[quote='Rocket4Life' pid='12431961' dateline='1443360422']
How could they want a penalty on that? It was a clean hit.
They threw right into that hit. I don't think even Covington meant to make it that direct but this "targeting," seems an emotional call more than a clearly described one. After Ark Sts' coach complained about this non-call, you had to know there would soon be one against us and there was but it didn't stick.
Watching the Stepic stick on kick-off in Q1, that could also easily have been called "targeting." A little nod of the helmet is about all it takes. Half the tackles could be called.
The rule says you cannot make "forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless player"
It was clearly forcible contact. The player was clearly defenseless, as one of the definitions of "defenseless" is a player attempting to catch a pass. The only possible wiggle room is whether the hit was to the "head or neck" area. It sure looks to me like it was. So, targetting. I think he should have been ejected.
Now the Rogers hit was clearly not targetting, because although it was forcible contact, the player wasn't defenseless. In that case, you have to hit with the crown of the helmet for it to be targetting, and the hit was clearly with a shoulder. Didn't seem to be to the head either, but to the chest. Replay correctly overturned that. Truthfully, I think the on-filed refs call that targetting because they knew the blew the Covington call, and were trying to make sure they didn't miss another one.
This is a nearly impossible rule to avoid when your 6' plus and you've got the fraction of a second that Covington had hitting the little guy. They need to include some sort of intent. What else was he supposed to do? A QB can set that up all day if they don't mind sacrificing a WR or two.
I believe they made the correct call. This is a video that should be shown refs that are calling targeting too often and incorrectly. He was tracking and anticipating where the receiver was going to go in order to make the stop. He has like a second to react. What should he have done differently? In my opinion, he essentially tracked him, got low, and steamrolled him with his whole body, driving forward leading with one leg and squared shoulders in a text book style manner, his helmet hitting into the chest chin area of the receiver. Play in full screen and pause and tweak to see the impact. What if the receiver was 6'3" 250 and the defender was 5'8" 175? At some point you have realize this is football and you can't water it down more than you already have.
(This post was last modified: 09-27-2015 10:05 AM by ToledoMike.)
Well, when I look at the the video, stop it and step through a few frames, I can see that he did not project his helmet to the head/neck area. The helmet made contact with the sternum/upper chest area. Furthermore, the hit was not a spearing type hit--leading with the crown of the helmet. He hit the guy head on, wrapping him up, and putting him on his back. The receiver's head does snap back, yes, but after it first snapped forward, then bounced back. As they go down Convington slides up over the top making it, at full speed, appear to be a high hit. It is not his fault the receiver is so short.
Yes, it was a hard hit, but half of the velocity was the speed of receiver flying across the middle to make a catch. That's gonna happen it football, unless they institute a halo rule for receivers, too, in which case the may as well just have the game played in those giant hamster balls.
(09-27-2015 10:03 AM)ToledoMike Wrote: I believe they made the correct call. This is a video that should be shown refs that are calling targeting too often and incorrectly. He was tracking and anticipating where the receiver was going to go in order to make the stop. He has like a second to react. What should he have done differently? In my opinion, he essentially tracked him, got low,...
As low as he could reasonably be expected to get without renting a back hoe.
I guess the moral of the story they want to send is always lead with the hands?
he did not hit him in the head or neck area. His contact from what I saw from watching it over and over was to the chest first, then he slid up to the chin facemask area as the force of the impact took the guy downward. The good thing is he was not hurt, had he hit him directly in the head with that weight and force from both players moving and then colliding, the outcome could have been disastrous. Covington also looked at the guy and for a moment just made sure he was ok before doing a mini celebration on the hit. I hate the jumping around, and showmanship of big hits - especially the chest bumps - which have probably led to more injuries than a textbook hit like this.
Anybody have a video of the play that got the Ark St. guy kicked out of the game. That to me was a textbook targeting. It was "spearing" , but I'd like to see another look at it to make sure what I saw was consistent with what others saw. There is still too much hitting going on when guys are down - and the refs are also too slow on the whistle when forward progress has been stopped. If a guy is being held up by 2-3 guys and all they are doing is clawing at the ball, there should never be a fumble called. That is not how football was intended to be played. Make the tackle, get the guy on the ground and quit clubbing away at the ball and arms and wrists.
Shoot, I didn't think that one was much different than Covington's. I'd have to see them back to back but on re-watch and the replays, I was kind of thinking the refs could have called it and several other plays either way. I refer again to Stepic' hit on the punt near the beginning of the game.
I think the rule needs work or they need to be clear and say, "lead with the hands." Anything other than direct helmet to helmet seems to depend more on the severity of the hit than the legality of it.
