Canes v Bethune-Cookman

Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement
Nope.


One of the better things that's changing this season is that its not automatically Targeting if there is any helmet to helmet contact. Too many times we have to listen to announcers going on and on about "force-able" contact to the head or neck when in reality what we're seeing is incidental contact of the helmets.

We saw one of these overturned against TAMU last weekend on James Williams.

Bro leading with the crown of the helmet into the offensive players head is the literal definition of targeting. The BCU player put his head down and lead with his head into Colbie’s head.

Die on this hill if you want but your dead wrong.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_4534.jpeg
    IMG_4534.jpeg
    1.7 MB · Views: 0
Advertisement
Advertisement
So, most agee it was targeting. Clearly a helmet to helmet on the receivers head while he's trying to secure the ball. Yet, at the same time we dis the receiver for dropping the ball. I think it's a decent excuse not to hold on to the ball.

Nice finish to the half. TVD done.
First the helmet, then hit the ball. Just a good defensive play. Colby gets a pass from me.
 
Advertisement
After the catch Colbie is immediately lowering his head in order to avoid the missile coming at his midsection. It's a bang-bang play, what's the defender supposed to do? He's not only hitting a moving target, but one that's rapidly lowering his frame. Good no-call.
 
Advertisement
Bro leading with the crown of the helmet into the offensive players head is the literal definition of targeting. The BCU player put his head down and lead with his head into Colbie’s head.

Die on this hill if you want but your dead wrong.



Lol - It was overturned. Its not targeting.


The pic you posted showed two guys leading with their helmets. Not a defenseless player. Incidental helmet to helmet contact given that his helmet caused the fumble.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement
Back
Top