ACC official, Pereira say they'd eject Jadeveon Clowney for 'The Hit'

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by scrounge

While the head of ACC officiating said it was a foul, many others - incl Bill Carollo of the Big Ten - disagreed and said it was not a foul at all. FWIW.

And I technically work for Bill Carollo or he is over the conferences I work in a couple of cases at the D3 level. I will see what will be discussed this Saturday when we are with the Alliance about this kind of play. Something tells me this will come up.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And I technically work for Bill Carollo or he is over the conferences I work in a couple of cases at the D3 level. I will see what will be discussed this Saturday when we are with the Alliance about this kind of play. Something tells me this will come up.

Peace

Milwaukee? Maybe we'll finally meet.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

Milwaukee? Maybe we'll finally meet.

Yes, Milwaulkee.

Peace

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Driving the crown of the helmet into the chest of a player is not a good fundamental tackle. It's a good way to break his own neck. Ergo one of the reasons that illegal helmet contact has been getting so much attention lately.

The game is changing, like it or not.

Except that wasn't the crown of the helmet he hit him with. The tackler's facemask was pretty much right in the ball carriers numbers. That was mano on mano football, and the bigger, stronger player won. Coaches should be teaching that tackle.

And whose neck are you referring to getting broken anyway?

[CT1]

Originally Posted by scrounge

While the head of ACC officiating said it was a foul, many others - incl Bill Carollo of the Big Ten - disagreed and said it was not a foul at all. FWIW.

They don't see hits like that very often in the ACC..............

[HLin NC]

tackler's facemask was pretty much right in the ball carriers numbers

Cue Bigjohn post about face tackling in 3...2...1....

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

Except that wasn't the crown of the helmet he hit him with.

Except that it was. His crown of his helmet is buried in his chest and his facemask is on the ball right below. Break it down and look at the stills, you can see it.

A player delivering a blow like this is at great risk of breaking his own neck due to axial loading, which is one of the main reasons why this hit is illegal.

I suspect there are some supervisors such as Bill Carollo that are saying this is not a foul because they don't deem it to be targeting. I don't know how one can draw that conclusion after reading the printed guidelines as to what targeting is but it is what it is. I have a strong feeling if this were to have been called targeting, it would have been supported at least by Redding.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Except that it was. His crown of his helmet is buried in his chest and his facemask is on the ball right below. Break it down and look at the stills, you can see it.

A player delivering a blow like this is at great risk of breaking his own neck due to axial loading, which is one of the main reasons why this hit is illegal.

I suspect there are some supervisors such as Bill Carollo that are saying this is not a foul because they don't deem it to be targeting. I don't know how one can draw that conclusion after reading the printed guidelines as to what targeting is but it is what it is. I have a strong feeling if this were to have been called targeting, it would have been supported at least by Redding.

I've tried to look at it from every angle possible. A taller player getting his head, and body down to make a tackle on a player that was shorter, stopped running, and basically trying to get in the fetal position to avoid the hit. In the position Clowney had to get down into to make this tackle, his head isn't going to be exactly upright. However you should have noticed that his facemask was coming up during the tackle. He knew where the football was, and recovered. Something not likely if you're looking down at the ground.

When you play DL, you don't come in standing straight up. Tackling drills are fine, but they don't allow for tackling a moving target. I'm not advocating that it's too bad if a player breaks his neck. All I'm saying from a fundamental standpoint is there isn't really any other way Clowney could have made any better of a tackle.

I think you, and I have a different definition of what the crown of the head is. Haven't yet seen anyone penalized when a player tries to leap a pile, and the runner, and tackler hit head on with both heads down.....

I don't know what officials are looking for as in "targeting", but this doesn't look like an example to me. You would be better off showing some old Oakland Raider film clips to me.

[JRutledge]

For the record, the Clowney play was said by Big Ten Supervisor (who is over my supervisors in D3) said this play was legal and said this has been discussed at the NCAA level. So the comments from the ACC supervisor was a little premature. BTW, this play was said to be legal in the NCAA video.

Peace

[Welpe]

Are they saying it is not targeting, not with the crown of the helmet or something else?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Are they saying it is not targeting, not with the crown of the helmet or something else?

The way it seemed to me they were saying that was a football play. They did not suggest that Clowney launched or that he lead with his head. I would have to look at the tape again, but they talked very specifically about that play and said it was not a foul while showing another play that clearly was a foul in their thinking. And certainly did not consider the Michigan RB to be defenseless because he did not have the ball.

Peace

[Welpe]

Sounds like they are saying then that it isn't targeting, which I personally disagree with and I don't think jibes with what is written in the book. But C'est la vie.

I agree he wasn't defenseless and it doesn't matter anyways since he wasn't hit high.

Thanks for sharing.

[Forksref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And I technically work for Bill Carollo or he is over the conferences I work in a couple of cases at the D3 level. I will see what will be discussed this Saturday when we are with the Alliance about this kind of play. Something tells me this will come up.

Peace

With targeting hits being automatic DQ's in NCAA this year, I am sure it came up. We heard a lot about it and spent a lot of time on it in Sioux Falls this year. Big 10 , Big 12 and the NFL guys are concerned that football is in a hurtbag because of the head injury and concussion thing now. There were 100,000 fewer kids playing youth football last year. Most likely because mom and dad don't want their kids exposed to those injuries.

[JasonTX]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The way it seemed to me they were saying that was a football play. They did not suggest that Clowney launched or that he lead with his head. I would have to look at the tape again, but they talked very specifically about that play and said it was not a foul while showing another play that clearly was a foul in their thinking. And certainly did not consider the Michigan RB to be defenseless because he did not have the ball.

Peace

Rogers Redding told us at the state meeting in Texas that the Clowney hit was not Illegal.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Sounds like they are saying then that it isn't targeting, which I personally disagree with and I don't think jibes with what is written in the book. But C'est la vie.

I agree he wasn't defenseless and it doesn't matter anyways since he wasn't hit high.

Thanks for sharing.

I think it's another example of how hard it is to codify this rule. They know it when they see it and they know what they want to eliminate but it's hard to codify it so you get it in text. I see this play as more of a collision and yes his head is down if you break it down frame by frame. But watching it in real time you don't see that as easily.

The RB is not defenseless in this situation so you can take that out of it.