. It was clear as day. I'm not sure what kind of mental gymnastics you are doing here to convince yourself otherwise, but he very clearly dipped his head.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [62147]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 48081
Joined: 2000
|
It is clear as day to me, that Skalski did not target.
Jan 2, 2021, 6:27 PM
|
|
You do have to take some shortcuts too determine that he does. By definition, targeting requires intent. The defender must take aim for purposes of attacking with forcible contact. This picture shows that Skalski has lowered his entire upper body, helmet included, but is leading with his shoulder as his head is going behind Fields.
![](https://theclemsoninsider.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/81/2021/01/Skalski-hit-on-fields-again.jpg?resize=480,320"<br)
This was a very fluid, dynamic situation, of course, and Fields spun and rotated and Skalski's helmet went into his side and lower back. Remember, lowering the hemet in and of itself is not proof that targeting occurred, it is merely an indicator that it may have occurred. Nor is contact with the crown of the helmet necessarily targeting, as there must be INTENT (taking aim). It is an extremely complex, convoluted rule, nearly impossible to apply consistently and fairly in keeping with it's purpose and intent. Did Skalski take aim with the crown of his helmet, knowingly making an illegal tackle? Or was he just trying to make a hard tackle and his helmet happened to get into the back of Fields? It matters, because one is targeting, and one is not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [14054]
TigerPulse: 100%
48
Posts: 23287
Joined: 2004
|
Dude, it's a still shot that was taken with a huge zoom lens
Jan 2, 2021, 8:01 PM
|
|
from an angle not directly behind the play. It's impossible to determine depths in that photo, or whether Skalski's shoulder is actually in line with Fields' shoulder or to our right of it.
The slow motion replays from the game last night offered far, far better views of the play and it absolutely looked like targeting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [14054]
TigerPulse: 100%
48
Posts: 23287
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5179]
TigerPulse: 42%
38
Posts: 17167
Joined: 2005
|
Re: Skalski actually led with the shoulder ... Skalski did not
Jan 2, 2021, 5:32 PM
[ in reply to Skalski actually led with the shoulder ... Skalski did not ] |
|
Nothing about his head positioning in that picture shows it being in line with his spine.
That’s the issue. Had he kept his head up his spine would have been neutral.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [62147]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 48081
Joined: 2000
|
Face up is not in line with the spine either. In line with
Jan 2, 2021, 6:00 PM
|
|
the spine would be face and eyes facing the same direction as the chest, not looking up while Skalski is bent over and his chest is facing down toward the ground.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5179]
TigerPulse: 42%
38
Posts: 17167
Joined: 2005
|
Re: Face up is not in line with the spine either. In line with
Jan 2, 2021, 6:13 PM
|
|
Ah, you're not understanding what they're meaning by face up.
It literally just means the head in line with the spine. In that scenario he's going to hit him with his facemask and not the crown of his helmet. What you're thinking of would result in him hitting him with his chin strap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [62147]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 48081
Joined: 2000
|
LOL! If you are bent over in a crouch like Skalski was
Jan 2, 2021, 7:20 PM
|
|
and you are looking froward, your head would have to be tilted back. If you kept you head and neck ine that same exact position and stood upright, you'd be staring at the ceiling. That's NOT in line with the spine. In line with the spine would be facing forward, looking straight ahead when standing upright.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Master [17093]
TigerPulse: 91%
51
Posts: 27268
Joined: 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Day Hero [4122]
TigerPulse: 100%
36
|
Re: Skalski targeting call was more than I could take yesterday
Jan 2, 2021, 2:53 PM
|
|
NCAA targeting rule:
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.
What part of this rule made the hit on Justin Fields targeting?
Was not helmet to helmet
Was not attacking with a forcible contact
He did not leave his feet
Did not crouch and thrust upward
Was a clean hit was was not with undue force actually Justin Fields jumped as Skalski hit him .
Now even if he had not been ejected Ohio St would have won the ballgame. But this was just a bad call.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top TigerNet [29893]
TigerPulse: 100%
55
Posts: 36614
Joined: 2000
|
Um...
Jan 2, 2021, 2:56 PM
|
|
"Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of his helmet."
He lowered his head and hit Fields dang hard with the crown of his helmet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Clemson Legend [105576]
TigerPulse: 100%
64
Posts: 44178
Joined: 2008
|
Yeah, kind of thought that should be obvious.
Jan 2, 2021, 3:23 PM
|
|
I don't get why this is so hard for some to understand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [9]
TigerPulse: 73%
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [14054]
TigerPulse: 100%
48
Posts: 23287
Joined: 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [725]
TigerPulse: 99%
22
|
Louis Oliver
Jan 2, 2021, 3:10 PM
|
|
would have never made it in the NFL if that was targeting back then. Dude used to flat tattoo wideouts and TE coming across the middle. They all had alligator fingers when it came time to play the Miami Dolphins.
That was a vicious hit, but it wasn't intentional spearing as Feilds rolled into the hit. If Feilds had stayed vertical then Skalaski would have hit Feilds more with his shoulder. Lowering the head is poor tackling form, but Skalaski couldn't have known that Feilds would spin into the hit.
Doesn't matter. Clemson was outplayed and the lack of effort was obvious. Other than stating my opinion certain things, I will not cry all year about how things didn't go out way. Leave that for those losers up north to do
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2219]
TigerPulse: 89%
32
|
Re: Louis Oliver
Jan 2, 2021, 3:19 PM
|
|
What really doesn't matter are poster here talking about how it "used to be". How refs called the games back in the 70's, 80's, 90's or even 2018 doesn't matter. What matters is how the refs are calling the games in 2021.
We either adapt as a program to rule changes like this and other things like the transfer portal or we become dinosaurs in college football. Period.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [725]
TigerPulse: 99%
22
|
You are right
Jan 2, 2021, 3:32 PM
|
|
what really doesn't matter are posters who talk about things that they "claim" doesn't relate or shouldn't matter or subject that is being discussed, while thinking that their opinion matters to anyone other than themselves.
Laimens terms, no one wants to hear your opinion about something that you say shouldn't be worth having an opinion on. Sound like a dumb coot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Offensive Star [335]
TigerPulse: 61%
15
|
Re: Louis Oliver
Jan 2, 2021, 4:16 PM
[ in reply to Re: Louis Oliver ] |
|
Yes we must hold like bama and Ohio St on every play..adapt
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2219]
TigerPulse: 89%
32
|
Re: Louis Oliver
Jan 2, 2021, 6:10 PM
|
|
Jenny, some games are just like this. When the refs are letting "the dudes play" you had better be stacked with dudes. We're not. We've got some very good young talent on the D-line, but not "dudes' yet. The "dudes" on OSU's d-line ate up our 2 and 3 star players that haven't improved in 2 years. THAT is on Caldwell (and Dabo).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Offensive Star [335]
TigerPulse: 61%
15
|
Re: Louis Oliver
Jan 2, 2021, 9:15 PM
|
|
Holding would have helped and they do it every play
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recruit [93]
TigerPulse: 25%
10
|
Re: Skalski targeting call was more than I could take yesterday
Jan 2, 2021, 4:26 PM
|
|
Skalski is a dirty player. Period. He tries to punish players, specifically quarterbacks, and he’s lucky it didn’t get him paralyzed this time. He’s too much of a hard nosed punk to follow the rules which are just as much in place to protect him from breaking his neck (See Ryan Shazier) as they are to protect the other player.
I say this as a parent who was in the Superdome for the NCG last year, sitting directly under Joe’s parents. I saw Skalski put the nasty, unnecessary hit on Burrow before the half. You couldn’t see it as well on TV but Burrow was wincing in pain. I wanted to crush LSU but not like that. I was embarrassed and was relieved for him and his parents that he came back the second half. Then Skalski pulled the same #### later on Justin Jefferson.
We are not Thug U. Skalski hurt Fields, his team, and himself last night.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [725]
TigerPulse: 99%
22
|
Re: Skalski targeting call was more than I could take yesterday
Jan 2, 2021, 6:19 PM
|
|
The only disgrace here is you. You aren't man enough to speak your mind and stand on your on two feet, without having to hide behind a false facade. Your rouse has grown a lot older than the time you have actually spent in your false mental state. A member since January 21st 2020 and just over a week later you have burned this sock to the ground with stupid jibberish. Congratulations on winning the Internet idiot award. You can pick up your prizes on the way out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recruit [93]
TigerPulse: 25%
10
|
Re: Skalski targeting call was more than I could take yesterday
Jan 2, 2021, 6:21 PM
|
|
Nope just hate the bandwagon fans who didn’t even know the rules of football since before 2015. Sorry I keep it real. I’m a sportsmanship guy, and I will never support one of ours trying to hurt a quarterback unnecessarily. He’s a dirty player and you have no values.
BTW, I give thousands to the program each year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [725]
TigerPulse: 99%
22
|
Re: Skalski targeting call was more than I could take yesterday
Jan 2, 2021, 6:35 PM
|
|
??, sure you are and I bet you do ?? Which program? The one in Columbia or the one in Columbus? Bandwagonner or Imposter? You say before we decide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recruit [93]
TigerPulse: 25%
10
|
Re: Skalski targeting call was more than I could take yesterday
Jan 2, 2021, 6:51 PM
|
|
??, sure you are and I bet you do ?? Which program? The one in Columbia or the one in Columbus? Bandwagonner or Imposter? You say before we decide.
I don’t owe you an explanation but I signed up after the Natty to share my experience in New Orleans, and was amazed at how dumb most of our fans are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recruit [66]
TigerPulse: 57%
7
|
Re: Skalski targeting call was more than I could take yesterday
Jan 2, 2021, 4:35 PM
|
|
Maybe it is the letter of the law, but I think that rule is going to do more to introduce ladies to college football than the Vandy kicker.
The rule as it was probably first intended to do was to prevent defensive players running and launching like a missile at receivers who had no idea that they were about to get hit. Then it morphed into not hitting a quarterback who was standing still with multiple linebacker moving at top speed to sack him.
Fields chose to run, Skalski was holding ground (not coming at him with a head of steam), Fields SAW him clearly, and the collision occurred.
Football has changed too much.
The good news is, with the Marxist COVID steal election initiative, college football in 2021 will have no fans and all players will be wearing masks while playing. All players will be wearing flags so no rough tackling will be allowed. College cheerleaders will be confused men in skirts with five-o-clock shadows and ample packages.
Kamel-spread will kick off the Army-Navy game since by fall of 2021, the cheating Demos will have put him in a suitable home for unwanted mange mutts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recruit [66]
TigerPulse: 57%
7
|
Re: Skalski targeting call was more than I could take yesterday
Jan 2, 2021, 4:35 PM
|
|
Maybe it is the letter of the law, but I think that rule is going to do more to introduce ladies to college football than the Vandy kicker.
The rule as it was probably first intended to do was to prevent defensive players running and launching like a missile at receivers who had no idea that they were about to get hit. Then it morphed into not hitting a quarterback who was standing still with multiple linebacker moving at top speed to sack him.
Fields chose to run, Skalski was holding ground (not coming at him with a head of steam), Fields SAW him clearly, and the collision occurred.
Football has changed too much.
The good news is, with the Marxist COVID steal election initiative, college football in 2021 will have no fans and all players will be wearing masks while playing. All players will be wearing flags so no rough tackling will be allowed. College cheerleaders will be confused men in skirts with five-o-clock shadows and ample packages.
Kamel-spread will kick off the Army-Navy game since by fall of 2021, the cheating Demos will have put him in a suitable home for unwanted mange mutts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Rounder [621]
TigerPulse: 85%
21
|
Re: Skalski targeting call was more than I could take yesterday
Jan 2, 2021, 5:49 PM
|
|
I understand the rule but it wasn't intentional. A warning would suffice. He tried to go with shoulder but the qb spun into him. He didn't launch. He didn't hit the other players helmet.
I also think if fields got up with no injury, no one would have reviewed it. Certain of that. And that's really not a fair rule.
So, penalize based on intent and outcome and give players warnings, like yellow cards that accrue. Review every tackle and have grades of punishment.
Throwing people out of a game of this magnitude is crazy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [2]
TigerPulse: 26%
1
|
Re: Skalski targeting call was more than I could take yesterday
Jan 8, 2021, 9:08 PM
|
|
I would agree that a warning would suffice if you agree that Wade only should have gotten a warning last year. Both calls were very similar. Wade did hit the head. But he did not launch. Skalski did not hit the head. But he did launch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [0]
TigerPulse: 28%
1
|
Re: Skalski targeting call was more than I could take yesterday
Jan 6, 2021, 2:43 PM
|
|
Jesus Christ, it was a flat out spear and even he knew it. You had your ##### handed to you. Deal with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [725]
TigerPulse: 99%
22
|
Re: Skalski targeting call was more than I could take yesterday
Jan 7, 2021, 3:43 AM
|
|
Jesus Christ, it was a flat out spear and even he knew it. You had your ##### handed to you. Dqeal with it.
The hypocrisy is laughable
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [2]
TigerPulse: 26%
1
|
Re: Skalski targeting call was more than I could take yesterday
Jan 8, 2021, 4:36 PM
|
|
Skalski launched and speared Fields. With or without targeting, Spearing is illegal. That was much worse than what Wade did last year. Wade did not launch into TL. That is big difference.
Between the two I do not think Skalski or Wade should have been called for targeting. Skalski should have been called for spearing, which is pentalty, but not targeting.
Think of it like this. Skalki's hit was worse than Wade. Yet Wade got ejected. So either you gotta say they both needed to be ejected, or neither of them.
If Wade was not ejected Ohio State would have rolled Clemson last year. That call changed the momentum. Ohio State would have won. So by Wade being ejected Clemson got a break. But on the other hand, Ohio State was cutting through the D with Skalski in it. It made no difference whether Skalski played or not. He was a non factor. So if neither are called, Ohio STate wins both times. If you call both, the teams went 1-1. It is to Clemson's advantage targeting was called. But remember, even before targeting ejections, spearing was a penalty. That would have been called either way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [554]
TigerPulse: 100%
20
|
Re: Skalski targeting call was more than I could take yesterday
Jan 8, 2021, 6:22 PM
|
|
You're blind or clueless if you think Skalski's hit was worse than Wade's.
Wade hit TL blindside in the earhole.
Skalski was in the open field (pardon the pun), and lead with his shoulder. Yes, even he admitted that he should not have ducked his head. That didn't make it spearing, he did not "spear".
Can you imagine how many players would be tossed, under the current rule, if all it took was ducking the head?
Have fun getting your Bama beat down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [2]
TigerPulse: 26%
1
|
Re: Skalski targeting call was more than I could take yesterday
Jan 8, 2021, 9:02 PM
|
|
Ok, first let's speak to each other as humans who Jesus came to redeem. I am blind. Actually, I played pretty high caliber football.
If you played football, then you would know that the Clemson linebacker speared. Don't take my word for it. That is what most college football analysts claim. His hit was much worst than Wades hit. For one reason. Wade DID NOT LAUNCH. Hardly any targeting calls are called by replay booth if there was no launch. TL made himself defensless. He was in the pocket. He started to run briefly. Then he saw Wade coming and went into standing fetal position. How else would a 5"11 guy target a 6'4 QB helmet to helmet? By the letter of the law it was targeting. Wade got ejected. But Skalki's was worse. He speared. That is penalty in itself. And he targeted. He hit Fields with his head down in the open field.
If you do not agree with me that Skalki's was worse, let me ask you this----- which hit hurt the QB more? Field's is tougher than TL. And did you see how hurt he was? Most football players will tell you that they much rather receive Wade's hit- helmet to helmet without a launch- rather than Skalki's hit- a spear with a lowered head to the rib/spine area.
As for Bama whipping us....Yes, Bama will whip us. Southern teams could whip Ohio State 100-0. It still wouldn't be as devastating as Sherman's march.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [725]
TigerPulse: 99%
22
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [2]
TigerPulse: 26%
1
|
Re: Skalski targeting call was more than I could take yesterday
Jan 8, 2021, 9:06 PM
|
|
Are you referring to me?
If you are, this is my perspective: Both Wade and Skalki's hit should not have been called. If you call one, then you have to call the other. I would rather have both stay in game. If that would have happened, I believe Ohio State would have won both games. Losing Wade was huge last year. It changed momentum. Clemson was about to punt the ball and go into half time probably down by at least 16.
On the other hand, even at full strength, Clemson could not stop Fields or Sermon in 2021. Your linebacker was not making plays. Isaiah last year was awesome. This guy was no Isaiah.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [725]
TigerPulse: 99%
22
|
Re: Skalski targeting call was more than I could take yesterday
Jan 9, 2021, 8:48 AM
|
|
Yes I was talking to you. You said that the Skalaski tackle was worse than the Wade hit on Lawrence? You also said that Skalaski "launched" into Feilds in a spearing motion. Yet Wade didn't launch into Lawrence.
Ok, here is the difference and the reason Wade's hit will always be considered more vicious than what Skalaski did, or didn't do.
Wade used the crown of his helmet to hit Lawrence in the lower portion of his facemask. Wade's helmet hit underneath Lawrence's helmet and Wade dribble Lawrence backwards. There was no let up on the hit. He lowered hi head and hit Lawrence right where he wanted to, as by Wade's reaction of standing over Lawrence like he had just broke the guys kneck.
That was a head to head hit against a defenseless qb who was in the process of completing his throwing motion. Hits to the head of players who are defenseless are at the top of the list.
Skalaski did coil and top his head, bit most of the force come from Feilds spinning and his forward momentum. Skalaski dropped his head and coiled up for impact, but it seemed that he was anticipating the contact and was bracing to stand his ground, rather than spear Feilds. If Feilds had slid like all qbs, then it doesn't happen. He wanted to challenge the hardest hitter in the defense for 1 hard. Feilds didn't get that yard either. Well, not on his on accord. A bogus penalty gave him the hard and more.
1-4 St cried all year about the Targeting call, the fumble? the refs as a whole. Well, not this year. They got every call they cried about. They got the fumble. The targeting, nd I am not sure about how many holds they for away with.
Good for them. Clemson got beat and it's one for the memory book.It might be a couple of years before 1-4 St makes the playoffs again but you can bet that a beatdown awaits them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [1]
TigerPulse: 16%
1
|
Re: Skalski targeting call was more than I could take yesterday
Jan 10, 2021, 4:48 PM
|
|
The refs were out to get us!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 98
| visibility 2262
|
|
|
50
