YankeeVol
To some, war is hell. To us, it’s sanctuary.
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2010
- Messages
- 134,934
- Likes
- 59,684
Is this a first for a kicker? I’m thinking yes
I don’t agree with licking a kid out on his first offense. Maybe you make it a season thing instead of game to game. First offense is just the flag. Second, regardless of same game or not is out for the rest of the half. Third is suspended the rest of the game and the next game. Something like that would be better than kicking kids out for one hit.To be fair, it was targeting.
I don’t like ejections for targeting unless it’s really egregious—like a hit seen on an old NFL highlight where a db such as Ronnie Lott tries to decapitate a receiver.I don’t agree with licking a kid out on his first offense. Maybe you make it a season thing instead of game to game. First offense is just the flag. Second, regardless of same game or not is out for the rest of the half. Third is suspended the rest of the game and the next game. Something like that would be better than kicking kids out for one hit.
By the letter of the rule, it was. But common sense tells you that nobody should be ejected for a hit like that. They need to take the ejections out of the equation and let the league office take time to review the hits and suspend players during the next week.
By any application of the rule it was targeting…the kid launched, led with the helmet, made contact above the shoulders with the crown, made no attempt to wrap up…it was textbook targeting. The kicker shouldn’t get a pass because he’s not some head hunting free safety.
Now I’m with you on the punishment aspect. I’ve never been in favor of automatic ejection. Hopefully that changes soon.
No launch, was made at all. He awkwardly left his feet after contact. His left leg firmly planted before contact. Crown of the helmet made contact on the collar bone, not on the head and maybe above shoulders. Of course, he did not wrap up, he's a kicker.
Weak call and does not speak to the nature of the rule.