Reckon I just don't understand the targeting rule...

[HomeBoyDawg]

or its intent if that shot from the Bama player on the kickoff was not targeting.

 

[Bulldog from Birth]

It's pretty simple actually. Alabama doesn't target.

 

[The Riddler]

Even more simple. Saban is god. He knows and controls all, so there for he knew that would happen. He can see into the future.

 

[KeyserSoze1999]

Key part of that play was that Alabama was doing it...Bama can hide a Shank in their wristband and use it to stab the opposition in the Head, and it will not be flagged.

Bama has the best talent, the best Coach, and they get the best Breaks from the Refs. The only way that they can lose a game is if they turn the ball over a ton---like the 5 turnover game against Ole Miss last year.

 

[TBone.sixpack]

Or hold

 

[IBleedMaroonDawg]

PROTECTION OF DEFENSELESS PLAYERS AND CROWN-OFHELMET
ACTION—In 2008, the committee introduced a separate
rule prohibiting forcible contact with the helmet and targeting a
defenseless opponent. These actions are now in two rules: Targeting and
Making Forcible Contact With the Crown 6of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3)
and Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of
a Defenseless Player (Rule 9-1-4). Use of the helmet as a weapon and
intentional (targeted) contact to the head or neck area are serious safety
concerns. The penalties for fouls under both 9-1-3 and 9-1-4 include
automatic disqualification. The committee continues to emphasize that
coaches and officials must be diligent to insure that players understand
and abide by these rules.
Rule 2-27-14 defines and lists characteristics of a defenseless player.

So unless I am reading it wrong, it does not have to be just for a defenseless player.

Birmingham is full of ****.

 

[57stratdawg]

It's one thing for a judgement call to go in favor in Bama, but it's another for Birmingham to misapply the rule.

 

[HomeBoyDawg]

Why in the world would Birmingham not want to review it?

 

[57stratdawg]

My guess is they didn't understand that helmet to helmet suprceedes "a defenseless player".

 

[HomeBoyDawg]

That wasn't their explanation, though. They said it wasn't crown of helmet which it obviously was. SEC office needs to catch hell for this.

 

[NTDawg]

No they said it wasn't a defenseless player. Once you are running with the ball you are not defenseless

 

[HomeBoyDawg]

Then they don't understand the rule. Doesn't have to be a defenseless player.

 

[57stratdawg]

Are you kidding me? This is such ********.

 

[57stratdawg]

I wouldn't be surprised if they back pedaled to say it wasn't the crown, but Gary said "I'm hearing from Birmingham that he wasn't a defenseless player"

 

[HomeBoyDawg]

Yeah. Story changed. First was not defenseless. Then not crown of helmet.

 

[IBleedMaroonDawg]

No, the rule shall be applied unless the helmet applying said hit is crimson.**