🏀 KuBuckets Archive

Is it time to remove the pads in football and switch to flags? Anybody else think the ejection of the Clemson player for this hit was stupid? And the play was reviewed! Maybe the rules should be changed to allow the receiver to catch the ball and land before he can be hit. In any case, the ejection and suspension for the first half of next game was stupid in my opinion. And, unlike my son, I'm not a Clemson fan.

[link text](

The following from a SI article:

According to a handout produced by College Football Officiating, LLC, if officials see the following things, the risk of a targeting foul is high:

• Launching toward an opponent to make contact in the head or neck area.

• A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust with contact at the head or neck area.

• Leading with the helmet, forearm, fist, hand or elbow into the head or neck area.

• Lowering the head before attacking and initiating with the crown of the helmet.

According to that same handout, the following factors would indicate less risk of a targeting penalty being called:

• A heads-up tackle where the crown of the helmet does not strike above the shoulders.

• A wrap-up tackle.

• The head is to the side rather than used to initiate contact.

• Incidental helmet contact due to players changing position during the play.

"We want you to put your head to the side, turn your shoulder into the player, and lower your strike zone, and if you do those things, there are going to be times when, just through the normal course of play, there may be some incidental contact," Anderson said. "We want to be sure we're differentiating that type of action from the intentional act of targeting a player high."

It should also be noted the ACC director of officials was in the tv booth and commented that the ruling should be overturned by the reviewing official. Then later to get in lock step with the ACC higher ups he changed his opinion because he didn't see all the replays.

By the rulebook. that is pretty clearly targeting.

The receiver qualifies as a defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14) because he is a player attempting to catch a pass and has not had time to protect himself.

The defensive player pretty clearly launches (Note 1 of Rule 9-1-3 and 9-1-4) by leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust.

Launching to target a defenseless player is a penalty.

That's also an incredibly dangerous play for both the offensive and defensive players involved.

For the defensive player, his head and neck are in a position where he could cause himself substantial injury. He didn't quite lead with the head, but that is a dangerous play that absolutely should not be taught given what we know now about head and neck injuries for defensive players making those types of plays.

Obviously, the offensive player had the concussion protocol run on him, which is clearly the main risk to him.

In football, all to often coaches are still teaching players to "blow a guy up" rather than making a fundamental tackle. We teach too much hitting and not enough tackling. If that player is coming in to make a fundamental tackle (or make a play on the ball) there is no penalty. Because he is looking only to "blow a guy up" he draws the penalty flag.

@justanotherfan See my further entries below the video.

Whats worse than some of the targeting calls in football that are questionable is the flopping when there is a big dog pile.

Forget the flags, just play soccer if thats how tough guys act.

When football was played by REAL men.

link text ↗

The rule I don't like, and it only applies to HS, is that runners can't return kick offs out of the end zone. With the inability of most HS players to reach the end zone it's not applied too much, but it is a rule. Don't think it applies to punt returns however.

I've seen some egregious calls this year. Not sure if this one quite fits the category. IMO the defender didn't need to launch himself into the receiver like he did.

@wissoxfan83 Maybe so. If he hit him low, flips him and he lands on his head, is he any better off?

Well the NFL reduced the number of KO returns by moving the point up for KO's. So let's abandon the KO and just place the ball on the 20.

IMHO. whether intentional or not, that was clearly a helmet to helmet hard contact, extremely dangerous and by rule a serious infraction.

I am all for stop sissifing the game; however, I am also against practices that can cause permanent damage to another player, particularly when he is unprotected. The NFL has gone long way to prevent this type of hits and does not even allow the QB to be tackled once he starts sliding (see yesterday's Chiefs game). To me, this hit hits fall in the dangerous category.

Are ya'll watching the same video as I am? The defender led with his shoulder to the rcvr's chest. How can side of helmet to facemask be called hard helmet to helmet contact? Look closely and the rcvr's facemask came down on the defenders helmet. And as I mentioned, the ACC director of officials was in the tv booth and even he said the ruling should be overturned. There was no leading with the helmet. To me the defender turned to ensure he would not use his helmet. Maybe i need new glasses. Thanks for the opinions.

@brooksmd was the guy hurt?

@Crimsonorblue22 It happened at the beginning of the 4th qtr and he didn't return. However, the next day he tweeted all was well.