You're so incorrect it's unbelievable. Defender is taught to tackle as Powell did there. The runner dipped at the last second and there's nothing you can do there to have some contact. I can't believe a Rutgers fan can't see that.
Yahoo Sports Slams "Targeting" Call
- Thread starter NotInRHouse
- Start date
If that play was targeting then you would have to agree that there should be 10 + targeting calls a game.
Because that type tackle happens that often.
By rule I thought it was targeting but I also thought the hit in Dremel was 100% targeting. So I am confused.
That’s my issue. It’s inconsistent.
You must be the clown in your mom's basement never seeing the light of day. I guarantee you are fatter then I am and eating chips and nachos typing your bullcrap fatso!
Guess you looked past the fact that we played you know a B1G team Who also gets paid. Have any official worth a damn rewatch this game then get back to us
I agree with this. RBs get met in the line very often with hits like this, and it doesn’t get noticed because there are bodies all over the place. But this play was so good by Powell that it was just him and the RB in the backfield. Easier to see. I do not think a play like this is in the spirit of what the targeting rule intended, but I do agree that by the letter of the law, it was targeting. My issue is how inconsistently it’s applied (and often defined).
Where was Powell's head facing on impact? Straight down! As I Rutgers fan I do know that is bad. Obviously you have no clue or care about past history
Lame. There's no coming back from my rhetorical beatdown of your curmudgeonly, corpulent carcass. I am super funny and witty and you are an illiterate blowhard. Lick your wounds white puss.
White puss comeback = "I'm not a fatso, you're a fatso too".
Or as white puss would put it. "Your a fatso to".
What bothers me about this is that the Dremmel one should have been reviewed. Very similar hits
My only problem with the call was it was a bang bang play. I know thems the rules but its not like Powell had an unimpeded lane to the RB. He just squeezed thru the line and hit the RB nearly instantly after.
Is that the best you got? Funny and witty sounds like what your mom says to you chubby boy!
They didn't call it on the field. During the commercial break the replay guys reviewed and called down with the penalty. It's not as cut and dry as the official statement makes it. It's close to brow instead of crown which is a big difference when not a defenseless player.
The officials need to be able to take the context into account. He was on the runner in an instant. There was literally no time or maneuvering space for him to change his angle or "target" anything. In a split second the runner and the LB collided and neither of them could avoid it. It's either a bad call or a horrible rule. In this case, given how much discretion the officials get NOT calling this all the time, think it's both a bad call and a bad rule.
I've looked at this play on video a number of times. If the call is right, then just about any contact between helmets is illegal. That would mean line play is illegal. I don't see how football can be played without contact between helmets.
I watched the safety for Iowa come in and destroy the RB for Wisconsin on a key 4th down conversion. There was head contact no less than what Powell did. Of course no penalty was called; it was a great football play. Much the same as was Powell’s. The inconsistency of these calls against RU is becoming outrageous.
Given how close the two players were when they started to engage, there was no real option for either player to decide how they would approach the collision. It just occurred. The only way for the RU player to avoid the helmet collision would have been to attempt to whiff on the tackle. The whole idea of "targeting" implies some intent or decision by the player doing the targeting. That clearly was not the case.
Not to mention finished with his head up. It is exactly the type of perfect fundamental tackle every single coach teaches.
Let's just settle this- by letter of the rule- if it is determined that his hit was an inch higher on his helmet or maybe 2 inches then the letter of the law says- then by rule- it would be targeting. But let's also agree- this hit happens between a RB or a DL/LB 100 times- and this is the 1 single time it may be called.
Just like the hit on GW gets called at least 70% of the time.
The hit on Dremel was also by rule, targeting but maybe only gets called 20% of the time. I wouldn't even mention that hit so much any other game but it has to be mentioned when we lose our best defender by a lessor offense.
Just like the hit on GW gets called at least 70% of the time.
The hit on Dremel was also by rule, targeting but maybe only gets called 20% of the time. I wouldn't even mention that hit so much any other game but it has to be mentioned when we lose our best defender by a lessor offense.
Jl
This should end it, but I have to admit that Angmo and White Bus were entertaining.
This. It's like nobody associated with football officiating is aware of the concept that the offensive player moves sometimes. Sure, if the offensive player always moves in a straight line, the defensive player might have some chance of perfectly positioning his body and making a form tackle. However, if the offensive player moves after the defensive player has committed (or if the defensive player isn't even aware he is in the immediate vicinity of the ball carrier until the moment of impact), there is a very, very small chance of making a perfect form tackle. Sometimes helmets are going to collide; it's why you wear them.
The quickest way to demonstrate this is take a kid and put him 20 yards away from you. Then tell him to put his hand out and wave it as he runs full speed in a straight line right past you while you stand still. Then try and tag his hand as he's running by you. It's impossible. That's how hard it is to target someone's facemask with the top of your helmet (if he's running in a straight line right at you). Then remember that most of the time, he's going to be actively trying to avoid you.
I was thinking it’s probably safer for him to get his head up when tackling anyway. Keeping the head down exposes the neck to compression damage, no?
That assumes he knew he was going to make contact at the point in time that contact occurred.
If that's a penalty in 2023 then please just cancel the sport. It wasn't a headhunting play, it was a textbook tackle
That's what they say, but I think it's BS. It also makes you far more likely to receive a concussion if your neck is pinned back and you take one on the chin. It's a dangerous sport. Accidents are going to happen. The most dangerous aspect of the sport is when a smaller player is indecisive and a larger player isn't. The best way to make a smaller player indecisive is to give them a rule that interpreted differently by every official and that interferes with the "see the ball, put your helmet on the ball" mindset.
Not true. He lowered his head and led with the crown of the helmet. Used to be called spearing. Not how taught. The issue is, it’s not often called on similar plays.
Lol the cuse fan getting involved now. Spearing not even close.
In the context of this particular play, I’m not sure how he could’ve avoided this without compromising speed which would also impede his ability to make the play on the ball. That’s not the spirit of the rule to have to slow down and let an RB by you to avoid the possibility of this technicality.
Yes - this 100%. That’s why the fact that no flag was thrown and a booth review determined this seemed so outrageous. The refs didn’t see it as deliberate enough to even make the call on the field.
Targeting should be reserved for egregious hits made to a defenseless player. It reminds me of a quote by a supreme court justice: "It is like porn, hard to define, but you know it when you see it". I think the same principle applies to targeting, you know it when you see it. This was NOT targeting, either by the eye test, nor even the letter of the rule, being the hit landed on the runner's chest. SMH
^ this ^
There is not a single person who could say that that hit was “targeting” by the INTENT of the rule
You are absolutely correct THAT was not the type of hit they are trying to address
The few on here saying it was targetting are hanging their hat on a “technically by the letter of the law” argument. I don’t agree with that either. But IF they are right, IF, then it only proves that the rule isn’t written correctly as that is NOT the kind of hit that they were trying legislate out of the game.
The announcers during the Final Drive were literally laughing over the call. I’m gonna take their opinion over a few know-nothings on here (at least one of whom spends all day on here just picking fights).
I would also say this- I’d be willing to bet, not a single MST fan went into that commercial yelling that the tackle was targeting. And we’re just as surprised as we were when it was called.
Excellent point. There is incidental helmet to helmet contact on dozens of plays per game on average. Play does not stop for a booth review of the contact angle each time this happens, nor should it. While perhaps not written point blank into the rule one way or the other, common senses should dictate that if a flag isn’t even thrown, a booth review should only happen in a situation where on replay, the hit appears blatantly avoidable (in the spirit of making the play) and intentional.
If not for the 3+ minute media timeout, that call doesn't get made in this game. But the dweebs upstairs with 4K super slo-mo replays buzzed down to the officials. I have to shake my head at where this sport has ended up.
Exactly- and without the media timeout and the BS call- that play would have also been seen mult times already on every sorts channel with not a single personality saying "but that should be targeting" - they would all be gushing about how Jennings just "blew up" that play in one of the plays of the week.
To Gef's point- you are taught to tackle differently, as the lowered head is very dangerous to yourself. That that play was bang bang with the runner dipping and the tackler just doing his job and a natural function of the body to get lower yourself, usually starts with the head. And when you see the play real time- you just can't even see it.
Powell is a good 6'4-6'5. How the hell is he supposed to tackle a much shorter players unless he gets low. Is he supposed to stand upright, take the contact in his chest area and get hurt, bowled over or both?
J walking is a rule violation also. Doesn't mean you write the ticket. J walking across Easton Ave no. J walking and hopping the barrier across Route 18, yes.
Awareness and context is required with most rules.
Most of these rules guys lack awareness and consistency.
Awareness and context is required with most rules.
Most of these rules guys lack awareness and consistency.
