(10-26-2014 08:26 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(10-26-2014 08:03 AM)GringoStarr Wrote:  It was a terrible call from the back side of the play. Yeah, he looked down but the contact was from the SMU guys head into Tank's shoulder. I'm guessing his equally bad late hit call in the first half didn't help his cause.

He dropped his head to hit the dude...Legit call based on the rule...You don't have to destroy the guy to get flagged

BUT he had to "drop" his head because the ball carrier was knee level.

I hate that call.

(10-26-2014 06:18 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(10-26-2014 08:26 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(10-26-2014 08:03 AM)GringoStarr Wrote:  It was a terrible call from the back side of the play. Yeah, he looked down but the contact was from the SMU guys head into Tank's shoulder. I'm guessing his equally bad late hit call in the first half didn't help his cause.

He dropped his head to hit the dude...Legit call based on the rule...You don't have to destroy the guy to get flagged

BUT he had to "drop" his head because the ball carrier Was knée level.

I hate that call.

That's pretty much the bottom line. I. hate. that call.

It was the right call based on the rule. I do not like a lot of the rules that have been put into place over the last few years, but this is a good one. It will/has help(ed) prevent several neck injuries and concussions. IMO, you could see the impact of the rule when the SMU defender hit a defenseless Cooper on a pass out on in the flats earlier in the game. A few years ago that player would have come in high and hard, instead he went for the midsection with his helmet to the side.

How do you tackle a guy who is waist or knee level. If you go in with your head up, you have a much better chance of suffering a head/neck injury, so one really HAS to put a head down to get to knee level.

Do different than amateur wrestling (in terms of head placement) in that one doesn't go for a double leg while keeping the chin up.

Targeting a defenseless receiver is a completely different story. This wasn't the case.

(10-26-2014 08:47 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  How do you tackle a guy who is waist or knee level. If you go in with your head up, you have a much better chance of suffering a head/neck injury, so one really HAS to put a head down to get to knee level.

Do different than amateur wrestling (in terms of head placement) in that one doesn't go for a double leg while keeping the chin up.

Targeting a defenseless receiver is a completely different story. This wasn't the case.

We'll be fine for the first half of the Tulsa game. We finally have depth!!

(10-26-2014 07:38 PM)Tygrys Wrote:  It was the right call based on the rule. I do not like a lot of the rules that have been put into place over the last few years, but this is a good one. It will/has help(ed) prevent several neck injuries and concussions. IMO, you could see the impact of the rule when the SMU defender hit a defenseless Cooper on a pass out on in the flats earlier in the game. A few years ago that player would have come in high and hard, instead he went for the midsection with his helmet to the side.

Based upon watching the play and reading the actual rule, I disagree.

http://www.afca.com/article/article.php?id=2342

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.


KEY ELEMENTS

Target—to take aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with an apparent intent that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball...

KEY INDICATORS


These indicate less risk of a foul:

Heads-up tackle in which the crown of the helmet does not strike above the shoulders
Wrap-up tackle
Head is to the side rather than being used to initiate contact
Incidental helmet contact that is not part of targeting but is due to the players changing position during the course of play.

(10-26-2014 08:47 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  How do you tackle a guy who is waist or knee level. If you go in with your head up, you have a much better chance of suffering a head/neck injury, so one really HAS to put a head down to get to knee level.

Do different than amateur wrestling (in terms of head placement) in that one doesn't go for a double leg while keeping the chin up.

Targeting a defenseless receiver is a completely different story. This wasn't the case.

You lead with your shoulder, not with the crown of your helmet. And no, leading with your face mask (head up) is never safer than leading with the top of your helmet... This is basic football that is taught from the first contact drill a player does in pee wee football.

(10-26-2014 08:52 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(10-26-2014 07:38 PM)Tygrys Wrote:  It was the right call based on the rule. I do not like a lot of the rules that have been put into place over the last few years, but this is a good one. It will/has help(ed) prevent several neck injuries and concussions. IMO, you could see the impact of the rule when the SMU defender hit a defenseless Cooper on a pass out on in the flats earlier in the game. A few years ago that player would have come in high and hard, instead he went for the midsection with his helmet to the side.

Based upon watching the play and reading the actual rule, I disagree.

http://www.afca.com/article/article.php?id=2342

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.


KEY ELEMENTS

Target—to take aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with an apparent intent that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball...

KEY INDICATORS


These indicate less risk of a foul:

Heads-up tackle in which the crown of the helmet does not strike above the shoulders
Wrap-up tackle
Head is to the side rather than being used to initiate contact
Incidental helmet contact that is not part of targeting but is due to the players changing position during the course of play.

Double bold the last part of the rule. "When in question, it is a foul". The two parts you highlighted are a.) a key indicator, i.e. contact that is always and undoubtedly a targeting penalty, not the key element for it to be a targeting penalty and b.) a vague reference that is probably referring to contacting the offensive players helmet, not referencing the defensive player's helmet hitting the offensive player. The defensive player can use his helmet for contact, just not the crown part. That is clearly what Tank did, it is being called far more frequently this season.

(10-26-2014 09:18 PM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(10-26-2014 08:52 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(10-26-2014 07:38 PM)Tygrys Wrote:  It was the right call based on the rule. I do not like a lot of the rules that have been put into place over the last few years, but this is a good one. It will/has help(ed) prevent several neck injuries and concussions. IMO, you could see the impact of the rule when the SMU defender hit a defenseless Cooper on a pass out on in the flats earlier in the game. A few years ago that player would have come in high and hard, instead he went for the midsection with his helmet to the side.

Based upon watching the play and reading the actual rule, I disagree.

http://www.afca.com/article/article.php?id=2342

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.


KEY ELEMENTS

Target—to take aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with an apparent intent that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball...

KEY INDICATORS


These indicate less risk of a foul:

Heads-up tackle in which the crown of the helmet does not strike above the shoulders
Wrap-up tackle
Head is to the side rather than being used to initiate contact
Incidental helmet contact that is not part of targeting but is due to the players changing position during the course of play.

Double bold the last part of the rule. "When in question, it is a foul". The two parts you highlighted are a.) a key indicator, i.e. contact that is always and undoubtedly a targeting penalty, not the key element for it to be a targeting penalty and b.) a vague reference that is probably referring to contacting the offensive players helmet, not referencing the defensive player's helmet hitting the offensive player. The defensive player can use his helmet for contact, just not the crown part. That is clearly what Tank did, it is being called far more frequently this season.

I just don't see the red parts as favoring the call. There was no indication that the hit was "attacking...with intent...beyond a legal tackle..." and futhermore there was less likelihood of a foul due to the level change that would require the defender to have to keep his head down to make the tackle.

Wonder if staff can appeal the suspension to the league office considering the contact was actually on the shoulder pads and it was the offensive players action which created the contact. Think replay official just saw crown of head and automatically upheld the call without exploring the entire rule.

(10-26-2014 10:18 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  Wonder if staff can appeal the suspension to the league office considering the contact was actually on the shoulder pads and it was the offensive players action which created the contact. Think replay official just saw crown of head and automatically upheld the call without exploring the entire rule.

Contact does not have to be to the offensive player's helmet for it to be targeting, if the defensive player leads with the crown of the helmet.

(10-26-2014 05:16 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(10-26-2014 08:26 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(10-26-2014 08:03 AM)GringoStarr Wrote:  It was a terrible call from the back side of the play. Yeah, he looked down but the contact was from the SMU guys head into Tank's shoulder. I'm guessing his equally bad late hit call in the first half didn't help his cause.

He dropped his head to hit the dude...Legit call based on the rule...You don't have to destroy the guy to get flagged

yeah well i have seen worse not called and less than that be called. meh, its part of it. if what tank did was targeting then what that ucf player did to us last year was attempted murder.

Amen. That play is still etched in my memory.

(10-26-2014 10:40 AM)boss man Wrote:  GA, I thought of the UCF travesty as well. That was a picture perfect defintion of helmet to helmet on a defenseless player. But....no call and UCF goes on to win and the Fiesta Bowl.

What was also LOL funny yesterday was the refs going out of their way to contain the MEMPHIS runaway and protect SMU from a more severe beatdown. Late in 3rd quarter, two CONSECUTIVE chinzy calls that erased two long gains by MEMPHIS: a 50+ yard run by Cooper and a 40+ yard completion.

Hilarity, thy name is the piss poor AAC officials.

The 'lineman down field' was as bad a call as I've seen. The lineman flagged was blocking/driving/pushing his guy 3 yards down from the line of scrimmage.

Horrible call. Horrible interpretation of the rule.

(10-27-2014 01:05 AM)21-17 Best Time I Ever Ha Wrote:  

(10-26-2014 05:16 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(10-26-2014 08:26 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(10-26-2014 08:03 AM)GringoStarr Wrote:  It was a terrible call from the back side of the play. Yeah, he looked down but the contact was from the SMU guys head into Tank's shoulder. I'm guessing his equally bad late hit call in the first half didn't help his cause.

He dropped his head to hit the dude...Legit call based on the rule...You don't have to destroy the guy to get flagged

yeah well i have seen worse not called and less than that be called. meh, its part of it. if what tank did was targeting then what that ucf player did to us last year was attempted murder.

Amen. That play is still etched in my memory.

Yep. I said it at the time, it was the most incompetent crew I've witnessed at a D1 game. I'm convinced, the crew leader did not know the rules. He had missed ignored several obvious holds against CFU and was pissed because Fuente was all over him about it, so he payed us back. Fortunately, I haven't seen that clown working an AAC game this season.

Why do the refs hate us so much?

(10-27-2014 08:30 AM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  Why do the refs hate us so much?

They have heard about MT.org.

So it's justified...

(10-26-2014 05:38 PM)Tiger46 Wrote:  

(10-26-2014 10:40 AM)boss man Wrote:  GA, I thought of the UCF travesty as well. That was a picture perfect defintion of helmet to helmet on a defenseless player. But....no call and UCF goes on to win and the Fiesta Bowl.

What was also LOL funny yesterday was the refs going out of their way to contain the MEMPHIS runaway and protect SMU from a more severe beatdown. Late in 3rd quarter, two CONSECUTIVE chinzy calls that erased two long gains by MEMPHIS: a 50+ yard run by Cooper and a 40+ yard completion.

Hilarity, thy name is the piss poor AAC officials.

But, they made it up with a pass interference call against SMU on the very next play and got the Bronx cheer from Tiger fans.

after those two bogus calls, Jeb lead us in a cheer of "IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER""!

(10-27-2014 08:23 AM)midtowncowboy Wrote:  

(10-26-2014 10:40 AM)boss man Wrote:  GA, I thought of the UCF travesty as well. That was a picture perfect defintion of helmet to helmet on a defenseless player. But....no call and UCF goes on to win and the Fiesta Bowl.

What was also LOL funny yesterday was the refs going out of their way to contain the MEMPHIS runaway and protect SMU from a more severe beatdown. Late in 3rd quarter, two CONSECUTIVE chinzy calls that erased two long gains by MEMPHIS: a 50+ yard run by Cooper and a 40+ yard completion.

Hilarity, thy name is the piss poor AAC officials.

The 'lineman down field' was as bad a call as I've seen. The lineman flagged was blocking/driving/pushing his guy 3 yards down from the line of scrimmage.

Horrible call. Horrible interpretation of the rule.

Yep that one shocked me...The ball came out so fast I couldn't believe any lineman would be downfield.