**** the refs
- Thread starter CoKane
- Start date
Forward progress was not stopped. He's falling forward. It certainly was not stopped at the point the tackler starts to unload. If someone watches that in real time and thinks the defender should have determined that his forward progress was stopped before starting the progress of the tackle then there's really no point in discussing. That's incredibly unrealistic.
As for the first point of "leading with a helmet, shoulder, arm, fist with forcible contact to the head or neck area" what body parts does that leave? A good tackle in general can lead with the shoulder, so that leads to the logical conclusion that forcible contact to the head period is not allowed
OK, fair enough, now how do we define that, and what are they trying to get out of the game? I think it's logical to say the intent of the rule is to eliminate a tackler coming in high and tackling around the head and neck injury whether it's with a helmet, shoulder, or arm. Makes sense to me.
I think it's then logical to say that if I am going into my tackle unload at thigh level, which then becomes head/neck level because of action I have zero control over as a tackler, that doesn't meet the spirit of the rule.
But in Dekker’s case, he wasn’t out in the open and ducked his head which caused the targeting. He was in a player’s grasp and got his bell rung by a player who made first contact with his head. That, by rule, should be targeting. We’ve gotten called for far worse.
Regardless how anyone views this hit as targeting or not targeting, the intent of the rule is to clean up hits just like this. Launching with your head down to make a tackle is not only dangerous to the person being tackled, but it is also dangerous to the tackler. I doubt many people would be arguing/debating about this call if the defender kept his head up while making the hit.
We can debate this call all day whether it should or should not be targeting; however, it should be a consensus that the player made a dangerous tackle, a tackle in which all levels of the game are trying to eliminate
Thank you for this.
Still frustrating but helps sort out some of the misinformation or misleading stuff, some of which I may have typed myself.
The idea that he's not a defenseless runner didn't make sense to me. From what you've shown, it's very possible, even likely, he is considered defenseless when he got hit. He was definitely in the grasp, he was more going down than forward. It's at least close. The posts where people acted he for sure wasn't defenseless defied my idea of what defenseless means.
I'd also bold the "when in question" a player is defenseless. I'd read this as the fact that we're debating it means he is defenseless.
Where were so many of our ref apologists getting "a ball carrier can't be defenseless" from? The rule clearly doesn't say that, in fact quite the opposite.
All I know is that ref that came from nowhere and could not have seen anything was so happy to immediately give the ball to Texas probably filled his pants making the call
I do not believe there is a conspiracy against ISU. However, ISU never seems to get calls like this in their favor that gives them a victory they didn't deserve.
Can anyone think of a football game where ISU got an egregious call late in the game in their favor to give them the win? I got nothing.
Can anyone think of a football game where ISU got an egregious call late in the game in their favor to give them the win? I got nothing.
The one I’ve thought of that was borderline was last year against Oklahoma State where it was they may have spotted the ball short of the line to gain, though it looked like he may have gotten it.
He's moving forward as the guy in question for targeting hits him. Forward progress was absolutely not stopped. In fact, at the point the tackler is about to plant his right foot and unload into the tackle, the first tackler is just starting to get a hand on Dekkers.
I think the question of the contact around the head and neck area is the only point of discussion. But again, here's an image right as the DB plants his right foot to go into the tackle. And if you've seen the slow mo from behind, you see the right foot is planted as he's making contact. So we are talking a few hundreths of a second from contact here.
The defender that takes Dekkers down is shown right above him and is just starting to get to him. Dekkers starts to get low, feeling or anticipating contact as a runner typically would do. The DB is a hundreth of a second or so from planting that right foot and unloading a tackle that is at Dekkers thigh level. The combination of Dekkers getting low and the tackler (shown just above him in the image) taking him down takes his head and neck down.
He's tackling at the exact correct level that is the safest for all involved. A second tackler and Dekkers getting low move Dekkers' head into that zone. And there is not a human that has ever lived that can adjust to that. He can't defy laws of physics.
What are your thoughts on the physics of wrapping up a tackle but not taking them to the ground?
As a former wrestler I find that rule as absurd as going swimming naked but staying dry. Not driving a guy into the ground means you have to coach not to wrap up.
Targeting is complex and inconsistent. Yet there is an understandable purpose to it and it doesn’t defy all reality. This idea of tackling without touching the ground is utter nonsense.
I know when I played my defensive coach told me to absolutely lead with the shoulder and never ever attempt a wrap up. Hes not even trying to do anything but lay the hardest hit possible. Get out
If a player becomes a ball carrier (which Dekkers was) he can be defenseless if in the grasp and forward progress is stopped. Forward progress was not stopped. Not really debatable watching the play.
He only stops moving forward when the targeter in question hits him.
Like I said before, the only thing wrong with the tackle is that he doesn't wrap up. But there's nothing illegal about that.
Yeah, that truly was bizarre "zealousness" with the signal. Don't remember seeing anything like that before. Maybe from his angle he was able to see the ball came out before knee-hit, in real time, and thought he should be adamant to make the call. (A thought experiment giving extreme benefit of the doubt).
Who's coaching to wrap up? All players do is run into people now and try to lay the hardest hit on someone. I see it at all levels. Tackling is a lost art, that's part of thr reason you have plays like this now, nobody knows how to properly tackle anymore.
The list of what defines a defenseless player isn't exhaustive. It's a sampling.
Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14). When in question, a player is defenseless. Examples of defenseless players include but are not limited to....
Will you at the very least agree it was a dangerous hit? And a hit in which the game is trying to eliminate?
