Anyone else tired of so many legal hits getting called as personal fouls?

[achiro]

I still don't know how leading with a shoulder can be called helmet to helmet or if the defender is bent over to hit the receiver in the chest and the receiver ducks that the defender is at fault?

[Fraggle145]

Yep it sucks.

[CowboyMRW]

I am. I thought USC got straight up screwed Saturday in that call. I've seen many hits this year, where the defender is going low and the receiver ducks into it. These guys are ridiculously fast and strong, so there are going to be big hits. It's the risk you take when going over the middle. It's your quarterbacks job to not leave you out to dry.

There is a big difference in my eyes, in what is targeting and what isn't.

[NormanPride]

Yeah, but at the same time we need to coach kids harder on tackling fundamentals. Head up, eyes forward, etc. It's for their own safety more than anything else...

[achiro]

Yeah, but at the same time we need to coach kids harder on tackling fundamentals. Head up, eyes forward, etc. It's for their own safety more than anything else...
The problem with that for the secondary is that the receiver would demolish you every time as he comes across full speed and you try to square up on him.

[achiro]

I am. I thought USC got straight up screwed Saturday in that call. I've seen many hits this year, where the defender is going low and the receiver ducks into it. These guys are ridiculously fast and strong, so there are going to be big hits. It's the risk you take when going over the middle. It's your quarterbacks job to not leave you out to dry.

There is a big difference in my eyes, in what is targeting and what isn't.
And the announcer saying, "you've got to call that" doesn't help.

[TMcGee86]

Totally agree, but I think 90% of these would not be flagged if the DB would just wrap up instead of ducking and lunging. I know it's harder to fly in there and try to make a form tackle, but all they have to do is get their arms up instead of back and I think it wouldn't be flagged. It's just laziness on the DB's part and the desire to make a highlight reel hit.

[jumperstop]

I don't want anyone to get hurt, but they're are really pansifiying football. Anytime anyone stays down after a hard hit it's automatically a personal foul, not a good hit.

And speaking announcers, sometimes they glorify a hit they'd be demonizing in a different game/situation if a flag was throw or the player stayed down.

[NormanPride]

The problem with that for the secondary is that the receiver would demolish you every time as he comes across full speed and you try to square up on him.

Huh? I'm not saying to slow down, just to keep your head up. Whenever you see the flag thrown is when the defender isn't looking at the person he's tackling. You can still hit them hard with your facemask pointed at them.

[Boomer.....]

The sissification of football. It's pathetic! *spit*

[jumperstop]

Huh? I'm not saying to slow down, just to keep your head up. Whenever you see the flag thrown is when the defender isn't looking at the person he's tackling. You can still hit them hard with your facemask pointed at them.

Eh, a lot of time they get confused and think the defender is lowering his head when he's just lowering his shoulder. I've seen more incorrect personal foul calls this year than I have seen correct ones.

[BoulderSooner79]

I am. I thought USC got straight up screwed Saturday in that call. I've seen many hits this year, where the defender is going low and the receiver ducks into it. These guys are ridiculously fast and strong, so there are going to be big hits. It's the risk you take when going over the middle. It's your quarterbacks job to not leave you out to dry.

There is a big difference in my eyes, in what is targeting and what isn't.

I call BS, that call was textbook according to the rules. The receiver didn't duck and it was a clear shoulder to the helmet hit of a defenseless receiver. You may not like the rule, but the call was correct given the rule.

[jumperstop]

I call BS, that call was textbook according to the rules. The receiver didn't duck and it was a clear shoulder to the helmet hit of a defenseless receiver. You may not like the rule, but the call was correct given the rule.
Why is shoulder to helmet against the rules? If it is it shouldn't be. If a person carrying the ball can duck his head for a few more yards then the defender should be able to hit it. All the attention on these calls goes to the defender ducking his head, when half of the time it's either just the ball carrier ducking and leading with his head or a combination of both players putting their head into it. If we are going to penalize a defender for this action we should start penalizing offensive players for the same....
The SC player who you are referring to never took his eyes off the player....

[CowboyMRW]

The receiver did duck though. When they went to slow-mo replay you can see the receiver drop down to cover himself up and protect his midsection, which is a natural reaction. It's the natural thing to do.

I think a big thing that refs go off of is sound. Sometimes shoulder pads popping sound like helmets being hit together and they go off of that.

[jumperstop]

The receiver did duck though. When they went to slow-mo replay you can see the receiver drop down to cover himself up and protect his midsection, which is a natural reaction. It's the natural thing to do.

I think a big thing that refs go off of is sound. Sometimes shoulder pads popping sound like helmets being hit together and they go off of that.
Yeup that helmet hit was 95% on the ball carrier...

[Penguin]

I remember about 15-20 years ago whenever a receiver got slammed by a defender, the announcers always blamed the quarterback. They used to say things like "You can't hang your receiver out to dry like that." Whatever happened to that train of thought? Nowadays, the receivers are expected to stretch out and catch any ball thrown anywhere around them. Personally, I think the QB should be blamed for leading a receiver straight into a defender. Give your guy a chance to catch the ball AND a chance to walk away after the play.

[BigTip]

Yeup that helmet hit was 95% on the ball carrier...


Agreed.

A lot of times the defender on these things are airborne when their target drops a head into their intended target spot. Intent should factor into calls, not just end results. Runners and receivers will learn to take advantage of this rule if it's not addressed. Maybe have two different penalties like face masking has that treats "incidental" and "grasping" differently.

[SoonerAtKU]

The rules are not the same for a runner as for a receiver just catching a ball. If the player is engaged in running and looking for hits, you'll never see someone get penalized for a hit like that.

The difference is in the expectation of protection. Hell, hockey players are laid out all the time crossing the ice without their head up. It's not called, since if you have the puck, you're expected to be looking to avoid contact.

[SoonerAtKU]

Agreed.

A lot of times the defender on these things are airborne when their target drops a head into their intended target spot. Intent should factor into calls, not just end results. Runners and receivers will learn to take advantage of this rule if it's not addressed. Maybe have two different penalties like face masking has that treats "incidental" and "grasping" differently.

First, don't leave your feet on a hit. It's not safe for anyone and it's bad technique.

Second, they did away with different penalties for facemask and they only have the 15 yarder. If it's dangerous enough to call, it's too dangerous for the game and should be 15 yards.

[jumperstop]

The rules are not the same for a runner as for a receiver just catching a ball. If the player is engaged in running and looking for hits, you'll never see someone get penalized for a hit like that.

The difference is in the expectation of protection. Hell, hockey players are laid out all the time crossing the ice without their head up. It's not called, since if you have the puck, you're expected to be looking to avoid contact.

The ball carriers don't always look where they are going, especially in the instant before being creamed....

[jumperstop]

First, don't leave your feet on a hit. It's not safe for anyone and it's bad technique.

Second, they did away with different penalties for facemask and they only have the 15 yarder. If it's dangerous enough to call, it's too dangerous for the game and should be 15 yards.

They did away with the ref having to make a judgement call which I like. Same thing with all these personal fouls. Most of the time they are judgement calls and most of the time they judge wrong due to the speed of the play and position of the hit.

[BoulderSooner79]

Why is shoulder to helmet against the rules? If it is it shouldn't be. .

It is against the rules if the player is deemed defenseless. This was a clear case of that. It gets murky if a player has time to take a step and make a move. For example, they never call an RB defenseless, so it's up to the ref to decide when a receiver becomes a runner. In the case of incomplete pass, he never does, so if he gets hit high, it's going to bring a flag. That's just the way it is.

[BoulderSooner79]

So how come nobody is discussing the blatant non-call for holding on that last drive that allowed Barkley to complete a critical pass? There were only 3 players in camera range: Barkley with the ball, the DE that got by his blocker and the blocker grabbing the DE's shoulder pads. There is no way the ref should miss that and it was critical. And yes, the announcer pointer it out that "USC got away with one".

[thecrimsoncrusader]

So how come nobody is discussing the blatant non-call for holding on that last drive that allowed Barkley to complete a critical pass? There were only 3 players in camera range: Barkley with the ball, the DE that got by his blocker and the blocker grabbing the DE's shoulder pads. There is no way the ref should miss that and it was critical. And yes, the announcer pointer it out that "USC got away with one".

Do you ever agree with anyone? Just curious.

[SoonerAtKU]

He's not wrong, that's a hold at any level, and in any situation. The ref is doing the teams a disservice by not calling it.

[stoopified]

yes

[BoulderSooner79]

Do you ever agree with anyone? Just curious.

How is asking a question disagreeing with people? (This is a question too, not disagreeing with anyone).

[jumperstop]

So how come nobody is discussing the blatant non-call for holding on that last drive that allowed Barkley to complete a critical pass? There were only 3 players in camera range: Barkley with the ball, the DE that got by his blocker and the blocker grabbing the DE's shoulder pads. There is no way the ref should miss that and it was critical. And yes, the announcer pointer it out that "USC got away with one".
Because that resulted in no points...

[SoonerAtKU]

The ball carriers don't always look where they are going, especially in the instant before being creamed....

Well, realistically, they can't see everything, but there's the expectation of preparedness. He knows that he's going to be hit, so he'll have prepared for it, which makes it a safer play.

Just go back and think about it, how many devastating injuries have there been from a non-helmet-to-helmet tackle on an RB? Not speaking of knees or ankles, but concussions or other head trauma which is clearly the part they're trying to prevent.

[BoulderSooner79]

Because that resulted in no points...

None of the calls resulted in points, but I suspect the real answer is that people wanted USC to win, so only calls that hurt that chance were questioned. I watched the whole game and the refs were pretty good and the players and coaches determined the outcome. Calls always get questioned at the end of a close contest, but there was nothing egregious here.

[OU_Sooners75]

The thing that makes this rule complete suckage is the fact that the refs get to determine if it is targeting or not.

I think this penalty should be reviewable. The USC game as an example. the defender was not targeting him. The defense was in fact trying to get lower. the WR was the one lower, so they called the defender for targeting. And to me that is bull crap.

I understand trying to protect the players from concussions...but rules such as these need to be thought out carefully with some modifications or ways to make the penalty non-existent if in fact it shows that it was incidental and not targeting. Or if the WR is lower than the defender.

IDK...the rule needs to be in place to keep people from head hunting. But I also think it needs to be a reviewable penalty...where the replay can be done to see if in fact it was or wasn't targeting and/or leading with the head.

[jumperstop]

Well, realistically, they can't see everything, but there's the expectation of preparedness. He knows that he's going to be hit, so he'll have prepared for it, which makes it a safer play.

Just go back and think about it, how many devastating injuries have there been from a non-helmet-to-helmet tackle on an RB? Not speaking of knees or ankles, but concussions or other head trauma which is clearly the part they're trying to prevent.

I'm just saying maybe we shouldn't place all the blame on the defender. In the case of the USC game the guy cleary lowered his shoulder to hit the reciever, but was he going to his head? I don't think so, especially on purpose...And whoever was arguing that it's different because he was defenseless having not caught the ball, how is the defender supposed to know he wouldn't catch it? How is he supposed to stop his momentum and make sure the guy catches the ball before he hits him? I don't like a guy getting penalized for hitting someone in the head with their shoulder pad. I only think a defender should get a penalty if they try using their helmet to tackle someone and clearly weren't looking while tackling. I feel OU's defense has been called a couple of times because of these shoulder hits. If a guy is a couple inches shorter of course his shoulder might be in line with your head.

[dennis580]

I still don't know how leading with a shoulder can be called helmet to helmet or if the defender is bent over to hit the receiver in the chest and the receiver ducks that the defender is at fault?

If there is helmet to the helmet contact you are going to get a flag. It doesn't matter if its the defenders fault or not.

[jumperstop]

None of the calls resulted in points, but I suspect the real answer is that people wanted USC to win, so only calls that hurt that chance were questioned. I watched the whole game and the refs were pretty good and the players and coaches determined the outcome. Calls always get questioned at the end of a close contest, but there was nothing egregious here.
Well the one on usc would have resulted in a win on the final drive...and yes I wanted usc to win that is the only reason why I care to discuss. Do I still think not enjoy people getting flagged for hitting someone? no. Probably not going to change since everyone is so concussion concious now.

[jumperstop]

If there is helmet to the helmet contact you are going to get a flag. It doesn't matter if its the defenders fault or not.

What about shoulder to helmet? What's the official rule on that? I've seen that called way more times than I would like this season.

[dennis580]

What about shoulder to helmet? What's the official rule on that? I've seen that called way more times than I would like this season.

Shoulder to helmet should NOT be called. By the way there was helmet to helmet contact on the USC WR. Also it was 3rd down so Stanford still had would have a another shot on 4th down. So the other post who said that penalty won the game for Stanford was wrong. We all want Stanford to lose, but there's no sense in tyring to make up conspiracies.

[jumperstop]

Shoulder to helmet should NOT be called. By the way there was helmet to helmet contact on the USC WR. Also it was 3rd down so Stanford still had would have a another shot on 4th down. So the other post who said that penalty won the game for Stanford was wrong. We all want Stanford to lose, but there's no sense in tyring to make up conspiracies.
It helped win them the game. I'm not talking specifically about that game, although I thought it was just shoulder to helmet, but in general this gets called WAY too much as helmet to helmet. There was a call that was shoulder to helmet in the ou-tech game that was called like that I believe.

[BoulderSooner79]

Shoulder to helmet should NOT be called. By the way there was helmet to helmet contact on the USC WR. Also it was 3rd down so Stanford still had would have a another shot on 4th down. So the other post who said that penalty won the game for Stanford was wrong. We all want Stanford to lose, but there's no sense in tyring to make up conspiracies.

That's not the way I understand it. Anything to helmet on a defenseless player will draw the flag - helmet, shoulder, forearm. Others can pipe in if you have the exact wording.

[jumperstop]

That's not the way I understand it. Anything to helmet on a defenseless player will draw the flag - helmet, shoulder, forearm. Others can pipe in if you have the exact wording.
Which then I guess it's all fair if it's in the rulebook, still don't agree with it though.

[BoulderSooner79]

Which then I guess it's all fair if it's in the rulebook, still don't agree with it though.

Not a universally loved rule. I have mixed feelings because I like the spirit of the rule, but certainly understand it adds another tough judgement call the refs have to make. My only point was that in this case, no one got screwed as it was called the same way it's always called in all the games I've seen. The one called against us in the FSU game was much more iffy - the guy caught the ball and took 1.5 steps so he was very close to being a runner and not a defenseless player. The USC case was cut and dried.

[cyclonesooner]

Yes, it is ridiculous. As a former fb official, it sickens me to watch games and see the incompetent officiating taking place. They should not be making these mistakes on personal fouls !!! If there is any question in your mind, do not throw the flag !!!!! Watching the holding that players are getting away with is enough to prevent me from watching games anymore. There is absolutely not much skill involved anymore in being an offensive lineman. It is sickening and is ruining the integrity of the game.

[achiro]

If there is helmet to the helmet contact you are going to get a flag. It doesn't matter if its the defenders fault or not.
Pretty much my point. If the defender is going to the recievers chest and the receiver ducks it shouldn't be called as a personal foul.

[arcman46]

And the announcer saying, "you've got to call that" doesn't help.

Herbstreet and Mussburger, both were adamant about having to call that, while at the same time, saying that the players were playing so fast there was no way to avoid it. If the secondary player is already in the motion to hit the guy when he starts to go down, it absolutely should not be called.

[SoCal]

I am. I thought USC got straight up screwed Saturday in that call. I've seen many hits this year, where the defender is going low and the receiver ducks into it. These guys are ridiculously fast and strong, so there are going to be big hits. It's the risk you take when going over the middle. It's your quarterbacks job to not leave you out to dry.

There is a big difference in my eyes, in what is targeting and what isn't.

Safety T.J. McDonald was suspended for the first half of the Trojans' next game against Colorado on Friday for a hit on Stanford receiver Chris Owusu in the fourth quarter.

On a key third down on Stanford's final drive in regulation, McDonald was called for a 15-yard personal-foul penalty for targeting a defenseless Owusu, which was also protested by Kiffin following the game. The call gave the Cardinal a first down, and they scored seven plays later to tie the game at 34-34 with less than a minute left in regulation.

It was the fourth such penalty of the 2011 season for McDonald, who was whistled three times for similar fouls against Arizona State last month. He was suspended because he "had been previously warned about illegal hits above the shoulders on defenseless opponents," Scott said.


Kiffin has said he has "no idea" how to coach him out of committing the penalties in the future.

"While Mr. McDonald was appropriately penalized on the field, I have deemed it necessary to add a half-game suspension," Scott said. "This process was part of our weekly review of all targeting and unnecessary roughness hits.

"Mr. McDonald had been previously warned about illegal hits above the shoulders on defenseless opponents. In order to protect our student-athletes, it is imperative that we enforce these penalties for the safety of the game."

McDonald, a junior safety and potential NFL prospect, said he would try to find a way around the calls in the future.

"I accept my penalty and I apologize to my teammates, to our Trojan fans and to the Stanford team," he said in a statement released by the school and via his Twitter account. "I'm disappointed that I can't be with my teammates during the first half of this Friday's game, but I know they will do a great job without me. I was not purposefully trying to hurt the receiver.

"As I said after the game, I will figure out a way to play physically and still stay within the rules."

Kiffin maintained his original stance on McDonald's penalty and subsequent suspension.

"We respectfully disagree with the suspension imposed on T.J. McDonald," Kiffin said Monday. "He made a bang-bang play and his intent was not to hurt the receiver or launch his body at the receiver or lead with his helmet. If you watch the hit in real time, we feel it is impossible to competitively play that play any differently.

"T.J. is a tremendous player and leader for our team, and he has our full support. I know he felt badly about being penalized and the impact it had in the game."

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/ncf/story/_/id/7176256/usc-trojans-coach-lane-kiffin-fined-10k-s-tj-mcdonald-suspended

[thecrimsoncrusader]

There needs to be a focus on eliminating as many judgement calls as possible. Starting with helmet to helmet hits and excessive celebration. They need to get back to the basics of football and relegating judgement calls to holding and blocks in the back, etc. The more judgement call based penalties implemented, the more the game is tarnished.

[pphilfran]

They are very concerned about head injuries...they are going to call high hits...

[FtwTxSooner]

Yes, it is ridiculous. As a former fb official, it sickens me to watch games and see the incompetent officiating taking place. They should not be making these mistakes on personal fouls !!! If there is any question in your mind, do not throw the flag !!!!! Watching the holding that players are getting away with is enough to prevent me from watching games anymore. There is absolutely not much skill involved anymore in being an offensive lineman. It is sickening and is ruining the integrity of the game.

That is exactly OPPOSITE as to how the referees are instructed for these types of penalties. If there is doubt, throw the flag anyway.


ARTICLE 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. (Rule 9-6.)


ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area
of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, elbow or shoulder. When
in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6).

[SoonerAtKU]

He left his feet and led with his head. I don't know how much more blatant he has to make it. Does he have to point and throat-slash before the play?

And Kiffin's "Gee shucks, I cain't stop these keeads from aiming the crowns of their helmets at the temple of a defenseless opponent" thing is as hollow as it is untrue. You teach them to hit with their eyes up and wrap up while driving through the tackle. I repeat, the next time you see a penalty for someone tackling with face forward and arms wrapped around the receiver will be the first time.

[achiro]

He didn't leave his feet and he led with his shoulder. The stanford guy had lowered enough that his knee was on the ground when the collision happened. The USC guy was bent Almost all the way over.
Go watch it on YouTube.

[AlboSooner]

Such is the nature of these rules: sometime a hit is flagged even though it was not meant to be illegal.

The alternative is not a good thing either. Why not review some of these hits? Especially when the game in on the line.

[SoonerAtKU]

He didn't leave his feet and he led with his shoulder. The stanford guy had lowered enough that his knee was on the ground when the collision happened. The USC guy was bent Almost all the way over.
Go watch it on YouTube.

Watch it again.

I'll concede that he hadn't left his feet prior to making contact with the WR. I guess you could say that he left his feet as he powered through the hit, but he made no attempt to wrap up or actually tackle anyone. He is laying on the turf at the end of the play. He never turned his head as if to hit with the shoulder. The crown of his helmet hit the Stanford guy in the temple. He's bent at the waist with his elbows tucked into his ribs. It was an attempt to dislodge the ball from the WR or the WR from his mental faculties, whichever came first.

The WR was descending from a jump the entire time he was turned around reaching for the underthrown ball. I have no idea why you'd think his knees hit the ground until after contact was made.

My case is this, he made an unsafe and dangerous play that stood a good chance to injure one or both of the players involved. There's no room for that in the sport and you can absolutely coach around it. Things are going to happen, and accidents occur all the time in football, but this is not even close to the first time this player has been called out for this behavior. You want to know how to coach around it, Lane? You bench him until he can hit safely. That's your answer, even if it's not the one you want to hear. You make it clear that nobody on your team will see the field until they know what they are doing and have control of how they play.

If you want the kid to stop drawing flags, you either sit him or the conference will have to sit him for you, which is what they've done.

[achiro]

Watch it again.

I'll concede that he hadn't left his feet prior to making contact with the WR. I guess you could say that he left his feet as he powered through the hit, but he made no attempt to wrap up or actually tackle anyone. He is laying on the turf at the end of the play. He never turned his head as if to hit with the shoulder.
His head is turned and he's leading with the shoulder
http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site513/2011/1030/20111030_124645_102911_U_300.jpg

The crown of his helmet hit the Stanford guy in the temple. He's bent at the waist with his elbows tucked into his ribs. It was an attempt to dislodge the ball from the WR or the WR from his mental faculties, whichever came first.

The WR was descending from a jump the entire time he was turned around reaching for the underthrown ball. I have no idea why you'd think his knees hit the ground until after contact was made
Because his knee is on or almost on the ground just as they connect. Watch it in slow motion.

[achiro]

I always wonder what makes people see the things they see. This is a screenshot. He's bent over just as contact is made
http://i1090.photobucket.com/albums/i367/achiro1/b0124b10.jpg

[cyclonesooner]

That would be a fine officiating philosophy FtwTxSooner if the offical's decision could be overturned by instant replay. You have to be 100 % sure when making that call. That's one of the problems with collegiate/pro officiating. Some officials depend on instant replay to bail them out too often.

[jumperstop]

video:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1yurG8JvgA

[FtwTxSooner]

That would be a fine officiating philosophy FtwTxSooner if the offical's decision could be overturned by instant replay. You have to be 100 % sure when making that call. That's one of the problems with collegiate/pro officiating. Some officials depend on instant replay to bail them out too often.

Agreed. Officiating seems to have regressed since instant replay was established. Instructing officials to throw a flag even when in doubt doesn't help.

At least I've seen some instances, one in the Texass game, and one last week, where the officials got together and ended up picking up the flag, both in our favor. With the current state of things, this the best we can hope for now, where another official with a different view may help out.

Though, that doesn't change the fact the game has changed. Some hits that would have been Sportscenter highlights are now illegal. The quicker players adjust to this new reality, the better.

[jumperstop]

He does kinda turn his shoulder at the last minute, but I still do not believe that is should be on the defender that dude got hit in the head. Was it a poor tackle with poor technique? Yes....Is there ANYTHING he could have done to stop his body at that speed to make sure any part of his body did not slam into the recievers head? No...If the receiver had caught the ball and the other defender hadn't messed up the reception, the second defenders shoulder would have only hit the other receiver in the chest. I've never played football, but to make these players make split second decisions where they have to determine when it is ok to hit a certain player or not is just too much. It takes away from the game. I don't want any player to get hurt, but this is the game they signed up for. They know the risk and consequences of playing the game, so injuries should be on them. I'm ok with helmet to helmet penalties but ten years ago this would have been PRAISED as an excellent hit...now the guy has to issue an apology...**** that....

[BoulderSooner79]

It's amazing that people see what they want to see - probably me included. That video looks textbook of what the rule is trying to discourage. It's the guy intentionally putting his shoulder pads through the receiver's head. And yes, shoulder pads are specifically in the rule with helmets and they should be - they can concuss equally as a helmet hit. The conference had plenty of time to analyze the play from every angle for as long as they wanted and they decided to impose a suspension. I'm sure they would not have done that if they thought the refs called it incorrectly. The conference is saying you cannot come in at full speed and out of control like that; you have to break down and make a tackle or you risk drawing a flag. So yes, it's on the defender and he can control it for the most part by his technique. And if this particular kid is thinking he'll just live with the flags because he only really cares about the NFL, he'll find the same rule there with escalating fines added on to it. Yes, these guys signed up for football, but football changes over time just like everything else in the world and they must adjust. The rules committee meets every year at college and pro levels.

[CowboyMRW]

Let's say that ball is caught in that situation. If the defender slows down before making the tackle there is a chance that the Stanford guy makes him miss and scores a TD there. Hesitation on defense leads to big plays.

The defense is already at a disadvantage in today's world of football and penalties like this put them at an even bigger disadvantage. When the receivers are going low, then it's sometimes impossible for a defender to get even lower, and thus helmets are going to collide. The speed that these guys play with are ridiculously fast, even if if doesn't appear that way on tv, or in the stands.

[BoulderSooner79]

Let's say that ball is caught in that situation. If the defender slows down before making the tackle there is a chance that the Stanford guy makes him miss and scores a TD there. Hesitation on defense leads to big plays.

The defense is already at a disadvantage in today's world of football and penalties like this put them at an even bigger disadvantage. When the receivers are going low, then it's sometimes impossible for a defender to get even lower, and thus helmets are going to collide. The speed that these guys play with are ridiculously fast, even if if doesn't appear that way on tv, or in the stands.

Guys don't try to grab the facemask or try to block in the back during a return. It happens because the speed of the game and that's just the way it is. If a receiver is going to the ground, you don't have to hit him at all in college and you just have to touch him in the NFL. Yes, he may miss out on a hit, but it's a risk/reward trade-off and if he draws a flag, the risk didn't pay off. And with technique, the defender can cut down on the risk of drawing these flags - can't be avoided completely, but that's true of most infractions.

[jumperstop]

Guys don't try to grab the facemask or try to block in the back during a return. It happens because the speed of the game and that's just the way it is. If a receiver is going to the ground, you don't have to hit him at all in college and you just have to touch him in the NFL. Yes, he may miss out on a hit, but it's a risk/reward trade-off and if he draws a flag, the risk didn't pay off. And with technique, the defender can cut down on the risk of drawing these flags - can't be avoided completely, but that's true of most infractions.

Except they have a penalty for both sides of the ball on these penalties. With these helmet personal fouls, the fault is always on the defender and that's the issue I have. If we are penalizing players for bad tackling technique, we should penalize offensive players for lowering their head at the end of a run.

Edit: Well no defensive block in the back, but defensive holding...you get the point.

[birddog]

watch some john lynch highlights. a face mask to face mask "square up" is all good, but hitting a guy with the crown of your helmet as he crosses the field is reckless and unnecessary. sorry if that's Pansying up" football.

[achiro]

watch some john lynch highlights. a face mask to face mask "square up" is all good, but hitting a guy with the crown of your helmet as he crosses the field is reckless and unnecessary. sorry if that's Pansying up" football.
Are you saying lynch didn't lead with his head because if that's what you are saying, you are way wrong. He did it a lot.

[meoveryouxinfinity]

I love watching SEC games because personal fouls/late hits are rarely called. it's so relaxing.

[CowboyMRW]

Oregon State got screwed so hard by against Stanford. In no way did that hit violate any rules. If anything the kid from Stanford should give football up. That was his 3rd major concussion.

[jumperstop]

I haven't got a chance to see it up close, have a video?

[CowboyMRW]

I'll see what I can pull

[CowboyMRW]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oymQ-8-gWE4

[TMcGee86]

Oregon State got screwed so hard by against Stanford. In no way did that hit violate any rules. If anything the kid from Stanford should give football up. That was his 3rd major concussion.

Totally agree. It was the most ridiculous call ever. For one, they said "targeting" when the damn WR had caught it, turned up field and taken at least two steps before he was hit. That isn't even in the same galaxy as targeting. Second, the WR ducked his head into the DB. It wasn't even a helmet to helmet. It was a perfectly legal tackle. But he gets knocked out bc he's had too many concussions and the refs freak out and throw the flag.

It's just a joke now.

[achiro]

There were several of these kind of hits in SEC games this weekend that were not called. The PAC refs are calling anything that even looks close.

[CowboyMRW]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TshRcFayKQ

Not only a legal hit that was penalized, but he was also ejected for this hit.