Replies: 96
| visibility 3
|
Commissioner [958]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 994
Joined: 10/15/15
|
Gallman Hit
Oct 16, 2016, 8:46 AM
|
|
Was the Hit on Gallman legal because he was a running back. The shot he took was definitely initiated by opponents Helmet to Gallmans head!
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1123]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1365
Joined: 9/4/12
|
It was a bad call.
Oct 16, 2016, 8:46 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2136]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1837
Joined: 10/22/13
|
People just get knocked out cold from clean hits to the head
Oct 16, 2016, 9:25 AM
|
|
LOL. OK
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6752]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 9796
Joined: 9/22/11
|
If Boulware made a hit like that, he would have been kicked
Oct 19, 2016, 3:32 AM
[ in reply to It was a bad call. ] |
|
out of game, and the media would still be talking about suspending him forever!
|
|
|
|
|
1st Rounder [617]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 1006
Joined: 12/11/01
|
Re: It was a bad call.
Oct 24, 2016, 8:05 PM
[ in reply to It was a bad call. ] |
|
I just noticed that it looked like Gallman's head took another lick by a NCStste player as that player fell to the ground!'!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9385]
TigerPulse: 72%
Posts: 18375
Joined: 2/20/09
|
Nope just a huge part of refs
Oct 16, 2016, 8:47 AM
|
|
Game plan. Don't call anything obvious
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [958]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 994
Joined: 10/15/15
|
Re: Nope just a huge part of refs
Oct 24, 2016, 8:48 PM
|
|
They can now review N.C.STATES coach's response!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4085]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4885
Joined: 12/22/03
|
Re: Gallman Hit
Oct 16, 2016, 8:48 AM
|
|
It's crazy how this wasn't even considered targeting yet Boulware's hit last week was.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3226]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5448
Joined: 8/30/11
|
Regardless whether it was legal or not -
Oct 16, 2016, 1:53 PM
|
|
had a Clemson player made that hit, the refs & whoever would still be looking at the film.
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [958]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 994
Joined: 10/15/15
|
Re: Regardless whether it was legal or not -
Oct 18, 2016, 6:20 PM
|
|
I agree with this comment
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83468]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 80286
Joined: 11/29/99
|
No targeting and that shouldn't be. When the offensive
Oct 16, 2016, 8:51 AM
|
|
player's head is moving and he has much to do with the contact as the defensive player, it's not targeting. They don't ever call it when it happens like that.
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13403]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9900
Joined: 1/23/06
|
Not true. The offensive players head is always moving....
Oct 16, 2016, 8:55 AM
|
|
I know you're talking about moving elevation, but that has no bearing on the call.
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [958]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 994
Joined: 10/15/15
|
Re: No targeting and that shouldn't be. When the offensive
Oct 16, 2016, 8:56 AM
[ in reply to No targeting and that shouldn't be. When the offensive ] |
|
Understood, but based on that every defensive back should lead with their helmet to every running backs helmet in order to take them out of the game....right?
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3405]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5216
Joined: 1/26/09
|
Re: No targeting and that shouldn't be. When the offensive
Oct 16, 2016, 9:10 AM
[ in reply to No targeting and that shouldn't be. When the offensive ] |
|
Where Gallman was hit does not matter for targeting. The defender lead AND initiated contact with the crown of his helmet. The hit could have been to the head, chest, balls, etc... it doesn't matter. The defender has to keep his head up. The rule is written that way to protect the offensive and defensive player. It should have been called.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4821]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6171
Joined: 9/16/06
|
^^^this^^^
Oct 16, 2016, 12:50 PM
|
|
tRGETING NO DOUBT
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [958]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 994
Joined: 10/15/15
|
Re: ^^^this^^^
Oct 17, 2016, 6:48 AM
|
|
I agree this thread has plenty of video at the beginning for all to see
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11012]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9455
Joined: 12/29/06
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5098]
TigerPulse: 42%
Posts: 17078
Joined: 7/19/05
|
Re: No targeting and that shouldn't be. When the offensive
Oct 16, 2016, 9:13 AM
[ in reply to No targeting and that shouldn't be. When the offensive ] |
|
Yeah I'm curious what guidance the refs get in this situation.
It would seem the rules would be unfair if a defender is reaponsibl for an offensive player lowering his head.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5472]
TigerPulse: 89%
Posts: 11936
Joined: 9/23/01
|
Re: No targeting and that shouldn't be. When the offensive
Oct 24, 2016, 8:58 PM
|
|
Oh crap here's the coot yall
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94508]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95661
Joined: 12/25/09
|
|
|
|
|
All-Conference [449]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 726
Joined: 3/5/08
|
Re: No targeting and that shouldn't be. When the offensive
Oct 16, 2016, 10:46 AM
[ in reply to No targeting and that shouldn't be. When the offensive ] |
|
A ball carrier's head is pretty much always moving, so I think that had little to do with it. The DB used his helmet to tackle Gallman, making no apparent attempt to extend his arms or engage his shoulders. That's what makes this hit targeting IMO
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4142]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4397
Joined: 10/22/14
|
Re: No targeting and that shouldn't be. When the offensive
Oct 16, 2016, 10:52 AM
|
|
I thought that the helmet tackle was the most reliable and taught technique? Look, I'm not crying for the call, penalties that SHOULD be called get missed all the time, like in the 4th quarter Wilkins getting stretch mugged and bear hugged. Like sometimes our DB'S getting overly physical with WR's. It happens. But let's not say that wasn't targeting. I don't think it was intentional for ahead to head hit. I think the guy wanted to do just what he did, to knock the ball loose. Unfortunately WG's head also got in the way.
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [231]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 267
Joined: 8/11/08
|
Re: No targeting and that shouldn't be. When the offensive
Oct 24, 2016, 9:36 PM
|
|
You'd have a point if this same defender didn't spear 2 more of our players the same way during the game. That's why when he got injured vs Louisville and their RB Dayes go injured by the same type of hit I couldn't help but think "Karma is a *****!
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10389]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12844
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Re: No targeting and that shouldn't be. When the offensive
Oct 16, 2016, 11:15 AM
[ in reply to No targeting and that shouldn't be. When the offensive ] |
|
if he goes in with his head up I say good hit. He put his head down and led with the crown. This is the definition of targeting.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6584]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10210
Joined: 11/2/03
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [203]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 308
Joined: 9/30/16
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13403]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9900
Joined: 1/23/06
|
That is the definition of targeting.
Oct 16, 2016, 8:53 AM
|
|
Leading with the helmet and making contact with the head or neck area.
That's aweful.
Message was edited by: elwyn07®
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [40157]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18301
Joined: 10/28/15
|
you beat me to it and said it better, +1***
Oct 16, 2016, 8:55 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3511]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2804
Joined: 11/14/14
|
Re: you beat me to it and said it better, +1***
Oct 16, 2016, 9:38 AM
|
|
It's not a matter of it being a clean or dirty play! The rule says if you make contact in the head or neck area while leading with the crown of the helmet it is considered targeting. The pentalty is 15 yards and disqualification of the player. This rule is to protect against concussions. I agree that we cannot limit hard contact and would not want to but to limit the occurrences of concussions is necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [40157]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18301
Joined: 10/28/15
|
Gallman did lowere his head so I don't the was
Oct 16, 2016, 8:53 AM
|
|
Intentional. But that doesn't mater. If the defender doesn't lead with the crown of his head this doesn't happen. This is exactly why targeting was created to stop concussions and neck injuries. Odd that you don't call the one that actually caused what it was created to prevent but you call others that wouldn't have caused injury.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2877]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3857
Joined: 11/19/11
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [105]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10
Joined: 11/24/15
|
Re: Gallman Hit
Oct 17, 2016, 12:09 PM
|
|
A player does not need to be deemed "defenseless", in order for targeting to be called. The refs and replay officials totally missed this call. The DB lead with the crown of his helmet and made contact against the head of the running back. A lot of people will say that Gallman lowered his head and the DB was just trying to go low. None of that is stated in Rule 9-1-3. The DB initiated contact against the opponent with the crown of his helmet. The Key Indicators also uphold there should have been a call. Lowered head before attacking, initiating with crown with contact to head. Clemson should have retained the ball, 15 yard penalty and ejection. Period!
RULES
Targeting and Initiating Contact With the Crown of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3)
No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.
KEY INDICATORS Leading with helmet, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with contact at the head or neck area Lowering the head before attacking by initiating contact with the crown of the helmet
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5505
Joined: 9/28/09
|
Sorry..Clean hit.
Oct 16, 2016, 8:55 AM
|
|
Gallman bent forward as the player was coming in. He was aiming for the football which he hit. Lakip did the same thing in the Notre Dame game when he led with his helmet and put it on the ball.
This is still a contact sport.
Message was edited by: CU_Tigers4life®
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [40157]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18301
Joined: 10/28/15
|
It's not about whether gallman lowered his
Oct 16, 2016, 8:57 AM
|
|
Head. It's about leading with crown of your head. You can't do that. I don't think it was intentional but it ended in concussion Bc he led with his crown
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5505
Joined: 9/28/09
|
LIKE THIS???
Oct 16, 2016, 8:58 AM
|
|
sorry my friend
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1857]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 2027
Joined: 10/10/10
|
In the chest, not the head...
Oct 16, 2016, 9:04 AM
|
|
Sorry, MY FRIEND.
Was it perhaps unintentional? Maybe. But that doesn't matter.
Go Tigers!
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5505
Joined: 9/28/09
|
Here's the official Rule..sort it out if you would like
Oct 16, 2016, 9:10 AM
|
|
RULES
Targeting and Initiating Contact With the Crown of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3)
No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.
Targeting and Initiating Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player (Rule 9-1-4)
No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 2-27-14)
Note: Beginning in 2013, ejection from the game is a part of the penalty for violation of both Rule 9-1-3 and Rule 9-1-4.
KEY ELEMENTS
Target—to take aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with an apparent intent that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball.
Crown of the Helmet—the top portion of the helmet.
Contact to the head or neck area—not only with the helmet, but also with the forearm, fist, elbow, or shoulder—these can all lead to a foul.
Defenseless player—a player not in position to defend himself.
Examples (Rule 2-27-14):
A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass. A receiver attempting to catch a 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. 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. A quarterback any time after a change of possession.
KEY INDICATORS
Risk of a foul is high with one or more of these:
Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make contact in the head or neck area A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with contact at the head or neck area—even though one or both feet are still on the ground Leading with helmet, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with contact at the head or neck area Lowering the head before attacking by initiating contact with the crown of the helmet
These indicate less risk of a foul:
Heads-up tackle in which the crown of the helmet does not strike above the shoulders Wrap-up tackle Head is to the side rather than being used to initiate contact Incidental helmet contact that is not part of targeting but is due to the players changing position during the course of play
HINTS FOR PLAYERS
Don’t lead with your head Lower your target--don’t go for the head or neck area with anything Tackle: Heads-up and wrap-up
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5098]
TigerPulse: 42%
Posts: 17078
Joined: 7/19/05
|
Re: Here's the official Rule..sort it out if you would like
Oct 16, 2016, 9:16 AM
|
|
When you read that in entirety it looks like a good no call because the defender did not launch forward and upward.
He launched downward and the helmet to helmet only occurred because the offensive player changed positions.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1857]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 2027
Joined: 10/10/10
|
It says "factors"...
Oct 16, 2016, 9:22 AM
|
|
not "Required".
Please read the very first item about crown of helmet. I know you're a coot, but there are no really big words.
GO Tigers!
Message was edited by: Tiger8693®
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5098]
TigerPulse: 42%
Posts: 17078
Joined: 7/19/05
|
Re: It says "factors"...
Oct 16, 2016, 9:31 AM
|
|
Are you ignoring the key elements
Target—to take aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with an apparent intent that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball.
The defensive player would have made a legal hit had Gallman not ducked his head.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1857]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 2027
Joined: 10/10/10
|
Are you ignoring the rules?
Oct 16, 2016, 9:34 AM
|
|
RULES
Targeting and Initiating Contact With the Crown of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3)
The rest is "helpful", but not the rule.
I guess you are one of those shame coots that thought Ben Boulware should have been ejected for pushing the Coot quarterback? LOL
Go Tigers!
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5098]
TigerPulse: 42%
Posts: 17078
Joined: 7/19/05
|
Re: Are you ignoring the rules?
Oct 16, 2016, 10:12 AM
|
|
What?
You're arguing the definition of targeting is irrelevant to the discussion?
Lord help us.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5505
Joined: 9/28/09
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1857]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 2027
Joined: 10/10/10
|
And that "screen shot"...
Oct 16, 2016, 9:30 AM
|
|
is AFTER the crown of the helmet "shot" that snapped Gallman's head and neck around. As is CLEARLY shown in your picture.
Now, I am just understanding you're a ####### idiot. I'm done.
Go Tigers!
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5505
Joined: 9/28/09
|
LOL...
Oct 16, 2016, 9:36 AM
|
|
When the name calling starts I get really amused..
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13403]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9900
Joined: 1/23/06
|
Re: Here is a screen grab I just took
Oct 16, 2016, 9:30 AM
[ in reply to Here is a screen grab I just took ] |
|
The players intention is irrelevant. Do you see the defender leading with his helmet? The crown of his helmet?
Is he hitting the player with the ball in the head or beach area?
That's all you need to know.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5098]
TigerPulse: 42%
Posts: 17078
Joined: 7/19/05
|
Re: Here is a screen grab I just took
Oct 16, 2016, 9:31 AM
|
|
The very definition of targeting is about intent.
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13403]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9900
Joined: 1/23/06
|
Re: Here is a screen grab I just took
Oct 16, 2016, 9:44 AM
|
|
No- that word is initiate... that's different than intent.
Silly coots
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5287]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6930
Joined: 11/5/12
|
Re: Here is a screen grab I just took
Oct 17, 2016, 12:20 PM
[ in reply to Re: Here is a screen grab I just took ] |
|
Intention doesn't define targeting
http://www.cornnation.com/2016/9/5/12792446/college-football-targeting-rule-definition
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 <- the indicator applicable
"Second, intent. The call has nothing to do with intent. It isn’t about taking a cheap shot or trying to purposefully injure a player. The name “targeting” seems to imply that, but if you’re asking officials on the field to determine whether or not a player was purposefully trying to injure another player you’re asking for the impossible. "
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10945]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7682
Joined: 1/6/04
|
Re: Here is a screen grab I just took
Oct 16, 2016, 9:33 AM
[ in reply to Here is a screen grab I just took ] |
|
You need that a split second sooner...prior to Gallman's head being violently jarred to the right by the defenders helmet (crown) striking this side of his head.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16264]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 26540
Joined: 11/18/03
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16264]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 26540
Joined: 11/18/03
|
clearly, he is NOT leading with his head there...the State
Oct 16, 2016, 11:15 AM
[ in reply to LIKE THIS??? ] |
|
DB launched with his head first, just like TJ Green in the ACC CG
|
|
|
|
|
1st Rounder [615]
TigerPulse: 74%
Posts: 525
Joined: 1/23/12
|
Re: LIKE THIS???
Oct 16, 2016, 11:47 AM
[ in reply to LIKE THIS??? ] |
|
This happened because Lakip simply doesn't know how to tackle. He's lucky he didn't get injured.
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [958]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 994
Joined: 10/15/15
|
Re: Sorry..Clean hit.
Oct 16, 2016, 9:09 AM
[ in reply to Sorry..Clean hit. ] |
|
So since it's a clean hit..coaches should chalk the tops of helmets have the players try to hit a archery bullseye target for weekly practice... And grade them for accuracy...? Note: intentional sarcasm
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5505
Joined: 9/28/09
|
If you look at the play..He didn't hit him with the crown
Oct 16, 2016, 9:14 AM
|
|
He tuck his head in a bit and Gallman was hit mainly with the players right shoulder and the back of the other players helmet..
Also, the player didn't launch himself....
People will never 100% agree on this.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1857]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 2027
Joined: 10/10/10
|
Wow, I don't know what clip you have watched...
Oct 16, 2016, 9:28 AM
|
|
but I am REALLY questioning your motive here. this was clearly first contact with helmet.
Go Tigers!
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5505
Joined: 9/28/09
|
I have no motive...Just an honest disagreement
Oct 16, 2016, 9:33 AM
|
|
If a Clemson player hit a guy like that I would be madder than a wet hen if they called targeting. Boulware almost got caught on a BS call.
By the rules, Adam Lakip targeted the Notre Dame returner last year because he clearly led with the crown of his helmet and launched himself...doesn't matter that it was on his chest and not above the shoulders..he clearly put the crown of his helmet on the players...
What I don't like is people running to the referees all ofthe timing to solve problems that don't exists....I think our receivers have lost a little because they have become top quick to get the ref to throw the flag rather than catch the ball.
Frankly, I love a clean, hard hit...sucks when it our players...
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10389]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12844
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Re: Sorry..Clean hit.
Oct 16, 2016, 11:19 AM
[ in reply to Sorry..Clean hit. ] |
|
Bottom line is you don't tackle with your head down. I guess a lot of you aren't aware of proper technique when it comes to tackling.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6315]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5879
Joined: 7/3/12
|
That is true, form tackling is thing of the past
Oct 16, 2016, 11:39 AM
|
|
He had no intention of wrapping up Gallman with his hands down. However, if you call that then I'm sorry but football becomes flag only. From video evidence he was going at Gallman midsection to dislodge ball however Gallman lowered to ready himself for the blow and therefore heads collided. Is it Wayne's fault, NO. Is it defender fault, from what I see NO. It's a tough sport, this isn't badminton and sometimes bad things happen by default of accident. The result of play was ugly and happy to know Gallman was back asking to get in the game. Talk about a grinder, love Wayne and will miss his physical prowess as a RB. Strong runner!!
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6315]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5879
Joined: 7/3/12
|
Was Bens Forearm shiver form tackling???
Oct 16, 2016, 11:46 AM
[ in reply to Re: Sorry..Clean hit. ] |
|
No but he got the job done without helmet contact on a physical play. Form tackling is not applicable to all situations, only when capable. Ben was overrunning the play, QB cut and Ben did what he could to stop him and I'm pretty sure he got it done. It was tough but I guarantee you if that was DW4 who got leveled like that you would be making this argument, right ??
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [958]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 994
Joined: 10/15/15
|
Re: Sorry..Clean hit.
Oct 18, 2016, 6:05 AM
[ in reply to Sorry..Clean hit. ] |
|
Aiming at the football??? You are kidding!
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [203]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 308
Joined: 9/30/16
|
Sorry, but you have no clue what you're talking about***
Oct 18, 2016, 11:37 PM
[ in reply to Sorry..Clean hit. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [113045]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 74246
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: Gallman Hit
Oct 16, 2016, 8:56 AM
|
|
no, it was leading with the crown of the helmet, and it caught him right on the jaw. If you are trying to knock a player out of the game, that is a textbook example of how you do it. but one other thing that often goes unmentioned, it that rule is as much intended for the safety of the defensive player as the person taking the hit. Hitting with the top of the helmet can lead to spinal injuries, and of course not looking where you are hitting can cause all kinds of other bad things to happen.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [40157]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18301
Joined: 10/28/15
|
You are correct sir Bc if you do that everytime
Oct 16, 2016, 8:58 AM
|
|
Eventually player lowers his head when getting hit. It's to prevent injury. The result was exactly what call was intended to prevent.
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [113045]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 74246
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: You are correct sir Bc if you do that everytime
Oct 16, 2016, 9:00 AM
|
|
blows my my mind that people are upset over this rule. Like some how the safety of the players takes away from the game. And any coach that knows anything about the game always coaches his players to lead with the face-mask.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1857]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 2027
Joined: 10/10/10
|
Exactly. There was a Citadel defensive player...
Oct 16, 2016, 9:06 AM
[ in reply to Re: Gallman Hit ] |
|
can't remember his name that did exactly that and is now paralyzed. Terrible.
Go Tigers!
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3915]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 5004
Joined: 11/29/04
|
Re: Exactly. There was a Citadel defensive player...
Oct 16, 2016, 9:09 AM
|
|
Marc Buoniconti in 1985 speared a East Tenn. running back and was paralyzed from his neck down. Amazingly, he is still alive and 50 years old.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1857]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 2027
Joined: 10/10/10
|
That's him, thanks.
Oct 16, 2016, 9:26 AM
|
|
Just ONE of many reasons "spearing", or leading with crown of helmet with head down, is a bad idea and ILLEGAL.
Some people will never get it, until they are at a game where something terrible like that happens, for reason of bad coaching, and bad tackling technique.
Go Tigers!
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3820]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 4395
Joined: 12/24/09
|
for those confused, please go look at ACCCG last year!
Oct 16, 2016, 9:32 AM
|
|
geez louise.
in that game we had a targeting called against us on a punt where the Taphole return guy
either slips or just drops his head to waist high. our D player lays a shoulder into him
but hits him above the shoulders - again 24" off the ground. Targeting and 15 yards!
what the offensive guy does is almost meaningless -
unless he is the one dropping the crown of his helmet.
Gallman got blasted through the side of the helmet
with the crown and it should have been
a penalty and us keeping the ball.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1857]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 2027
Joined: 10/10/10
|
And even more ridiculous...
Oct 16, 2016, 9:39 AM
|
|
Boulware was out 1/2 the game for barely tapping the Coot QB. Joke.
Go Tigers!
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3820]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 4395
Joined: 12/24/09
|
I agree the circumstance, but once a player is deemed
Oct 16, 2016, 10:36 AM
|
|
defenseless,
it pretty much doesn't matter how HARD you hit them,
it's purely WHERE you hit them - i.e.above the shoulders.
The targeting rule was intended to get rid of
hitting at any time with the crown of the helmet (the old 'spearing'), OR
hitting defenseless players
either above the shoulders or hitting them by launching.
not that referees understand this obviously.....
|
|
|
|
|
All-Conference [433]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 721
Joined: 6/15/12
|
Re: Gallman Hit
Oct 16, 2016, 10:31 AM
|
|
I don't like it. The defensive player has his arms at his side and uses his helmet as a weapon. I would have been fine with it were it called and overturned, but I don't like the no-call. Gallman was knocked out. That only happens with helmet-to-helmet contact. Get well soon, Wayne. We missed you.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3820]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 4395
Joined: 12/24/09
|
the defensive players shoulders NEVER hit Wayne.
Oct 16, 2016, 10:37 AM
|
|
absolutely TERRIBLE non-call.
the ACC absolutely sux...
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [958]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 994
Joined: 10/15/15
|
Re: the defensive players shoulders NEVER hit Wayne.
Oct 17, 2016, 8:30 PM
|
|
Most excellent observation too!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6315]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5879
Joined: 7/3/12
|
Lets objectively look at this, it's not an opinion it is fact
Oct 16, 2016, 11:03 AM
|
|
1. Wayne Gallman lowered his head level knowing contact was coming. 2. Defender did NOT launch 3. Defender made play on the ball to jar it loose, watch as he comes into picture he is CLEARLY attempting to dislodge ball from ball carrier.
I see nothing wrong with hit. Very physical play and I cannot agree with anyone saying it was "targeting". Not defenseless, Wayne lowered head "forcing" helmet contact and it was a glancing blow which is typically the worst kind. I love Clemson and hated seeing Wayne get knocked out, viscous hit no doubt. NCSU is extremely physical and actually won the LOS for most part of the game. We snatched win from the jaws of defeat and GREAT teams have typically had some luck along the way and the missed FG was unreal. Almost like a haze as my memory is not aware of anything for like the last 30 minutes of the game but I know we WON ????????
|
|
|
|
|
Trainer [38]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 69
Joined: 11/6/15
|
Re: Lets objectively look at this, it's not an opinion it is fact
Oct 16, 2016, 11:16 AM
|
|
Launching is only 1 circumstance that can lead to a Targeting call, but it is not the ONLY circumstance that counts as targeting.
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [105]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10
Joined: 11/24/15
|
Re: Lets objectively look at this, it's not an opinion it is fact
Oct 17, 2016, 12:30 PM
[ in reply to Lets objectively look at this, it's not an opinion it is fact ] |
|
What you are pointing out DOESN'T matter based on Rule 9-1-3! 1. Gallman lowered his head - Show me where in the Rule it states that lowering the head nullifies the penalty. 2. DB didn't launch - That is a possible indicator not the Rule. Targeting can be called without this indicator.
3. Defender made play on ball... - Yes he did but DB made contact FIRST with the crown of his helmet to the opponents head.
Base on Rule 9-1-3 this is clear targeting no matter how you try and whitewash it!
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4661]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6065
Joined: 10/20/15
|
Re: Gallman Hit
Oct 16, 2016, 11:14 AM
|
|
They don't protect running backs like they do wide receivers and quarterbacks, sad but true. He wasn't considered "defenseless" so it's called a "good football play".
Rest up Wayne. We need you more than ever.
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [105]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10
Joined: 11/24/15
|
Re: Gallman Hit
Oct 17, 2016, 12:31 PM
|
|
Rule 9-1-3 doesn't require player to be defenseless!
|
|
|
|
|
Trainer [38]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 69
Joined: 11/6/15
|
NCAA Rule 9, Section 1, Article 3
Oct 16, 2016, 11:25 AM
|
|
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.
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
Did the defender make forcible contact with the top of his own helmet? Yes. Still pictures easily show this. Was there at least one listed indicator of targeting? Yes. The defender lowered his head before initiating forcible contact with the crown of his helmet, easily seen in the still pictures of the defender leaning forward head-first.
By definition, it should have been called. There is nothing in the rule that mentions the behavior of the offensive player, so Gallman's actions are completely irrelevant.
PDF copy of the rules are free. http://www.ncaapublications.com/p-4430-2016-and-2017-ncaa-football-rules-and-interpretations.aspx
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6315]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5879
Joined: 7/3/12
|
In that case it should be called on every single RB
Oct 16, 2016, 11:43 AM
|
|
and WR as they are preparing for contact as they ALWAYS lower their heads!! Dumb writing of a rule that needs amendment for sure. Defense is being numbed out, don't hit this, don't hit that. Football is rough, make it fair for both the O and D if crown of helmet leading is deemed illegal then it should be that way in both sides of the ball. Agreed ??
|
|
|
|
|
Trainer [38]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 69
Joined: 11/6/15
|
Re: In that case it should be called on every single RB
Oct 16, 2016, 11:47 AM
|
|
I definitely agree that no player should be allowed to lead head-first into their opponent. If the point of the rule is player safety, than whether you are on offense or defense is a moot point. Pretty sure the human body could care less.
In this case, even if Gallman lowered his head, his head is still well above where his waist is, so why is the opponent even aiming that high? If you want to strip the ball, use your hands, not your head.
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [958]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 994
Joined: 10/15/15
|
Re: In that case it should be called on every single RB
Oct 18, 2016, 10:50 PM
|
|
Quite an accurate statement!
|
|
|
|
|
Trainer [38]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 69
Joined: 11/6/15
|
Re: NCAA Rule 9, Section 1, Article 3
Oct 16, 2016, 11:44 AM
[ in reply to NCAA Rule 9, Section 1, Article 3 ] |
|
|
Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet? See image 1.
Making forcible contact with the crown of the helmet? See image 2.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5098]
TigerPulse: 42%
Posts: 17078
Joined: 7/19/05
|
Re: NCAA Rule 9, Section 1, Article 3
Oct 16, 2016, 1:48 PM
[ in reply to NCAA Rule 9, Section 1, Article 3 ] |
|
You're ignoring the “Targeting means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle" part.
It was a legal hit had gallman not ducked his head.
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [958]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 994
Joined: 10/15/15
|
Re: NCAA Rule 9, Section 1, Article 3
Oct 16, 2016, 2:11 PM
|
|
Might want to look at the video tape.. with glasses...(@)(@)
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11016]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4690
Joined: 10/25/11
|
Tackling with the head up was not on display by the NCST
Oct 16, 2016, 11:50 AM
|
|
safeties yesterday. That lowering of the head technique initiates the crown of the helmet contact.
Wayne took a crown of the helmet to the ear hole/chin area and got knocked senseless. That poor technique is not good for the giver or the receiver of the hit.
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [958]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 994
Joined: 10/15/15
|
Re: Gallman Hit
Oct 16, 2016, 12:39 PM
|
|
Seems the conseus is IT WAS AN ILLEGAL HIT!!!!! DEMOCRACY rules!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3721]
TigerPulse: 52%
Posts: 2429
Joined: 4/12/01
|
Re: Gallman Hit
Oct 17, 2016, 11:48 AM
|
|
It was a bad missed call. NC State player should have been thrown out.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3721]
TigerPulse: 52%
Posts: 2429
Joined: 4/12/01
|
Re: Gallman Hit
Oct 17, 2016, 11:50 AM
|
|
It was a bad missed call. NC State player should have been thrown out.
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11133]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15269
Joined: 8/6/10
|
It has always been against the rules to put your head down
Oct 17, 2016, 12:22 PM
|
|
and launch yourself at the other player. The new targeting rule is BS and unnecessary if the old rules would just be enforced. This hit was clearly illegal and should have been called a personal foul.
|
|
|
|
|
All-Conference [449]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 726
Joined: 3/5/08
|
Re: Gallman Hit
Oct 18, 2016, 9:56 PM
|
|
> Was the Hit on Gallman legal because he was a running > back. The shot he took was definitely initiated by > opponents > Helmet to Gallmans head
The point of this question is moot. Gallman was rendered unconscious by helmet to helmet contact. Defender made no attempt to extend his arms. The crown of the defender's helmet struck him in the left jaw area and snapped his head around. His arms went limp and extended due to the centrifugal force of his body as it rotated ~270 degrees on the longitudinal axis. The ball came out. The referees simply missed the call, a textbook example of targeting. Video of this play should be shown in referee school.
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [958]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 994
Joined: 10/15/15
|
Re: Gallman Hit
Oct 18, 2016, 10:49 PM
|
|
Most excellent points!
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1898]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3418
Joined: 11/7/01
|
Re: Gallman Hit
Oct 19, 2016, 12:10 AM
[ in reply to Re: Gallman Hit ] |
|
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [958]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 994
Joined: 10/15/15
|
Re: Gallman Hit
Oct 21, 2016, 9:26 PM
|
|
DOES ANYONE KNOW IF ACC OFFICIALS LOOKED AT GALLMAN HIT. If so what was evaluation result.????
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6752]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 9796
Joined: 9/22/11
|
Now we know that Doren's goal was to injure Gallman, surely
Oct 21, 2016, 9:40 PM
|
|
Dabo will ask for an investigation? I cannot believe this has not been addressed by the media to him in one of his interviews. Maybe, Dabo does this behind the scenes, however I would like him to address the intentional targeting LOUD AND CLEAR. He was coach when Kyle Parker and our season was ruined by an obvious spearing, and ACC officals were in charge of that Auburn game. COME ON DABO, what if, like Parker, Gallman is never the same again. PROTECT YOUR PLAYERS SIR!
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [958]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 994
Joined: 10/15/15
|
Re: Now we know that Doren's goal was to injure Gallman, surely
Oct 24, 2016, 7:36 PM
|
|
Very sad event when a coach openly admits it was a lethal hit and the officials of the ACC make no public comment on their inadequacies. The hit as well as the coaches comments should be a nice motivational piece next time we play N.C.STATE...not to hit them illegally, but to beat the ever-loving heck out of them next time.
|
|
|
|
Replies: 96
| visibility 3
|
|
|