I remember as a freshman in HS, the very first thing I was taught was to keep my head up and not tackle with the crown of the helmet. You obviously never wore a helmet or played football.
From the Purdue forum
- Thread starter RUich
- Start date
I remember as a freshman in HS, the very first thing I was taught was to keep my head up and not tackle with the crown of the helmet. You obviously never wore a helmet or played football.
Trey Avery. If Moore ever wants a new blanket he should ask Trey what size to get.
funny.
and was great to read...
but, I'd call it a pretty standard meltdown........ hardly a Chernobyl...
and was great to read...
but, I'd call it a pretty standard meltdown........ hardly a Chernobyl...
You're going to get scolded about him being a former college player who walked on under Shea. But he's still wrong ITT.
The rule sends the right message though. It’s there to protect both players and it does. It sucks that the player is taken out of the game, but honestly, in the long run, it’s not a big deal to anyone. The player would be disappointed for the rest of the game, but the punishment won’t really hurt anyone long term. By that metric, I think it’s a good rule.
Don’t see anyone talking about the hospital ball that set in motion this sequence.
Using your head to tackle is as dangerous for the tackler as it is for the tackled player. That force gets absorbed by the neck.
So, the rule, like it or not, is there to protect BOTH players.
So, the rule, like it or not, is there to protect BOTH players.
Back in the early eighties I worked with a high school player who demonstrated how he was taught to tackle, and he put the crown of the helmet into the chest
So, it appears that some coaching staffs taught this as proper techinque, but now we see it
Being illegal...... it might explain the position that some fans here take, going back to
The older coaching methods they were taught as ok
So, it appears that some coaching staffs taught this as proper techinque, but now we see it
Being illegal...... it might explain the position that some fans here take, going back to
The older coaching methods they were taught as ok
The decision coming from the booth has a high probability of being the right one
I trust that more than a call on the field at the time
spot on
I think the coaches should bear the brunt of the penalities as well. Everytime a kid is hit with this foul, the coach should be fined or the coach earns time off the sidelines. Way too many kids still doing it and it's not like it doesn't happen in practice.
1939 -Good Lord. I had just turned 14,on 11/06/39 and was a soph in H.S.I was involved in High School FB and didn't even know that RU had a FB team.
O the horrors.
This response does not add anything constructive to the discussion, and tacitly endorses the kind of disrespectful sentiments I hope we don't see here.
However, it is witty and succinct. Also, the use of a high-quality gif is commendable.
I award you 5 SizzlePoints (5 SP) for your effort. You missed an opportunity for more, but received deductions due to a lack of substantive commentary, specifically failing to weigh in on whether personal denigration of student athletes playing sports for one's own alma mater (as those commenters do appear to be alumni) is ever appropriate.
Love the creativity though!
HUH?
Let's just take Rutgers as an example. In 6 games thus far. Rutgers defense has been on the field of play for approximately 450 snaps. In those 450 snaps exactly one player has been tossed for targeting. How in the hell is that way too many kids are still doing it? Or this is an epidemic where more stern punishment is required?
Wish I could have some sizzle points lol
Purdue board is melting, and the IU guys are the ones sticking it to them, didn't realize the disdain they have for each other.
Purdue is taking this loss really hard. They are pissed that 25% of our Big Ten wins come from Purdue.
I don't think they are going to recover from this loss.
They are making Rutgers look like we have no talent.
We lost two close games to Illinois and Michigan.
You can't be close if you have no talent.
Football is a team sport and the final score is the ultimate talent indicator.
I don't think they are going to recover from this loss.
They are making Rutgers look like we have no talent.
We lost two close games to Illinois and Michigan.
You can't be close if you have no talent.
Football is a team sport and the final score is the ultimate talent indicator.
But you were also taught to put your hat on the numbers.. right? And keep your legs moving and drive right through him.
Your forehead.. with or without a helmet.. is quite sturdy.. and shaped nicely to have your brain squish against it.. and I do not know how much work is done to strengthen necks today.. but drills every day included neck rolls. The danger of collision in bad angles is always out there.
Last edited:
My handle comes from a rant by Mr.Television that I found funny back in the old days. I think he doesn't like me.
No SizzlePoints awarded, mikershoin. I feel like you are not working up to your full potential.
Last edited:
Just read a great book - City of Champions- about the 1939 garfield high team. One of the better sports books around. You played at Barringer, right beaced?
We’ll see
If you don’t have 500 post in the next 3 weeks, I’ll be swayed.
The fact that you referenced Mr. Television leads me to believe you Aren’t the snotty millennial with 30 handles.
Last edited:
The targeting rule in college football is as follows ...
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)
It defines "targeting" as ...
“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.
It further goes on to say "indicators" of targeting include ...
1. 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
2. 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
3. Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
4. Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet
Everything else in the rulebook regarding "targeting" relates to hitting a defenseless player in the head or neck. That did not occur in this instance, so those portions of the rulebook are irrelevant to this particular play.
Okay, so we break it down. What must happen for a hit to violate this rule?
a) The player must target;
b) The player must make forcible contact;
c) The forcible contact must be with the crown of the helmet; and
d) There must be at least one of the indicators
Since they supply the definition of targeting, we can re-write (a) to say, "The player must take aim at the opponent for the purpose of attacking beyond making a legal tackle."
The term "crown" of the helmet is not defined anywhere else in the rulebook, other than one single place where it is described as the "top" of the helmet (Page FI-59). I found this image on Google and it shows what I always understood the crown of the helmet to mean ...
And, if you watch these two slowed down clips (below), I think we can all agree that Indicators 1 through 3 do not even come close to applying (they all require contact to the head or neck), so we can re-write (d) to say "The player must have lowered his head before attacking."
So for our discussion, the elements of the rule are:
a) The player must take aim at the opponent for the purpose of attacking beyond making a legal tackle.;
b) The player must make forcible contact;
c) The forcible contact must be with the top of the helmet; and
d) The player must have lowered his head before attacking.
I'd argue that Purdue's player didn't even come close to violating the rule, but the only element that isn't even debatable is (b); there was clearly forcible contact.
Did the player lower his head before attacking? I don't see it. His head is up the entire time. Does it slightly dip the last 6 inches before contact? Maybe.
Was the contact made with the top of the helmet? Looks to me like the contact is made with the top of the facemask and and/or the section between the facemask and the right earhole. The contact can't be made with the crown of the helmet because the railroad tracks that run down the center of the helmet are visible at the point the contact is made.
And finally, did the player intend to hit the player with the crown of his helmet ("take aim ... for the purpose of attacking beyond making a legal tackle") - an action that he knows will result in being thrown out of the game? Give me a break. Nobody believes this guy was intending to do something that would get him thrown out of the game. Sorry, the rule requires intent. It's always forgotten by the officials and the broadcasters, but I just quoted you the rule - if the player's actions were not taken with the purpose of violating the rule ("purpose of attacking beyond making a legal tackle"), then it's not a penalty. It's not enough to hit a player below the head and neck (remember, the rule is different if the contact is not with the ball carrier's head and neck) with the crown of your helmet ... the defensive player must intend to hit the ball carrier with the crown of his helmet.
This was not targeting. The officials made a BS call and it changed the dynamic of the game. I still think we would have won, but we definitely wouldn't have been able to run all over them using the Jabu-special for an entire quarter.
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)
It defines "targeting" as ...
“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.
It further goes on to say "indicators" of targeting include ...
1. 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
2. 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
3. Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
4. Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet
Everything else in the rulebook regarding "targeting" relates to hitting a defenseless player in the head or neck. That did not occur in this instance, so those portions of the rulebook are irrelevant to this particular play.
Okay, so we break it down. What must happen for a hit to violate this rule?
a) The player must target;
b) The player must make forcible contact;
c) The forcible contact must be with the crown of the helmet; and
d) There must be at least one of the indicators
Since they supply the definition of targeting, we can re-write (a) to say, "The player must take aim at the opponent for the purpose of attacking beyond making a legal tackle."
The term "crown" of the helmet is not defined anywhere else in the rulebook, other than one single place where it is described as the "top" of the helmet (Page FI-59). I found this image on Google and it shows what I always understood the crown of the helmet to mean ...
And, if you watch these two slowed down clips (below), I think we can all agree that Indicators 1 through 3 do not even come close to applying (they all require contact to the head or neck), so we can re-write (d) to say "The player must have lowered his head before attacking."
So for our discussion, the elements of the rule are:
a) The player must take aim at the opponent for the purpose of attacking beyond making a legal tackle.;
b) The player must make forcible contact;
c) The forcible contact must be with the top of the helmet; and
d) The player must have lowered his head before attacking.
I'd argue that Purdue's player didn't even come close to violating the rule, but the only element that isn't even debatable is (b); there was clearly forcible contact.
Did the player lower his head before attacking? I don't see it. His head is up the entire time. Does it slightly dip the last 6 inches before contact? Maybe.
Was the contact made with the top of the helmet? Looks to me like the contact is made with the top of the facemask and and/or the section between the facemask and the right earhole. The contact can't be made with the crown of the helmet because the railroad tracks that run down the center of the helmet are visible at the point the contact is made.
And finally, did the player intend to hit the player with the crown of his helmet ("take aim ... for the purpose of attacking beyond making a legal tackle") - an action that he knows will result in being thrown out of the game? Give me a break. Nobody believes this guy was intending to do something that would get him thrown out of the game. Sorry, the rule requires intent. It's always forgotten by the officials and the broadcasters, but I just quoted you the rule - if the player's actions were not taken with the purpose of violating the rule ("purpose of attacking beyond making a legal tackle"), then it's not a penalty. It's not enough to hit a player below the head and neck (remember, the rule is different if the contact is not with the ball carrier's head and neck) with the crown of your helmet ... the defensive player must intend to hit the ball carrier with the crown of his helmet.
This was not targeting. The officials made a BS call and it changed the dynamic of the game. I still think we would have won, but we definitely wouldn't have been able to run all over them using the Jabu-special for an entire quarter.
Last edited:
Holy Zapruder. Obsess much?The targeting rule in college football is as follows ...
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)
It defines "targeting" as ...
“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.
It further goes on to say "indicators" of targeting include ...
1. 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
2. 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
3. Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
4. Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet
Everything else in the rulebook regarding "targeting" relates to hitting a defenseless player in the head or neck. That did not occur in this instance, so those portions of the rulebook are irrelevant to this particular play.
Okay, so we break it down. What must happen for a hit to violate this rule?
a) The player must target;
b) The player must make forcible contact;
c) The forcible contact must be with the crown of the helmet; and
d) There must be at least one of the indicators
Since they supply the definition of targeting, we can re-write (a) to say, "The player must take aim at the opponent for the purpose of attacking beyond making a legal tackle."
The term "crown" of the helmet is not defined anywhere else in the rulebook, other than one single place where it is described as the "top" of the helmet (Page FI-59). I found this image on Google and it shows what I always understood the crown of the helmet to mean ...
And, if you watch these two slowed down clips (below), I think we can all agree that Indicators 1 through 3 do not even come close to applying (they all require contact to the head or neck), so we can re-write (d) to say "The player must have lowered his head before attacking."
So for our discussion, the elements of the rule are:
a) The player must take aim at the opponent for the purpose of attacking beyond making a legal tackle.;
b) The player must make forcible contact;
c) The forcible contact must be with the top of the helmet; and
d) The player must have lowered his head before attacking.
I'd argue that Purdue's player didn't even come close to violating the rule, but the only element that isn't even debatable is (b); there was clearly forcible contact. Did the player lower his head before attacking? I don't see it. His head is up the entire time. Does it slightly dip the last 6 inches before contact? Maybe. Was the contact made with the top of the helmet? Looks to me like the contact is made with the top of the facemask and and/or the section between the facemask and the right earhole. The contact can't be made with the crown of the helmet because the railroad tracks that run down the center of the helmet are visible at the point the contact is made. And finally, did the player intend to hit the player with the crown of his helmet ("take aim ... for the purpose of attacking beyond making a legal tackle") - an action that he knows will result in being thrown out of the game? Give me a break. Nobody believes this guy was intending to do something that would get him thrown out of the game. Sorry, the rule requires intent. It's always forgotten by the officials and the broadcasters, but I just quoted you the rule - if the player's actions were not taken with the purpose of violating the rule ("purpose of attacking beyond making a legal tackle"), then it's not a penalty. It's not enough to hit a player below the head and neck (remember, the rule is different if the contact is not with the ball carrier's head and neck) with the crown of your helmet ... the defensive player must intend to hit the ball carrier with the crown of his helmet.
This was not targeting. The officials made a BS call and it changed the dynamic of the game. I still think we would have won, but we definitely wouldn't have been able to run all over them using the Jabu-special for an entire quarter.
Condensed version of the above post:
blah, blah, nonsense, blah
...
Video that clearly shows the defender lowered his head and hit the guy with the top of his helmet.
...
blah, blah, nonsense, blah
You are misreading and overcomplicating the targeting rule.The targeting rule in college football is as follows ...
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)
It defines "targeting" as ...
“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.
It further goes on to say "indicators" of targeting include ...
1. 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
2. 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
3. Leading forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball
4. Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet
Everything else in the rulebook regarding "targeting" relates to hitting a defenseless player in the head or neck. That did not occur in this instance, so those portions of the rulebook are irrelevant to this particular play.
Okay, so we break it down. What must happen for a hit to violate this rule?
a) The player must target;
b) The player must make forcible contact;
c) The forcible contact must be with the crown of the helmet; and
d) There must be at least one of the indicators
Since they supply the definition of targeting, we can re-write (a) to say, "The player must take aim at the opponent for the purpose of attacking beyond making a legal tackle."
The term "crown" of the helmet is not defined anywhere else in the rulebook, other than one single place where it is described as the "top" of the helmet (Page FI-59). I found this image on Google and it shows what I always understood the crown of the helmet to mean ...
And, if you watch these two slowed down clips (below), I think we can all agree that Indicators 1 through 3 do not even come close to applying (they all require contact to the head or neck), so we can re-write (d) to say "The player must have lowered his head before attacking."
So for our discussion, the elements of the rule are:
a) The player must take aim at the opponent for the purpose of attacking beyond making a legal tackle.;
b) The player must make forcible contact;
c) The forcible contact must be with the top of the helmet; and
d) The player must have lowered his head before attacking.
I'd argue that Purdue's player didn't even come close to violating the rule, but the only element that isn't even debatable is (b); there was clearly forcible contact. Did the player lower his head before attacking? I don't see it. His head is up the entire time. Does it slightly dip the last 6 inches before contact? Maybe. Was the contact made with the top of the helmet? Looks to me like the contact is made with the top of the facemask and and/or the section between the facemask and the right earhole. The contact can't be made with the crown of the helmet because the railroad tracks that run down the center of the helmet are visible at the point the contact is made. And finally, did the player intend to hit the player with the crown of his helmet ("take aim ... for the purpose of attacking beyond making a legal tackle") - an action that he knows will result in being thrown out of the game? Give me a break. Nobody believes this guy was intending to do something that would get him thrown out of the game. Sorry, the rule requires intent. It's always forgotten by the officials and the broadcasters, but I just quoted you the rule - if the player's actions were not taken with the purpose of violating the rule ("purpose of attacking beyond making a legal tackle"), then it's not a penalty. It's not enough to hit a player below the head and neck (remember, the rule is different if the contact is not with the ball carrier's head and neck) with the crown of your helmet ... the defensive player must intend to hit the ball carrier with the crown of his helmet.
This was not targeting. The officials made a BS call and it changed the dynamic of the game. I still think we would have won, but we definitely wouldn't have been able to run all over them using the Jabu-special for an entire quarter.
The part that says "a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact ...." isn't a preliminary hurdle that must be overcome before you look at the four specific indicators to decide if it is targeting.
That is just the general definition of targeting itself, and if one of the four indicators happens during a tackle, that general definition is considered to have been met and the penalty is called.
If a player leaves "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" during a tackle, it is considered to be targeting, case closed.
If a player makes "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", it is considered to be targeting, case closed.
In the case of the Purdue player, he lowered "the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet", so it was targeting, case closed.
That's not what the actual rule says. The rule has elements. You must satisfy the elements to violate the rule. One of the elements is that the player must take aim "for the purposes of attacking ... beyond making a legal tackle." I just copied and pasted the rule directly from the rulebook (above).
Yes, and you are still reading it wrong. The four indicators are the elements that need to be met to be considered targeting. If any one of them are met during a tackle, it is targeting because that is considered as attacking beyond making a legal tackle.
You must have watched enough football to see how the rule is actually interpreted. Let go of the specific Purdue play for now and think about times where a DB leaves his feet and hits someone in the head and neck area. Do they try and figure out "intent", or whether the force of the tackle is more than normal? No, it is targeting automatically under indicator 1, Launching and hitting above the neck. The indicator for hitting with the crown of the helmet is no different.
Actually I went to South Side H.S. also in Newark.I remember Garfield going down to Florida to play in a type of Championship game. Their Star was a player named Benny Babula.That WAS 81 years ago but I am quite sure of his name.