Can the Big Ten office overturn the targeting suspension?
- Thread starter NorthernHawkeye
- Start date
Jones did not leave his feet, nor did he crouch and come up in an upward motion.
The only thing that could be debated was that it was attacking beyond making a reasonable tackle. And that’s stretching it.
But I agree. I think they uphold the ejection.
Even the former minnesota coach(announcer) said it would be overturned. Hell I think both announcer said the same after looking at slow motion.
I guess they're just morons too right?
You are not exactly being honest here. They are not fully and properly versed in what is targeting and they are not trained in it. Also, they did not speak in absolutes. It was a close call, they said, and they thought it "might" get over turned.
I was at a game watch in Nashville and the crowd clearly thought is was a crap call....for good reason. Not sure how well the official can see the replay in that little tablet or whatever it is. Why not get them a real screen with hood. Are they allowed to consult with off-field officials?
You are right, my bad. It wasn't mason....it was the B1G Rules Analyst that said it wasn't targeting!!!
Guess he's not very good at his job and as dumb as all of us ay?
I agree that it wasn’t targeting in the spirit of the rule. But the rule itself has a nice little caveat “when in question, it’s a foul”.
I’ve got no problem with the call on the field. In real time, in real speed call it for player safety 100 percent of the time. I don’t agree with review and subsequent disqualification.
My beef is that the targeting rule makes officials afraid. You really hit a guy high in the chest, not helmet-to-helmet, and you really rattle his cage. He goes flying backward and you are out for the next half of football. Bob Sanders, Larry Station, more would have missed a lot of game time.
I understand that the NCAA and probably the Big Ten are afraid of lawsuits. Plus the perfect helmet for protection has never been made.
But everybody's afraid, and good solid clean hits that you love if you love defense get penalized rather extremely.
I understand your frustration. It sounds like the Nate Gerry Special was served up.
Basically the hit you describe is being/has been eliminated in college FB. The issue with Jones was that the receiver was considered defenseless. In that case, you basically cannot de-cleat them, even if you hit below the neck/shoulder. The offensive player who can't see the defender can't be hit in the way Jones hit him, at least based on how the rule is being called/enforced.
PJ is lucky he didn't get his player killed even though it wasn't targeting. Does anyone else find it ridiculous he used his last TO right before that down 17 with less than a minute to go? Anyone know if Minny player is hurt? Seemed totally senseless to me. The game was over.
I can live with ejection even if they get it wrong but suspension for next game is just ridiculous with how subjective these calls are. Way too much impact on team
I can live with ejection even if they get it wrong but suspension for next game is just ridiculous with how subjective these calls are. Way too much impact on team
That is terrible, especially when you consider they are screwing over kids they are supposedly protecting?
Most coaches (and I assume players) seem to agree too....
You are in error again. I just re-watched it. He did not say "it wasn't targeting". His comment was of uncertainty. He said it was a very close call. You do know it is on BTN2Go, right? It is in the final minute. Go check it out; but, please report it honestly this time.
Watch this. The media asks good questions.
Bottom line:
* Coaches don't think Jones did anything wrong
* Gervase says what we all know; if you don't play 100 percent, you are more prone to injure yourself
* Coaches simply reminded the players to lead with your shoulder and not your head.
The video:
https://www.hawkcentral.com/videos/...-agree-targeting-call-amani-jones/1578427002/
Bottom line:
* Coaches don't think Jones did anything wrong
* Gervase says what we all know; if you don't play 100 percent, you are more prone to injure yourself
* Coaches simply reminded the players to lead with your shoulder and not your head.
The video:
https://www.hawkcentral.com/videos/...-agree-targeting-call-amani-jones/1578427002/
Interesting stuff here. Two obvious head shots in last week's USC-Wash St. game were NOT called targeting.
http://www.espn.com/college-footbal...rgeting-call-usc-washington-state-game-report
http://www.espn.com/college-footbal...rgeting-call-usc-washington-state-game-report
If you’re talking about his Iowa targeting your crazy if your talking about his ejection here sure I agree.
The ejection in the Iowa game was understandable. Although, plays like that where the receiver is stretched out and the angle is changing fast are extremely hard to adjust your strike point on. It looked pretty bad full speed and there was contact to the head. He turned his shoulder on the Iowa hit and tried to still make contact but avoid leading with his crown, and unfortunately he still made contact with the players head.
The clip you showed is the one I was referring to. I think what was most frustrating is that while his first ejection may have been warranted, this happened the very next game in the bowl and he gets tossed for a terrible call. Pitiful and very frustrating that we are doing this to players.
Targeting needs to be flagged like basketball officials call flagrant fouls. There is absolutely no reason to eject a kid where the contact to the head is not severe or extreme and potential for injury is low. If there is helmet contact, call a flagrant 1 personal foul and let the kid stay in the game. Flagrant 2 personal fouls are auto ejections and the criteria for this are listed above - severe or extreme, potential for injury is high, intent to injure. Those are the cases we need to remove from the game. Not some of the BS we have seen called over the last two years. I hate that we do that to kids who work hard to prepare all week for a game, then the get sent to the locker room for incidental helmet contact.
What's also very frustrating is that I've turned SEC games on and the chances of it getting flagged in that league are way lower than they are in the B1G. It would be nice to see the rule applied uniformly.
If that's an Iowa LB in that video making a nice tackle like that and then getting tossed, is your attitude "sure I agree" or are you more upset about it?
Maybe not, but it would be really hard for us to argue he never made contact in the head or neck area. It’s pretty easy to find descriptions in the rule to uphold Nate’s ejection. He literally hits the player in the head with his helmet. Is that not obvious?...actually, no. Very few would complain about an Iowa player being ejected for what Nate did.
Agree or not. You reeeaaaalllly have to squint to figure out wording in the rule that suggests Jones should have been ejected.
Looks pretty textbook if you ask me. But it's been over 20 years since I played the game.
I worded it poorly, I agree that one against UCLA was one of the worst targeting I’ve ever seen. The targeting against Iowa was completely warranted.
Ah, I gotcha. Agreed on both.
I think the only point I was trying to make about the one in the Iowa game was I remember reading on here after the game that people thought it was a dirty play. When I watch that hit, I don't see a dirty play or intent to injure. But yes, ejection warranted.
If we're talking about the Amani Jones ejection, which I think is what we're talking about, I see the reason it being upheld because it looks like he struck the Minnesota player's shoulder/chest area with the crown of his head. I believe the rule states that hitting anything with the crown of your head meets criteria for targeting.
Regardless, I think it's a great hit. Brutal, but helluva hit.
Amani Jones hit with the crown of his helmet is pretty clear targeting, by rule. Hi foul doesn't apply under the "Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player" rule. It applies under the "Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet" rule. They are two separate rules in the rule book.
Here is the language from the rule book: "No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of his helmet."
After watching that clip, it's pretty clear to me his hit meets criteria of striking the player with the crown of his helmet.
Nate Gerry turned his head to the side, his helmet made minimal contact with the opponent. The majority of the contact came from the opponent putting his head down and Gerry's shoulder hitting his helmet.
Jones does hit the WR with the crown of his helmet in the right shoulder. It’s pretty clear.
The majority of the impact came from Jones hitting the WR squarely in the chest with his shoulder.
Tough call, but as much I don’t like it, probably correctly called and interpreted.
No opinions here, brother. Stating facts about two different plays.
Fact - Jones lowered the crown of his head and struck the offensive player with it in his shoulder and chest area, evidenced by video
Fact - I stated the rule as written in the rule book
Fact - I stated how the hit met criteria of the rule, thus the ejection was supported by rule and video evidence
Fact - Gerry's head turned to the side prior to contact, evidenced by video
Fact - the side of Gerry's helmet made contact with the offensive players helmet, evidenced by video
Fact - Gerry's shoulder pad struck the offensive player in the head and neck area, evidenced by video
Fact - I don't like Gerry's ejection, but it meets a different set of criteria than Jones' does for ejection. Two different parts of the rule apply.
Btown and his ilk gave it about a week and a half before they slithered back spewing their garbage. I’m sure Goldteam will follow suit.
Similar threads
