Can SEC Reverse Suspension for Targeting?

#2
#2
I was wondering the same thing myself. If ever there was a case to do it....
 
#3
#3
DrDave said:
Can the SEC reverse the ruling of the officials of targeting?
Click to expand...

Can they? yes
will they? yes
That is absolutely the worst targeting call ever. No question. the receiver was able to make a 360 turn, and made three steps before contact was made by defender's
SHOULDER. That was a very hard hit, but was a tremendous football play, and should have been ruled a fumble, recovered by Tenn.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 49 people
#5
#5
robow said:
Can they? yes
will they? yes
That is absolutely the worst targeting call ever. No question. the receiver was able to make a 360 turn, and made three steps before contact was made by defender's
SHOULDER. That was a very hard hit, but was a tremendous football play, and should have been ruled a fumble, recovered by Tenn.
Click to expand...
Moseley executed a text shoulder to chest hit. You are correct, after 3 steps, this needs to be overturned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 people
#6
#6
My guess is nothing will be done, but unless i don't understand something about rule the replay official should be the one punished. It was a hard hit but both had heads up and hit was shoulder to chest. Mosley did not launch and if any less aggressive he could be hurt. I would like the official to answer one question. How should have Mosley tackled him?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#7
#7
I can understand missing a call live at full speed but missing it when you have slow motion replay.. really.. how incompetent can you be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 29 people
#8
#8
Can someone explain why you even have to let the receiver take multiple steps before engaging? It makes no sense to me. I thought as soon as the ball touches their hands your allowed to make a hit. Can some one fill me in on this?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#9
#9
The call was horrible. The replay officials not over turning the horrible call was worse. Also, that was a fumble. Let's hope the sec office overturns the suspension, that's the right thing to do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#11
#11
I agree with everyone that it was a turrible call and was shocked it wasn't reversed after the review. Would love for someone more familiar with the details of the targeting rule to explain how it was even close. As I understand the rule, it appeared Mosley executed exactly as they are wanting DB's to hit receivers - shoulder pads to chest area? Just imagine the fallout if that call was the game changer in a big game?
 
#12
#12
robow said:
Can they? yes
will they? yes
That is absolutely the worst targeting call ever. No question. the receiver was able to make a 360 turn, and made three steps before contact was made by defender's
SHOULDER. That was a very hard hit, but was a tremendous football play, and should have been ruled a fumble, recovered by Tenn.
Click to expand...

I will add Moseley also never left his feet or launched himsellf.

I was halfway into a bottle of Buffalo Trace and knew that call was atrocious.

That replay official should be fired.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#13
#13
I must have missed this play. When did it happen? I have the game recorded. I could go back and watch. I thought I saw the entire game. ???
 
#14
#14
It was a very unfair thing to do to a player that was having a good game. He will be needed against South Carolina.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#16
#16
MySourceSaid said:
Can someone explain why you even have to let the receiver take multiple steps before engaging? It makes no sense to me. I thought as soon as the ball touches their hands your allowed to make a hit. Can some one fill me in on this?
Click to expand...

You don't. The fact that he took 3 steps is the reason it should have been ruled a fumble.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#18
#18
It was one of the worst calls I have ever seen. Keep watching it and see how little of Mosleys shoulder makes contact. he is hitting as much with his side as anything . he twist so much to get his head out of the way he almost makes the hit with his back. over on the other thread about this I watched it like a dozen times. Cant believe this was not overturned. The kid was penalized for a text book hit by the current rules .
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#19
#19
allvol123 said:
I will add Moseley also never left his feet or launched himsellf.

I was halfway into a bottle of Buffalo Trace and knew that call was atrocious.

That replay official should be fired.
Click to expand...

Yes, the replay official should be looking for another line of work Monday.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#20
#20
robow said:
Can they? yes
will they? yes
That is absolutely the worst targeting call ever. No question. the receiver was able to make a 360 turn, and made three steps before contact was made by defender's
SHOULDER. That was a very hard hit, but was a tremendous football play, and should have been ruled a fumble, recovered by Tenn.
Click to expand...

I looked up the rule last night. It doesn't have to be using the crown of the helmet. The question in this case was the hit in the neck or head area..... It clearly was not.....replay official sux
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#22
#22
MySourceSaid said:
Can someone explain why you even have to let the receiver take multiple steps before engaging? It makes no sense to me. I thought as soon as the ball touches their hands your allowed to make a hit. Can some one fill me in on this?
Click to expand...

It has to do with deciding whether the player was "defenseless."

There are actually two NCAA targeting rules, either of which can draw the targeting penalty. One has to do with initiating contact with the crown of the helmet.

Targeting and Initiating Contact With the Crown of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3): No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.
Click to expand...

Moseley very clearly did not do that.

The second rule concerns hitting a defenseless player in the head or neck:

Targeting and Initiating Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player (Rule 9-1-4): No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul.
Click to expand...

So if the player is considered defenseless, hitting him in the head or neck with pretty much any part of your body above the waist is a penalty.

So how does the NCAA define a "defenseless" player? Not very well, the definition is pretty much just a repeat of the word "defenseless." But they do give examples:

Defenseless player—a player not in position to defend himself.

Examples:
  • A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
  • A receiver attempting to catch a 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.
  • 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.
Click to expand...

I bolded the one that comes closest to applying here.

The bottom line is, the player had time after catching the ball to turn his head forward, adjust his grip on the ball, and take three steps. He was no longer "defenseless" by any reasonable interpretation.

Combine that with the fact that Moseley did not use the crown of his helmet, and it's pretty clear that neither of the rules were violated.

The NCAA should reverse this ruling, and reprimand the replay official.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 10 people
#25
#25
What really irked me was the fact the "replay review" was done so quickly. The Zebras did not even take enough time to see they were dead wrong. Pitiful. :thud:
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top