Rules Question: Why did the Refs pick up the flag for targeting on Wimsatt?
- Thread starter RCBeta79
- Start date
Because we were playing In Wisconsin
Obviously concluded it was unintentional and an unavoidable helmet to helmet hit that occurred inadvertently when trying to make a play. I’m not saying I agree but that would be the premise of the reversal.
Because he was a runner he was not a defenseless player, so he has less protection. If he was defenseless player simply making contact to the head or neck area would be targeting. In this case because he did not hit him with the crown of the helmet so it was not targeting. I think they got the call correct because he lead with the shoulder. It looked egregious because it was out in the open on a qb but hits like that happen all game on running backs between the tackles.
That’s fair. I didn’t think it was an unreasonable reversal. The PI call on Melton was frustrating. Really didn’t see early contact there.
Not crown of helmet, not out of bounds and not late. Absolutely the right call.
The missed call was the late out of bounds shove the play before that. I thought given this miss they’d let the next flag stand, but it would have meant ejecting the player, which wouldn’t be proper for a clean hit.
The missed call was the late out of bounds shove the play before that. I thought given this miss they’d let the next flag stand, but it would have meant ejecting the player, which wouldn’t be proper for a clean hit.
The counter to the hit was that the defender also launched. 9/10 times- that call stands on a QB on the sideline
Yeah I agree that one was bad. It was clean coverage and I seen a lot more contact that wasn't called.
Like the one guy holding Jackson’s arm on a slant. These female refs are terrible.
That call was bs and in the same play there was a very obvious open-field hold by one of their OL
You could tell GS is noticing it and getting annoyed. There was one play Wisc D line jumped early but no call. They showed GS talking to the side judge about it.
He lowered his head. How the refs missed this is baffling
He lowered his head and launched directly at the head of Wimsatt.... That's pretty much the very definition of targeting (or what used to be called spearing). The fact that the crown of his helmet wasn't the first thing that made contact to me is a technicality
2 flags picked up already this season, and we haven't played tOSU yet!
I am sure we will hit the record.
I am sure we will hit the record.
add in that "disconcerting signal" BS. The defender charged was on the other end of the line from the OL who jumped... no other OL jumped. That was one BS call... and then you have the Wisky DL coming across the line early on a snap.. even making contact and we saw Greg asking the line judge about it and when teh official shook his head ("I didn't see it") you saw Greg mouthing "WOW"... shocked.
We got screwed.. countless holds on our pass rush allowing Mordecai to scoot upfield.
Total screwjob by refs.. and this time, I think it could have affected the outcome.. unlike the typical Michigan or OSU game.
If lowering the head and launching yourself toward a player is targeting then there would be 20 targeting penalties a game. Like I said above the launching toward the head or neck area only applies to a defenseless player, not a ball carrier. There are actually two rules that apply. Rule 9-1-3 applies to with crown of the helmet and Rule 9-4-1 applies to a defenseless player. If he had lead with the crown then it definitely met the definition but his head was up.
Rule 9-1-3
Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet
ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 9-6) (A.R. 9-1-3-I)
Rule 9-1-4
Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player
ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)
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. Some indicators of targeting 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 the helmet
Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14).
Examples of defenseless players include but are not limited to:
• A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
• A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
• A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return. • A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier..
• A player on the ground.
• A player obviously out of the play.
• A player who receives a blind-side block.
• A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped. RULE 9 / CONDUCT OF PLAYERSAND OTHERS SUBJECT TO RULES FR-89
• A quarterback any time after a change of possession
• A ball carrier who has obviously given himself up and is sliding feetfirst.
Even if it there were not enough technical issues for targeting, there still should be "unnecessary roughness" since Wimsatt was basically already down. Rule may need to be changed to allow non-ejection penalty.
Yeah, he pretty much satisfied everything in Note 1 except he missed slightly, and contact wasn't initially by the crown of the helmet. The intent was clearly there, but for bad aim.
If the intent of the targeting rule is to clean up dangerous play, he should have been tossed. It's like aiming a gun at someone's head and pulling the trigger, and then getting off with no punishment at all because the bullet only grazed them... There's apparently no targeting equivalent to attempted murder.
Bigger question for me was
How was Gavin cleared to go back in???
Clearly hit his head
Tried to get up stumbled and fell back to the ground
Did that get addressed by medical staff?
Sometimes we have to protect players from their desires of wanting to go back in and finish the game
How was Gavin cleared to go back in???
Clearly hit his head
Tried to get up stumbled and fell back to the ground
Did that get addressed by medical staff?
Sometimes we have to protect players from their desires of wanting to go back in and finish the game
He wasn't even close to hitting with the crown of his helmet (The top). They don't call almost penalties. Do they call facemask because he came close to grabbing the facemask? Do you want them to call roughing the punter because he almost hit the kickers leg and that could have been a dangerous play?
Basically, “unnecessary roughness” is not a penalty nowadays. Basically, it’s “personal foul” and one of a few varieties: late hit, facemask, etc. but basically, send your personal version of the rules to the NCAA. Maybe they’ll adopt for next year, basically.
Basically, ‘basically already down’ isn’t a rule either, basically.
Would they call a penalty if a player tried to punch a ref and missed, or does the ref have to land on his ass for it to count?
What if a player tried to cleat stomp a player's arm on the ground, but the guys reaction time was too good? Do there have to be broken bones for there to be a consequence?
If the intent is player safety, then the intent is player safety. If the intent is to allow dangerous play as long as it falls into a technicality loophole, then the rule book gets so bogged down with minutia that it's impossible for refs to know it all.
Unsportsmanlike conduct has a broad enough definition to be able to serve as an alternate penalty for situations like that. Still a penalty, and two of them gets you ejected.
Why are you here? I don’t understand people that go to other teams sites much less engage in a condescending manner every time they post. This is now the third or fourth time I have noticed you posting and it has always been the same thing.
Even though by letter of the rule, that was targeting, it still is a judgement call. Just like PI or holding. Ref's affect the game by what they choose to call, as well as what they don't.
I think if the play was reversed, there WOULD have been an upheld penalty! Just look at the time Wisky got their first penalty!
I think if the play was reversed, there WOULD have been an upheld penalty! Just look at the time Wisky got their first penalty!
I just rewatched it mult time and slowed it down and paused at contact and after.
And first, let's start with the unwriten. Since it was a QB- they almost always make this call targeting.
Now- the defender obviously saw GW was going down, and even with that, he could have prevented a hard blow to the head by just rolling a bit.
Defender launched and his helmet/shoulder was launched directly at GW's head/upper shoulder. Defender also followed through with his arms coming up into the hit as well.
There was launch, intent, helmet to helmet and could have been avoided. And, it was a QB.
And first, let's start with the unwriten. Since it was a QB- they almost always make this call targeting.
Now- the defender obviously saw GW was going down, and even with that, he could have prevented a hard blow to the head by just rolling a bit.
Defender launched and his helmet/shoulder was launched directly at GW's head/upper shoulder. Defender also followed through with his arms coming up into the hit as well.
There was launch, intent, helmet to helmet and could have been avoided. And, it was a QB.
That was our take. Targeting could be argued either way.. though the shove with eh arm after teh impact added to my take that it was targeting. But for it to not be ANY penalty? That's just wrong. The hit served no purpose other than to punish and everyone knew it.. certainly the official throwing the flag knew it.
yes.. even on sacks you see defenders let go of the QB instead of riding him into the ground.. that defender added to the impact by pushing him into the ground as well. Intention unnecessary roughness at a minimum.
Against Michigan we saw Wimsatt get blindsided in the open field during a pick-six return while he was behind the play.. no flag. Not even any commentary by the announcers pointing it out. Rutgers is getting screwed by these refs. Fair is fair.
I'd rarely side with a PSU fan, but I generally don't find @PSU_Nut 's post to be condescending, and in the particular post to which you responded, unless I missed it, he was merely quoting the rules and the notes. I thought what he posted was helpful. 🤷♂️
No it was earlier posts (not necessarily in this thread). It's the general tone of his previous posts. The one I quoted is innocent enough but when one is a guest, especially one from a hated school, they probably shouldn't lecture or take the opposite opinion.
The post in this thread was fine, as was posting the rules. As someone just mentioned though, the poster has a history.
So- by his "innocent" posting- he is really just trying to lecture us in a polite way.
I don't pay too close attention to what he posts.
Don't burn me at the stake!!! Could be my not paying close attention. He's better than Shelby and yessir and brgrc90, (and some others) no? 😂
Gavin was already being tackled by another player and was essentially defenseless when the second player came flying in with helmet to helmet contact. Chris Carton was beside himself saying that if that wasn’t targeting, what was?
Gavin being treated for possible concussion is more evidence.
Ref on the spot called targeting.
You just get the feeling if the teams were reversed, the call would have stood up
Gavin being treated for possible concussion is more evidence.
Ref on the spot called targeting.
You just get the feeling if the teams were reversed, the call would have stood up
