Lucky SOBs.*

[Black Diamond Vol]

 

[Creek Walker]

Too many times play callers think too much in crucial situations. It happened to Ohio State after that Stroud scramble.

[Creek Walker]

Also, how much different does this one turn out without UGA's cheap shot on Harrison in the back of the end zone?

[Black Diamond Vol]

That hit that knocked Harrison out of the game- if that's not targeting by rule, then the rule needs to be changed. That was as dirty a play as I've seen. And it literally cost OSU the game. Harrison was absolutely torching UGA to that point.

[Black Diamond Vol]

That hit that knocked Harrison out of the game- if that's not targeting by rule, then the rule needs to be changed. That was as dirty a play as I've seen. And it literally cost OSU the game. Harrison was absolutely torching UGA to that point.

I also wonder about that extremely late TO they gave Smartt before the fake punt. If that were any other team or any other stadium, would they have blown that whistle?

[Coupe De VOL]

fizzle O Cry O state fans.  If UGa has to win a NC in order to fizzle O Cry O State fans it is a puny fizzleing price to pay!!!

If a genie gave me one wish tonight, and only one, it would be to gain posting access to the O-zone tonight.   

[Creek Walker]

That hit that knocked Harrison out of the game- if that's not targeting by rule, then the rule needs to be changed. That was as dirty a play as I've seen. And it literally cost OSU the game. Harrison was absolutely torching UGA to that point.

I learned twice tonight that I don’t have a clue what targeting is. In the TCU game, it was karma that the officials screwed it up. It was clearly targeting but Michigan didn’t deserve another chance on a freak penalty. In the UGA game, it wasn’t as clear cut but it was an example of why I hate the targeting rule so much. We see guys often ejected for a hit that was completely unintentional. In that situation, it was an intentional and completely unnecessary hit, there’s no foul, and it takes the biggest playmaker out of the game and changes the course of the game. That’s BS.

[10EC]

I also wonder about that extremely late TO they gave Smartt before the fake punt. If that were any other team or any other stadium, would they have blown that whistle?

The play was 100% in progress before that side judge blew the whistle.

[PirateVOL]

I learned twice tonight that I don’t have a clue what targeting is. In the TCU game, it was karma that the officials screwed it up. It was clearly targeting but Michigan didn’t deserve another chance on a freak penalty. In the UGA game, it wasn’t as clear cut but it was an example of why I hate the targeting rule so much. We see guys often ejected for a hit that was completely unintentional. In that situation, it was an intentional and completely unnecessary hit, there’s no foul, and it takes the biggest playmaker out of the game and changes the course of the game. That’s BS.

That play highlights an issue I have with the targeting rule

When the GA play launches at the receiver he was upright and the path was to the receiver's chest but by the time he got to the receiver the receiver was going lower to catch the ball and the RECEIVER created the helmet contact by his motion of bringing his head down.  Not a damn thing the DB can do at that point

I have seen that scenario numerous times and it sucks for the defender because he has no ability to avoid contact

By rule probably targeting but in reality IMO it was not

[JeffCountyVolFan]

That play highlights an issue I have with the targeting rule

When the GA play launches at the receiver he was upright and the path was to the receiver's chest but by the time he got to the receiver the receiver was going lower to catch the ball and the RECEIVER created the helmet contact by his motion of bringing his head down.  Not a damn thing the DB can do at that point

I have seen that scenario numerous times and it sucks for the defender because he has no ability to avoid contact

By rule probably targeting but in reality IMO it was not

I agree, unless the defender launches and makes the hit “with the crown of the helmet” after lowering his head.

I have another issue with targeting. If using the crown of the helmet is illegal (and I’m perfectly ok with that rule), why is a ball carrier allowed to use the crown when initiating contact with a defender?

[Black Diamond Vol]

I don’t know the ins and outs of the “crown of the helmet rule” (and I’m not sure anyone else does either). But that was a malicious, unnecessary  hit, leading with the head, on a defenseless player, and it knocked him out of the game. If the objective is to protect players from injury, and that’s NOT a penalty, then what are we even doing here? Protect the players for REAL or scrap the rule entirely.

[Volengineer]

The targeting rule makes no sense.  I gave up on trying to figure that out a while back.  However, now I'm as equally confused of where a ball is spotted when a player is going out of bounds, or the ball IS outside the playing field but the player is in-bounds?? 

UGA definitely got the benefit of a doubt in three critical instances - the time out on the fake punt, the targeting on Harrison, and the 4th down placement of the ball that was out but the player had a foot up in-bounds.

It is just a shame that either team had to win....

[VinnieVOL]

Looked to me like he led with his shoulder.

And what was unnecessary about it?  Stroud lobs it up, what's the defender supposed to do?  Just stand there and let Harrison catch it clean?

[JeffCountyVolFan]

I also thought that he led with the shoulder and hit the receiver more in the upper torso, but the head or neck (I’ll admit I was watching in a crowded room of people and didn’t get to rewind). It was, no doubt, a wickedly vicious hit.

As to the OB ruling on Brock’s catch, I initially thought that the replay had completely missed the call. I’m more convinced that it was a completely legitimate first down. It was a great play made by a great player.

Both of those hurt to admit, because UGA was the team I most wanted to be eliminated yesterday.

[BanditVol]

That hit that knocked Harrison out of the game- if that's not targeting by rule, then the rule needs to be changed. That was as dirty a play as I've seen. And it literally cost OSU the game. Harrison was absolutely torching UGA to that point.

x1000.  Whatever the technicalities, it was a cheap shot by a thug and should have been penalized.

[Creek Walker]

I think Ryan Day said it best when he said the official explained to him that it wasn't targeting because Harrison wasn't hit in the head, and he asked how can you get a concussion if there's no hit to the head.

One common misconception about targeting is that the defender has to lead with the helmet for it to be targeting. Untrue. In defenseless player situations — which specifically includes players who are in the process of catching a pass — any forcible contact above the shoulders is targeting, regardless of whether the defender led with the helmet.

I think it was targeting. But as I said earlier, my main beef is that we're supposedly trying to protect players, and that was far more of a vicious and unnecessary hit than we often see players ejected for, whether or not it was targeting. I don't buy the "is he supposed to just let Harrison catch the ball?" argument. You can defend that play without that hit. Especially in college ball, where receivers aren't given the benefit of the doubt as to whether they would've been able to come down in-bounds. A simple shove would've knocked Harrison out of play, whether he catches the ball or not. The UGA defender wasn't trying to defend the pass. He was trying to lay as hard a lick as possible on a guy who couldn't protect himself because he was attempting a catch. That is EXACTLY what football rules are supposed to be trying to fix. I don't necessarily like how soft football is becoming (see the ridiculous roughing the passer call against the Titans in the Thursday night NFL game against the Cowboys, for example) but hits like the one on Harrison should be penalized.

[PirateVOL]

I think Ryan Day said it best when he said the official explained to him that it wasn't targeting because Harrison wasn't hit in the head, and he asked how can you get a concussion if there's no hit to the head.

One common misconception about targeting is that the defender has to lead with the helmet for it to be targeting. Untrue. In defenseless player situations — which specifically includes players who are in the process of catching a pass — any forcible contact above the shoulders is targeting, regardless of whether the defender led with the helmet.

I think it was targeting. But as I said earlier, my main beef is that we're supposedly trying to protect players, and that was far more of a vicious and unnecessary hit than we often see players ejected for, whether or not it was targeting. I don't buy the "is he supposed to just let Harrison catch the ball?" argument. You can defend that play without that hit. Especially in college ball, where receivers aren't given the benefit of the doubt as to whether they would've been able to come down in-bounds. A simple shove would've knocked Harrison out of play, whether he catches the ball or not. The UGA defender wasn't trying to defend the pass. He was trying to lay as hard a lick as possible on a guy who couldn't protect himself because he was attempting a catch. That is EXACTLY what football rules are supposed to be trying to fix. I don't necessarily like how soft football is becoming (see the ridiculous roughing the passer call against the Titans in the Thursday night NFL game against the Cowboys, for example) but hits like the one on Harrison should be penalized.

You keep saying it was unnecessary  hit when he arrived near simultaneously as the ball.  The object is to stop the reception, he did that.
I don't think it was targeting and the movement of the head within the helmet could have cause a concussion

[JeffCountyVolFan]

I think it was vicious, but I don’t think it was targeting.

A forcible and sudden movement of the head can cause the brain to bounce around inside the cranial cavity, causing a concussion. I’m sure that his world was rocked after that hit.

Football is a violent sport and you won’t see many hits worse than that, but I don’t think it was either targeting or unnecessary according to the current rules than govern the game.

[Tnphil]

Whip lash or sudden jerking of the head can cause concussions.

I was sort of surprised it was overturned....but by rule that was a de-cleater and not targeting.

[Creek Walker]

The object is to stop the reception, he did that.

The same can be said of a lot of plays that are penalized. Blind-side blocks that spring punt returners for touchdowns, for example. Many on this forum were furious with an Akron defender's hit on Ced Tillman that was much less egregious than the hit on Harrison last night.

It was a cheap shot.

[BanditVol]

You keep saying it was unnecessary  hit when he arrived near simultaneously as the ball.  The object is to stop the reception, he did that.
I don't think it was targeting and the movement of the head within the helmet could have cause a concussion

It was a thug hit by a thug player, a cheap shot. 

Just because you hate OSU doesn't make that play right. CW is absolutely right.  Technicalities aside the rule is supposed to protect players and it did not in this case.  Furthermore the play could have been defended without the unnecessary violence.

[Tnphil]

I saw nothing on the Tillman  hit that was illegal. Tillman had to go high for one of Hookers high throws and that was the main  reason for the hit resulting in the injury.

[Coupe De VOL]

I'm a huge fan of Marv Sr and have amazingly liked watching his son play despite the team he plays for.  Call me a solid fan of Marv Jr.  But I don't see the hit as a cheap shot at all.  Jr was in the process of catching the ball - in the EZ to boot - and the Dawg delivered a punishing, but totally legal hit to break up the catch.  There is NOTHING cheap shot about it.  Cheap shots are delivered to players who are not expecting it or who have their guard down.  That is TOTALLY not the case here.  He is catching a pass in the endzone, in traffic - OF COURSE HE IS EXPECTING TO GET BELTED.  And he got belted.  I hate it that a player I admire got hurt.  But jeez, concussions are inherently a part of the game.  Of course rules should be set to minimize these (all all types) of injuries.  But thank goodness there is not a subjective "too vicious" a hit rule. I like how the targeting rule is objectively laid out.  I am all for letting the defense hit rcvrs as hard as they can as long as there is no spearing or other types of illegal hits.  Changing that aspect of the game would make football some other game than football. 

[BanditVol]

It was a cheap hit cause he was a dawg.  End of story! 

[Coupe De VOL]

It was a cheap hit cause he was a dawg.  End of story! 

That's what a figgered.  My pet peeve on cheap shots are late hits after the ball carrier is down.  You see that way too much, even now.  And I believe there are plenty of coaches out there that coach that crap.  I think there are coaches out there that coach hurting the opponent as opposed to delivering hard hits.  There is an oh so subtle difference between the two.