"No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul."

I don't know how you tackle someone without doing that. Why don't they just play flag football?

(11-22-2015 05:59 PM)Smith Wrote:  "No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul."

I don't know how you tackle someone without doing that. Why don't they just play flag football?

Tackle with your head up.

Don't hit what you can't see.

(11-22-2015 04:57 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(11-22-2015 10:25 AM)madtiger Wrote:  The targeting rule DOESN'T require hitting the player in the head. There are two separate targeting 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

Both targeting calls yesterday were correctly officiated- not to say they are right or wrong, but they were correctly enforced.

Dillon very clearly lowered his head and struck Walker in the chest area and lifted his head up to make contact in the head/neck area.

Cross was just a frustration cheap shot.

The game is totally different than it was even 5 or 6 years ago.

OK these are the rules, but what about the application? How come when Henderson's helmet was knocked completely off his head when he was carrying the ball during the Tulsa game - obvious helmet to helmet contact, there was no penalty? You have to discuss the rule in conjunction with the application......

We can argue about the rule being enforced all day long. It isn't called the same everywhere.

I was addressing the fact of "he hit him in the chest" not being targeting.

Fact of the matter is, it is an almost impossible rule to enforce due to differences in sizes of players. However, the two instances yesterday were clearly outside that realm and were a clear violation of the rule.

Officials have missed several targeting calls (Marquis Warford anyone?) against us, but called the two correctly yesterday.

(11-22-2015 08:00 PM)madtiger Wrote:  

(11-22-2015 04:57 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(11-22-2015 10:25 AM)madtiger Wrote:  The targeting rule DOESN'T require hitting the player in the head. There are two separate targeting 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

Both targeting calls yesterday were correctly officiated- not to say they are right or wrong, but they were correctly enforced.

Dillon very clearly lowered his head and struck Walker in the chest area and lifted his head up to make contact in the head/neck area.

Cross was just a frustration cheap shot.

The game is totally different than it was even 5 or 6 years ago.

OK these are the rules, but what about the application? How come when Henderson's helmet was knocked completely off his head when he was carrying the ball during the Tulsa game - obvious helmet to helmet contact, there was no penalty? You have to discuss the rule in conjunction with the application......

We can argue about the rule being enforced all day long. It isn't called the same everywhere.

I was addressing the fact of "he hit him in the chest" not being targeting.

Fact of the matter is, it is an almost impossible rule to enforce due to differences in sizes of players. However, the two instances yesterday were clearly outside that realm and were a clear violation of the rule.

Officials have missed several targeting calls (Marquis Warford anyone?) against us, but called the two correctly yesterday.

How can officials "miss" a targeting call where Henderson's helmet is knocked from his head from helmet to helmet contact while he is the ball carrier? I say they didn't miss it, I believe it's the application of the rule that is missing in this discussion.

(11-22-2015 05:19 PM)holyterror Wrote:  In total penalties, Memphis ranks 118th with 7.9 penalties per game. Navy is 1st with 3.

Navy gets away with three holds per possession.

(11-23-2015 09:56 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(11-22-2015 08:00 PM)madtiger Wrote:  

(11-22-2015 04:57 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(11-22-2015 10:25 AM)madtiger Wrote:  The targeting rule DOESN'T require hitting the player in the head. There are two separate targeting 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

Both targeting calls yesterday were correctly officiated- not to say they are right or wrong, but they were correctly enforced.

Dillon very clearly lowered his head and struck Walker in the chest area and lifted his head up to make contact in the head/neck area.

Cross was just a frustration cheap shot.

The game is totally different than it was even 5 or 6 years ago.

OK these are the rules, but what about the application? How come when Henderson's helmet was knocked completely off his head when he was carrying the ball during the Tulsa game - obvious helmet to helmet contact, there was no penalty? You have to discuss the rule in conjunction with the application......

We can argue about the rule being enforced all day long. It isn't called the same everywhere.

I was addressing the fact of "he hit him in the chest" not being targeting.

Fact of the matter is, it is an almost impossible rule to enforce due to differences in sizes of players. However, the two instances yesterday were clearly outside that realm and were a clear violation of the rule.

Officials have missed several targeting calls (Marquis Warford anyone?) against us, but called the two correctly yesterday.

How can officials "miss" a targeting call where Henderson's helmet is knocked from his head while he is the ball carrier? I say they didn't miss it, I believe it's the application of the rule that is missing in this discussion.

Therein lies the rub. If it's a penalty for one team, it's a penalty for any team. The human application is where the thing breaks down. And it doesn't even seem to matter which penalty we're talking about. How many times have you watched a game and seen an offensive player obviously jump offside, and it's not called? Or a defensive player clearly line up in the neutral zone, where it should be an automatic flag, but it's not called?

Then the coaches are not allowed to talk about bad calls without being fined, but there are no consequences for refs blowing it one the field.

it's not the refs fault.

we are an undisciplined team. it's out there with the refs, so they are obviously looking at it more closely...

it is what it is. we have to play this way with our lack of talent on defense. so, we get called for it. I don't know that I've ever seen a team make so many mental errors in regards to defensive penalties that extend drives before....

Both the NFL and college are trying to lessen head shots...which have proven to be really harmful.

Yes...everyone gets that it is a tough sport and there is risk involved and we are getting soft etc...

But, some of the hits were out of line and really did unnecessarily cause some real damage. Trying to get a grip on that is not a bad thing.

I agree there has been an over correction. Please note that last line. We see far too many low...at the knee...hits now. But you see some accidental head hits and you still see a huge number of shots where the hitter bucks his head up after the initial hit. Stop that already.

I'd have to watch it again but I thought Jackson hit their QB in the chest with the facemask and upper part of the front of the helmet. Not the crown.

(11-23-2015 12:17 PM)BERT56 Wrote:  I'd have to watch it again but I thought Jackson hit their QB in the chest with the facemask and upper part of the front of the helmet. Not the crown.

That's what happened, and then Jackson's head came up into the guy's head. I don't know how they look at follow through, though, when it comes to that targeting rule.

(11-23-2015 12:20 PM)snowtiger Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 12:17 PM)BERT56 Wrote:  I'd have to watch it again but I thought Jackson hit their QB in the chest with the facemask and upper part of the front of the helmet. Not the crown.

That's what happened, and then Jackson's head came up into the guy's head. I don't know how they look at follow through, though, when it comes to that targeting rule.

I stand by my earlier statement.

LOL. I never thought it was targeting the very first time I saw the play and then the subsequent replays didn't look like it either...but I'm a no count opinion, being a crossover from the BB program and new to FB fandom. :)

(11-23-2015 12:24 PM)BERT56 Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 12:20 PM)snowtiger Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 12:17 PM)BERT56 Wrote:  I'd have to watch it again but I thought Jackson hit their QB in the chest with the facemask and upper part of the front of the helmet. Not the crown.

That's what happened, and then Jackson's head came up into the guy's head. I don't know how they look at follow through, though, when it comes to that targeting rule.

I stand by my earlier statement.

I agree with you. The penalties are one thing, but you can't help but like that we are playing physical. That is a good sign.

Dillon's should not have been. The crown of the helmet did not initiate anything. He went in picture perfect with the face mask to the chest. He should have been complimented by the officials because that is the intent of the rule. He caught the chin on a glancing blow. No intent, no damage. Certainly no risk of concussion - which is the intent of the rule.

The frustrating is the picking and choosing when to call it. There were 3 occasions they could have called it on Temple and none were called. We get it on blocks and form tackles.

Didn't have anything to do with the result of the game. But the most targeting is the crew targeting us.