VTTW Board Index

Absolutely clear targeting on Bama defender on the kickoff.  CBS crew calls out the replay official on the air.  Birmingham sends CBS crew word that the returner wasn't defenseless.  Hey Birmingham, you still can't use the crown of the helmet to the helmet of the ball carrier!

I've heard a lot of people say that the SEC office should move to Charlotte (where the SEC Network is HQ'd).  That's sounding like a better idea every week. :frown:

The SEC office is a lot like Donald Trump, I guess. They think just ust because they say something that everyone will just accept it as the truth.

Somewhere other than Alabama, for sure.

I'm not sure that would make a difference, but it couldn't hurt.

LOL- and now A&M's guy DOES get tossed after review. :frown:

And now they call the targeting on TAMU!!!!

BOTH were targeting!!! Let's just call the one on TAMU, not the one on Bama. Hahaha.

They don't even attempt to hide the bias.

The funniest part is that it wasn't called on the field in either case.  They had to stop play to review the call against A&M, and they didn't even bother to do so on the one against bammer.  That's all coming from the league office in Birmingham. :frown:

Exactly.

They were both obvious targeting violations and neither was called on the field.

From a post on the VA:
"Targeting: An Expanded Role for Instant Replay
By rule, every targeting foul is reviewed by the instant replay official. Up to this point, the replay official's role has been to verify whether the forcible contact was with the crown of the helmet or was struck at the head or neck area of a defenseless player. Now as part of the review, the replay official is directed to examine all elements of the ruling made by the official on the field, not only the location of the forcible contact. In addition, the replay official is empowered to "create" a foul if he sees an obvious and egregious targeting action that the officials on the field miss. Because the action is so dangerous and the ejection penalty so severe, the committee has made these changes to increase the probability that targeting fouls are correctly ruled and administered."
 

Rick Neuheisel might also wanna read the rule.

No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) 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.
This specifies a hit with the top of the helmet, but not necessarily a hit to the opponent’s helmet.

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.

Bammer completely got away with one, just like long hair hippy POS of Tamu did against Vols.

It seems they are reluctant to call it on the home team.  Then again, when does a call ever go against bammer?   :frown:

The SEC office contends that the player wasn't defenseless. As I read the rule that isn't necessary.

In both today's case and EB's hit, the play was a kick return. Both were clear target violations. They called neither.

Am I misreading the rule?