Yeah, Medders took that hit to the facemask. How he held onto that ball and then popped right up...
targeting penalty
- Thread starter rdtindsm
- Start date
Yeah, Medders took that hit to the facemask. How he held onto that ball and then popped right up...
To me, they need to look at some non-ejection forms of the penalty. I think it was worthy of a personal foul, but ejecting guys over hits that in some instances have part contact that's unavoidable seems like a punishment that doesn't fit the crime, as it were.
Since he left the game with "concussion like symptoms" per the broadcasters, it's pretty big positive that we have a bye week in terms of Jarvis' availability for the Baylor game. He doesn't have any concussion history that I'm aware of (someone correct me if this is wrong), so I would guess that two weeks of recovery will more than likely be enough time for him to rest up and pass concussion testing protocol and be available. Not a sure thing though as concussions are all different on a case by case situation.
Have you not watched Iowa play? They have always played that way. They always want to punish the WRs when they catch the ball. Most of the time it is a legal hit. Yesterday it wasn't even close.
The defender made it an easy call for the officials by leading with his helmet and shoulder and launching himself at West. The play by play guy even pointed it out; if he keeps his head and eyes up then it probably doesn't draw a flag and ejection. His point was proven a couple plays later when Lowdermilk dropped Medders. It was a big hit but a clean one.
I thought that the helmet had to hit, but I guess anything can hit the head of the player and it can be called. It seems to me that Iowa had one other play where they lead with the helmet to our receiver and there was no call...
What the hell else is he supposed to do? Follow the rules. It's supposed to be a game. Not an execution.
I thought the replay was only regarding the ejection or not. If the 15 yard penalty is called on the field, the replay can't overturn it, but it could keep the player in the game. Or has that rule been changed?
The difference is that Medders wasn't a defenseless receiver when he was hit, he caught the ball and turned upfield, so they only could have called targeting if the defender used the crown of his helmet, which he obviously didn't. The hit on West he was a defenseless receiver so all it took was contact to West's helmet regardless of if it was a helmet, shoulder, forearm or whatever from the defender. Lomax wouldn't have avoided that ejection even if he had his head up, he didn't even contact him with his own helmet so I'm not sure why that would even matter. His ejection was all about contacting the head of a defenseless receiver.
As a former defesnsive player, these calls frustrate the crap out of me. When you're playing fast and relying on instinct in a violent sport, you're not always going to play with perfect technique. I think penalizing players for targeting is a good idea, but ejection is WAY too excessive.
I think it had to do with Lomax leaving his feet, on replay that's what doomed him. When you leave both feet that constitutes a "launch". I think in the end it is why they confirmed the penalty. Flat out, ISU didn't write or enforce the rule it is the NCAA and both teams play in the NCAA so they must live by it.
Medders also popped right up. If he had laid on the ground for a few seconds he might have drawn a flag. The flag on Lomax on the hit on Jarvis was late too.
The only way to stop hits with the head to the head is to take the helmet off the defensive player. The same thing protecting the offensive player is weaponizing the defensive player. Now, I don't have any figures, but would be interested to see the concussion rate in Rugby and Australian Rules Football.
Thankfully? Refs are still calling it as if the ejection can be overturned...and you get the Cotton-Moya instance in game 1 where the WR fell right into him, but he is ejected. They really need more training in officiating this area.
The question at some level is what is the intent? Lomax launched himself at a WR that was headed to the ground, and it may or may not have been clear that West had not made the catch. Either way Lomax was just taking a shot at West on the way down, and was not trying to make a tackle. If there was anyway that West was still on his feet, then Lomax would have been in horrible position to make an actual tackle. I don't think that Lomax hit his head on purpose, but that is the chance you take when you launch yourself at a player to punish him.
