Peach Bowl - Georgia vs Ohio State

[Delmar]

A tackler can light up a defenseless player all day long. He just can’t be hit above the shoulders or with the crown of the helmet.

I’ll have to see a replay but I’m pretty sure he hit him in the head with his shoulder. I doubt Harrison gets a concussion from a shot below the head. Other poster is correct. It should have been a personal foul on a hit on a defenseless player.

 

[Sea Ray]

I’ll have to see a replay but I’m pretty sure he hit him in the head with his shoulder. I doubt Harrison gets a concussion from a shot below the head. Other poster is correct. It should have been a personal foul on a hit on a defenseless player.

The hit was a hard one to the shoulder area in an attempt to jar the ball loose. The extreme force to the shoulder area caused the head and neck area to snap towards the defender's helmet and there was contact. That's how one can get a concussion with a hit to the shoulder. The physics works

 

[Delmar]

The hit was a hard one to the shoulder area in an attempt to jar the ball loose. The extreme force to the shoulder area caused the head and neck area to snap towards the defender's helmet and there was contact. That's how one can get a concussion with a hit to the shoulder. The physics works

Maybe so. Still have to see a replay. It was borderline for sure. I guess the question becomes if Harrison was in a defenseless position as he was going down? That could have been called rather than targeting. Again, doesn’t matter now since it wasn’t called but I will always believe GA lucked out on that call.

 

[AthensVol2007]

It still wasn’t without a doubt. He was ruled a half a yard short.! That was a side view….IF it could’ve been shown overhead then I could see…..Without any DOUBT he made the line. But because I didn’t see a view that showed me. Then that is doubt ! So should the Refs

Because the ref thought his foot was out of bounds so he marked the ball where his foot was out at. The problem was, his foot never touched out of bounds so he wasn’t “down” at that spot. The line to gain is on an infinite plane and he crossed that line by at least a foot before any part of his body ever hit out of bounds.

 

[VolMack——————$]

Righteous hit - good, clean, violent football...as the Lord intended.

BS…You do understand that the sports different from when you and I played the game.? The players are much bigger and faster.! Do you understand the impact to a persons body with that sort of velocity and the pressure of impact ?!?!?! The rules are to protect….Trust me I hate that it’s came to this type of sport. But I’m saying this….the players have to be protected against each other. Do you think that jaylin Hyatt or Tillman are against these rules. How about Marvin Harrison Jr or how about Marvin Harrison Sr. or Jr.’s mom.?!?

 

[GAVol]

I’ll have to see a replay but I’m pretty sure he hit him in the head with his shoulder. I doubt Harrison gets a concussion from a shot below the head. Other poster is correct. It should have been a personal foul on a hit on a defenseless player.

It was a bang bang play that was close for sure, but there’s nothing that says a defenseless player can’t be hit…. they just can’t be hit in the head and neck area. This isn’t a great look, but I thought it was shoulder to shoulder. Even if he had caught it, it would’ve been negated on replay because he stepped out of bounds before he touched the ball.

 

[VolMack——————$]

Because the ref thought his foot was out of bounds so he marked the ball where his foot was out at. The problem was, his foot never touched out of bounds so he wasn’t “down” at that spot. The line to gain is on an infinite plane and he crossed that line by at least a foot before any part of his body ever hit out of bounds.

WTH….the ball is out where the ball crosses the white line on the sideline. That’s like saying a runner extends the ball out in front of him. But it doesn’t touch any part of the orange cone at the goal line. But by what you just said it’s still a touchdown. But in this case a first down. I’m dumbfounded by your logic.

 

[AthensVol2007]

WTH….the ball is out where the ball crosses the white line on the sideline. That’s like saying a runner extends the ball out in front of him. But it doesn’t touch any part of the orange cone at the goal line. But by what you just said it’s still a touchdown. But in this case a first down. I’m dumbfounded by your logic.

No it’s not. That’s like saying you can’t catch a ball that’s in the air out of bounds while your feet are in because it’s already outside the white line.

 

[VolMack——————$]

It was a bang bang play that was close for sure, but there’s nothing that says a defenseless player can’t be hit…. they just can’t be hit in the head and neck area. This isn’t a great look, but I thought it was shoulder to shoulder. Even if he had caught it, it would’ve been negated on replay because he stepped out of bounds before he touched the ball.

Funny thing your not showing nothing but the play in full speed. But not the slow down and different angles lol….You did listen to the ref in the booth the (EXPERT) ? Correct ? Because he stated that it wasn’t targeting BUT he would’ve been fine if they’d called A defenseless player !!!! BECAUSE IT WAS A DEFENSELESS PLAYER ! Wow the justification to be right amazes me !

 

[Boston Vol]

WTH….the ball is out where the ball crosses the white line on the sideline. That’s like saying a runner extends the ball out in front of him. But it doesn’t touch any part of the orange cone at the goal line. But by what you just said it’s still a touchdown. But in this case a first down. I’m dumbfounded by your logic.

This is completely wrong.

 

[VolMack——————$]

No it’s not. That’s like saying you can’t catch a ball that’s in the air out of bounds while your feet are in because it’s already outside the white line.

That’s not the same…if the foots down and with control no problem. But that is a dum analogy…where ever the ball is going out of bounds is where the ball is spotted. No matter if the ball is tucked in or extended. It’s where the ball meets the sideline!

 

[GAVol]

This is completely wrong.

Brace yourself.

 

[Sea Ray]

Maybe so. Still have to see a replay. It was borderline for sure. I guess the question becomes if Harrison was in a defenseless position as he was going down? That could have been called rather than targeting. Again, doesn’t matter now since it wasn’t called but I will always believe GA lucked out on that call.

It was definitely a close call. Could have gone either way. After officials carefully studied it, they ruled no targeting...as did the ESPN rules analyst at the 1:20 mark of this video:



Ohio State was the far more talented team. Their talent at positions like QB, WR and RB were far better than Georgia's. This Georgia team is not as good as last year's. They're beatable

 

[VolMack——————$]

This is completely wrong.

Ball is spotted where ever the ball meets the sideline. Extended or tucked it’s a judgement call other than IF the replay can definitely see other wise. DEFINITELY is key word here.!

 

[vols40]

It was definitely a close call. Could have gone either way. After officials carefully studied it, they ruled no targeting...as did the ESPN rules analyst at the 1:20 mark of this video:



Ohio State was the far more talented team. Their talent at positions like QB, WR and RB were far better than Georgia's. This Georgia team is not as good as last year's. They're beatable

Don't disagree with your take but unfortunately TCU will not play with 14 of them.

 

[VolMack——————$]

Brace yourself.

Ignorant

 

[SpookyAction]

My first impression was no targeting. I looked at the rule and realized my first instinct was wrong. The only question was he hit in the head. I think so. I could be wrong.



Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player


ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting. When in question, it is a foul. ...


Note 1: "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. Some indications of targeting (emphasis NCAA's) include but are not limited to:

• 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
• 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
• Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
• Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet

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:

• A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass
• A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier
• A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return
• A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier
• A player on the ground
• A player obviously out of the play
• A player who receives a blind-side block
• A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped
• A quarterback any time after a change of possession a ball carrier who has obviously given himself up and is sliding feet first"

 

[GAVol]

Funny thing your not showing nothing but the play in full speed. But not the slow down and different angles lol….You did listen to the ref in the booth the (EXPERT) ? Correct ? Because he stated that it wasn’t targeting BUT he would’ve been fine if they’d called A defenseless player !!!! BECAUSE IT WAS A DEFENSELESS PLAYER ! Wow the justification to be right amazes me !

If you can find a slow motion clip, be my guest. I couldn’t find one.

 

[VolMack——————$]

If you can find a slow motion clip, be my guest. I couldn’t find one.

#988 post Watch and listen….it wasn’t targeting BUT it was a defenseless player. Straight from the mouth of the expert Ref…That’s what I’ve talked about the whole time!

 

[VolMack——————$]

My first impression was no targeting. I looked at the rule and realized my first instinct was wrong. The only question was he hit in the head. I think so. I could be wrong.



Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player


ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting. When in question, it is a foul. ...


Note 1: "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. Some indications of targeting (emphasis NCAA's) include but are not limited to:

• 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
• 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
• Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
• Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet

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:

• A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass
• A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier
• A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return
• A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier
• A player on the ground
• A player obviously out of the play
• A player who receives a blind-side block
• A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped
• A quarterback any time after a change of possession a ball carrier who has obviously given himself up and is sliding feet first"

We have a winner lol
The expert Ref in the booth that they use every game. Stated he agreed it wasn’t targeting as that was the call. But it was a defenseless player….That’s where the refs called it wrong. Because of that it wasn’t a penalty. Ohio state should’ve had a automatic first down at the 2 yard line. That’s where the rule needs to be changed. That type of call should be overruled by the booth. To the penalty that should be called.

 

[vols40]

If you can find a slow motion clip, be my guest. I couldn’t find one.

This call is made more difficult by the fact it took out a player. I get the tough hit point and quite frankly miss those hits. Targeting if it's here to stay needs to be less controversial. To me and just my opinion whatever targeting is to be this play last night has to be called targeting. It was way more in the realm of protecting players than the natural instinct of a defender lowering their head when making a tackle to prevent injury to themselves.

 

[GAVol]

#988 post Watch and listen….it wasn’t targeting BUT it was a defenseless player. Straight from the mouth of the expert Ref…That’s what I’ve talked about the whole time!

And again, just hitting a defenseless player isn’t a penalty. When the rules guy says “he is defenseless” he’s saying that as one element of a situation where targeting can get called, but in that case they decided there wasn’t enough other factors to flag it. It was definitely close though.

And another thing again… the ref also missed an illegal touching foul. Harrison stepped out and was the first player to touch the ball.

 

[GAVol]

This call is made more difficult by the fact it took out a player. I get the tough hit point and quite frankly miss those hits. Targeting if it's here to stay needs to be less controversial. To me and just my opinion whatever targeting is to be this play last night has to be called targeting. It was way more in the realm of protecting players than the natural instinct of a defender lowering their head when making a tackle to prevent injury to themselves.

I can buy some of that argument. It’s just a tough rule to enforce.

 

[DukeDaisySam]

It was definitely a close call. Could have gone either way. After officials carefully studied it, they ruled no targeting...as did the ESPN rules analyst at the 1:20 mark of this video:



Ohio State was the far more talented team. Their talent at positions like QB, WR and RB were far better than Georgia's. This Georgia team is not as good as last year's. They're beatable

Beatable by who? TCU?

 

[vols40]

I can buy some of that argument. It’s just a tough rule to enforce.

50/50 calls is always the case. But maybe if you truly implemented a rule for the safety of players it should be a slam dunk. As it is we have a knee jerk reaction to the NFL concussion scandal.