I Told You He Was Seeing Double

Posted on by

Shot:

Chaser:

29 thoughts on “I Told You He Was Seeing Double”

  1. Whether the rules are rationale or not 20 does launch and he does hit the OM guy in the face.

    You have launch into Gunner but its clear to me that that the contact is with the left shoulder not the head.

    Again whether they make sense or promote safety is a debate to have. The application of the rules as they currently exist was correct.

    I saw the lining up behind the guard. Not sure of the timing relative to the scrutinized play. Seems to me it was much later in the game but I’m not certain.

    • Are you saying the defender used his shoulder or Gunner was hit in the shoulder? Isn’t it still targeting if the defender strikes the ball carrier in the head no matter what if he uses his helmet , shoulder, etc.?

      • As I understand the rules:

        – you can’t use the crown (top) of your helmet to hit an opponent anywhere at any time

        – you can’t hit a “defenseless” player in the head with anything. This is especially frowned upon if you are “launching” rather than some inadvertent contact.

        – using your face to hit a defenseless player in the chest or shoulder is fine no matter how ugly the result.

        See Bullard vs. Harrison Jr.

        • Was Gunner not considered “defenseless” there because he had left the pocket?

          For me that is the problem. The rule is too complicated making it difficult to apply consistently especially when things are full speed. For me, the hit on Gunner should have at least been looked at for targeting. I can’t tell whether it was or wasn’t, but if Thomas is getting flagged for his hit it seems to me the Gunner hit deserved to be reviewed for it as well. The hit on Gunner was extremely close to being roughing the passer of not targeting.

          • Yes. He was defenseless. But he wasn’t struck in the head or neck.

            He was hit in the shoulder.

            I agree that it should have been reviewed because I don’t know how anyone could be that certain that there was no head contact at that speed.

            However, had they looked it wouldn’t have been called targeting because it wasn’t.

            Compared to “what’s a catch these days” I don’t think targeting is that difficult a concept.

          • It might have been roughing the passer, but it wasn’t targeting. And you can’t review for roughing the passer. The white hat has to call it.

    • You have it directly backwards, Derek. The Ole Miss defender obviously launches (Gunner didn’t run into him) and his helmet hits Gunner directly under the chin, i.e the head and neck area.

      In the second, the runner is moving forward and the Dawg defender lowers his shoulder. Once the runner lowers his head, the collision occurred with his shoulder. As for launching, he was bracing for a hit.

      • Ok. I see shoulder. I’ve watched it dozens of times. If you see head what can I do? We’re all looking at the same tape…

      • Intent isn’t relevant. He hit him in the head. He was defenseless. And you can see 20 extend his body into the player. Had he broken down and absorbed the player instead he stays in the game.

        Was that the play that rule was designed for? Nope. But technically, its a penalty.

  2. In the NFL it’s at least a roughing the passer penalty. If Gunner was understandably woozy it’s still not why we lost. I blame the Bobos (plural).

    • I don’t know about that. It was pretty simultaneous with the throw. I’m not saying it wouldn’t ever draw a flag to protect the ever so dainty and valuable nfl qb, but it would be bs. It wasn’t even a full step between release and the blast.

      Yes if the defender launches a few centimeters to his left: he’s ejected, its 15 yards and maybe 14 doesn’t finish the game. But he didn’t.

      To me that was just really good solid football play and some are acting the buckeye fan crying about Harrison Jr.

    • Bobo blame is multi-generational now. It’s the gift that keeps on giving.

  3. Kirby has told tbe referee’s association that he doesn’t want targeting called for hits on his players. It’s not a women’s sport.

    • The mantra when I was a kid was:

      “Dancing is a contact sport. Football is a collision sport.”

      May it ever be.

  4. The targeting on is was horse shit. It just was.

    Since we are talking about this, it seemed like there were at least three PIs innthe first half by Ole Miss that they refused to call. Our receivers shoved or snatched to the ground and the officials seemed to think “Looks like good clean defense to me.” but on our guy “Well we aren’t gonna put up with such reckless behavior. Disqualified!” There’s no reason officiating in college football just has to suck ass.

    • How is a shoulder to the face not targeting there?

      Had he established himself as a runner it would be different, but technically he was “defenseless.”

      I get that it wasn’t a very scary hit, but the rules is rules and I can’t be mad for the stripes applying them as written.

      I may hate on the writers of the rule.

      DBs have to make sure to get below the chest level or they’re risking ejection. I’d tell them to keep their eyes up and aim from the knee to the belt buckle.

      If the guy crouches as the wrs often do, you’ll still be safe.

      • Cool. I guess you wanted Bullard called for targeting in the Peach Bowl in ‘22.

        • Nope. Bullard’s hit Harrison in the chest. Perfect hit. Beautiful football play. Buckeye fans wrongly whined.

          Don’t be a buckeye.

  5. The rule sucks. It’s a rule written by a bunch of NCAA lawyers who likely never put on a helmet and a set of pads in a meaningful way. The leadership of the NCAA then jammed it through the rules committee by saying the lawyers are making us do this.

    DeCorey Thomas’s hit was a clean football play. I still don’t know what he was supposed to do instead. The hit on Stockton was never even reviewed (by the way, I didn’t think it was targeting in the moment either).

    They took a rule meant to discourage Junior Rosegreen on Reggie Brown type of play out of the game. What we have gotten instead is fundamentally sound football being penalized as dirty.

      • Because the game is moving so fast, you don’t have time to decide, “Is this player defenseless or not?” It’s a load of crap especially if the angles change as you’re trying to make contact. If the receiver gets away from the original tackler and gains an additional 15 yards, Thomas isn’t going to want to answer the question, “Why didn’t you help get him on ground?” in the film room.

        The rule sucks.

        • Thats why they review every call and some that aren’t called.

          As I said above, we can debate whether the rule should be changed, but as written it was a penalty.

          And we all know why they aren’t likely going to pull the rule back so that these ticky tack ones don’t count: cte liability.

          • The definition of the rule is the problem. It was written in a way that penalizes what is fundamentally clean play. The fact that it disproportionally benefits offenses is a feature not a bug.

            This could have been handled not by a new rule but enforcement of existing rules – unnecessary roughness and roughing the passer. By the way, officials have always had the latitude to eject a player for an egregious, dangerous play.

            Why doesn’t a chop block on offensive players get the same treatment (ejection)? It’s a dangerous play that can end a player’s career.

            The ejection is the part of the penalty that I have a real problem with. If you’re going to call Thomas for targeting for what amounts to a clean play, the officials should have the ability to say it’s targeting 1 (15 yards) vs targeting 2 (yards + ejection).

        • I don’t disagree with any of your points, but the counter is going to be: deterrence.

          Is ejecting 20 making the game safer?

          If that’s your goal, they’re probably right.

          It does seem to me that the severity of the rule is impacting the sorts of hits we see on receivers.

          I like a game where receivers can’t go across the middle without fear, but thats not what the decision makers want.

          I prefer the days of Ronnie Lott and Jack Tatum, but they ain’t coming back.

          • Ejecting a player for a fundamentally sound play is not making the game safer. It’s making some NCAA bureaucrat in Indianapolis or Carmel sleep better at night. That’s just my opinion.

  6. Here’s my thing. Targeting not targeting blah blah blah. Going back to the Aaron Murray days, how UGA is the only team that doesn’t get the ‘dainty’ qb treatment is beyond me.
    Hell, at this point I’d settle for at least stopping the game to ‘take a look’ whether they call anything or not. At least that would give me a sense (or perhaps false sense) that they were calling it both ways.

    • The Murray hit was dirty under any rules but pre-targeting. So was the hit on Reggie. That was “spearing” and was supposed to be against the rules. If you want bullshit look at the play we got a roughing the passer on vs bama in 2008. We recovered a fumble on that play. Reversed it, 15 yards for bammer and soon the rout was on.

  7. One thing that CAN be said with 100% agreement is that Gunner Stockton is one tough hombre. Dude never slides (he dives head-first) and pops up after every hit. I don’t know how he does it, but dude is an old-school football player.

Comments are closed.