Brian Randolph, losing him for the game.

#126
#126
I'm okay with the call but I don't think it's as bad as some of you making it out to be. First off, there was not contact to the head. So we can stop saying that case it was absolutely shoulder to chest. So the question is weather or not Cooper was defenseless. There is a view where you can see Cooper from the front and if you watch his eyes he saw Randoloh coming with more than enough time to brace himself.

I do think it was an unnecessary hit and deserving of a 15 yard penalty and won't argue too hard that Cooper wasn't defenseless. But it's certainly not "one of the worst targeting hits ever" and definitely wasn't contact to the head.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#130
#130
bbeacham said:
I don't know what game most of y'all saw, but, I saw a clean hit with his shoulder. However, I did see what I'd call a targeting hit on Alabama against LSU last night and the refs never said a thing about it. I guess Nick Saban has more than enough refs on his payroll to overlook things like that. So, the refs won't be cutting Tennessee any slack from here on out! Also, the SEC appears to be desperate to get Alabama back to the NC! So, Saban's refs have their marching orders!
Click to expand...

There wasn't targeting in the Bama game. The LSU player was a runner....not a defenseless receiver.
 
#131
#131
VolunteerHillbilly said:
Saw a special teams play by Bama against LSU that looked much more viscous. There's not much consistency with these calls. If they really want to stop targeting get rid of the helmet. Otherwise please stop the pussification of tackle football.
Click to expand...

Sorry, dude but it's not "pussificatuon" when it's meant to protect kids from serious brain injuries. It just so happens that the physical effects of these head injuries later in life are now coming to light. Brain damage, emotional disorders, suicides, etc... This is a justified measure in football. Real people with families are involved. Do you take pleasure in watching someone get concussed? I like big hits as much as the next guy but not ones that affect/threaten people's lives.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#132
#132
Going to put this here....again. Vols' Randolph ejected for targeting

Cooper does not "duck" his head, and BR clocks him. There was helmet to helmet contact. It was late, and he was defenseless. All 3 parts of textbook targeting.

Now, I don't subscribe to the the "dirtiest hit I've ever seen" philosophy, but it was targeting and he should have been flagged for it.

I don't think this one falls under the "wussification" thought either. Hits like this should not be a part of the game....period. With what we know about long term effects and brain trauma, there is no need in it. There is a kid from Siegel High School still in a coma after 9 days now. There are bigger things than beating our chest about "being tougher back in the old days"
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#133
#133
OP, that's a load of crap. Randolph was completely in the wrong. It was a late hit and targeting. Stupid play and he deserved to be tossed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#136
#136
If these athletes would just wrap up they can still deliver the blow and avoid targeting call. Instead they are always going for the kill shot.
That was a stupid play by BR and it was right call by the ref.
 
#138
#138
volinSmyrna said:
There wasn't targeting in the Bama game. The LSU player was a runner....not a defenseless receiver.
Click to expand...

I know you keep saying this, but it doesn't matter. He launched himself head first, using his helmet to initiate the contact to the other player head. That is spearing. No penalty was called at all.

What is Spearing? Definition from SportingCharts.com

What is Spearing?

A penalty called when a defensive player makes a tackle that leads with the crown of his helmet into the offensive player. If the initial contact occurs at the top of the helmet, the tackle is illegal. Spearing is a 15-yard penalty against the defense and an automatic first down. The penalty is considered a player safety issue, as hits that lead with the top of the helmet often result in injuries.
 
#139
#139
it was a tough call but he put himself in the situation unfortunately, thank goodness its North texas he misses and not something else
FWIW i saw a pretty tough call on a gator too against Vandy, didnt agree with that one either, these calls are tough and even after review they stand so the refs are just following the the exact verbiage of the rule i reckon......seems like alot of guys are getting ejected though for leading with shoulder rather then head...
 
#140
#140
wesleydmartin said:
it was a tough call but he put himself in the situation unfortunately, thank goodness its North texas he misses and not something else
FWIW i saw a pretty tough call on a gator too against Vandy, didnt agree with that one either, these calls are tough and even after review they stand so the refs are just following the the exact verbiage of the rule i reckon......seems like alot of guys are getting ejected though for leading with shoulder rather then head...
Click to expand...

Happened in the first half, so don't think he will miss any of next game. I think that is how the rule is.
 
#141
#141
utchuckster said:
Happened in the first half, so don't think he will miss any of next game. I think that is how the rule is.
Click to expand...

The SEC front office can add time to specifically egregious targeting calls. It's happened before.

Edit: They have the right to suspend a player under Southeastern Conference Constitution Article, 4.4.2 (d) which states that "a student-athlete may be suspended if it is determined that the student-athlete has committed a flagrant or unsportsmanlike act."
 
Last edited:
#142
#142
Here's the entire text.

When it comes to the attention of the Commissioner that a student-athlete may be guilty of committing a flagrant, disqualifying foul on the field of play or at a contest site, or may be guilty of any unsportsmanlike act, the Commissioner may rule the student-athlete ineligible permanently or for a fixed period, or the Commissioner may, with or without publicity, warn the student-athlete and the student-athlete’s coach and member institution that, if there is a repetition of such conduct, the student-athlete could be ruled ineligible permanently;
Click to expand...

There are many out there that think this rises to that level, so this may not be over.
 
#145
#145
utchuckster said:
Happened in the first half, so don't think he will miss any of next game. I think that is how the rule is.
Click to expand...


Yes I thought they just suspend one full game from ejection...so if 2nd quarter then he can come back 2nd or 3rd quarter of next game....not 100% sure though...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#146
#146
wesleydmartin said:
Yes I thought they just suspend one full game from ejection...so if 2nd quarter then he can come back 2nd or 3rd quarter of next game....not 100% sure though...
Click to expand...

Thats incorrect. First half means you miss the rest of the game second half you miss the rest and the first half of another.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#147
#147
Lonnie Utah said:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAzZzr04QoE[/youtube]
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting a good replay.

I have no idea how anyone can watch that and say it wasn't targeting. The hit was late, he lead with his helmet into Coopers helmet. Cooper got blasted right as he turns his head and didn't have time to react (aka defenseless). It's arguable whether he "launched" or not. Randolph knew it was targeting and his body language showed it. The coaches didn't argue it either. If you want to argue the merits of the rule that's fine. I don't agree with you but you are entitled to that opinion. But this was a text book example of the kind of hit the rule was implemented to prevent. There have been some terrible targeting calls (Mosley), but this wasn't one. Under the current rules Randolph deserved to be tossed. I'm not going to speculate about what he was thinking or what his intentions were. But the hit was obviously illegal, and a missed call in another game won't change that.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#149
#149
JCHateSteve said:
Thanks for posting a good replay.

I have no idea how anyone can watch that and say it wasn't targeting. The hit was late, he lead with his helmet into Coopers helmet. Cooper got blasted right as he turns his head and didn't have time to react (aka defenseless). It's arguable whether he "launched" or not. Randolph knew it was targeting and his body language showed it. The coaches didn't argue it either. If you want to argue the merits of the rule that's fine. I don't agree with you but you are entitled to that opinion. But this was a text book example of the kind of hit the rule was implemented to prevent. There have been some terrible targeting calls (Mosley), but this wasn't one. Under the current rules Randolph deserved to be tossed. I'm not going to speculate about what he was thinking or what his intentions were. But the hit was obviously illegal, and a missed call in another game won't change that.
Click to expand...

No doubt what he did was the very definition of targeting....and I was listening to this part of the game on my way home--Tim Priest even went so far as to accuse Randolph of a cheap shot publicly right after the play before even seeing the replay....

I personally like the targeting rule--and think that it's necessary with all the data concerning head injuries....

But--I definitely hate the inconsistency in which it is enforced by the officials....if any of you saw the Michigan State vs. Michigan game....it had one of the most ridiculous call of targeting I've ever seen....and I think UGA had a ridiculous targeting call against them a few years ago....and the call against Moseley was just ridiculous, too....
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top