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

.

I always enjoy fans who put great highlights over the health of the players.

In frame-by-frame you can see that Clowney made initial contact with the crown of his helmet, which is illegal.

But in real time, I don't see how any official could pick that up. The play happened almost simultaneously with the handoff, which means the R would still be focused mainly on the QB.

That is my position CTI. I just think they are asking us to do things we are not going to easily do. And I do not think it was a target, I think it was just a good hit. After all the runner is leaning forward too, so at what point is a hit just a hit?

Peace

I saw this on Referee's facebook post.

The crown of the defender's helmet was driven right into the ball carrier's upper chest area. Per 9-1-3 and the Note regarding what is targeting, I don't think you can say this is anything other than targeting under NCAA rules.

The constant drum beat I've been hearing is when in doubt, it is a foul. It is a new paradigm and they have not been ambiguous in how it is to be officiated.

Especially the R who couldn't see the gap between the nose of the football and the inside of the line-to-gain rod in the measurement right before the play! :-P

But in all seriousness...player safety has to rank above entertainment value. If this game had been played under 2013 rules I would not have disagreed with a flag or ejection and I think replay would have supported such a call, although I agree that the speed of the play may have made it difficult to call on the field.

If he had come in with his head up or gone to either side of the RB's body to initiate with the shoulder, it still would have been a great hit and a legal play in 2013!

I had plumb forgot about that!

Remember the rule hasn't changed. Only the addition of an ejection to the penalty. If this is a foul in 2013, it was a foul in 2012.

Looks like good hard football playing to me. He hit the ball with his facemask. The classic fundamental tackle. Clowney was going full speed, what did anyone expect to happen? Ball carrier needs to buckle that chinstrap better. If the helmet doesn't fly off, it doesn't look as vicious.

The issue is that they are trying to steer football away from the "classic" tackle.

The hit in the video is nearly impossible to rule on live. Having said that, in the POE material for this year they state:

"And contrary to most other rule enforcements, when in doubt, contact to and with the helmet should be ruled as a foul by game officials."

Seeing how his head was up, and was going full speed, what do they expect players to do? Trying to steer away from injuries is fine, i. e. chop blocks at the knees. Why not start ejecting players for those fouls. Next time do a better job blocking. That would help more than an ejection.

It's sorta of hard to deprogram players from making good, clean, hard hits. Clowney looks like the very first pick in the draft at this point.

Football has evolved into bigger, stronger, faster. Been pretty much the object of the game for decades.

Something will happen that will this rule will only add more controversy than good.

Nobody said anything about the player's health being in jeopardy. But as long as you're happy, that's all that matters.

Why are they "begging" us? We ain't the ones the write the rules. Go beg the coaches on the rules committee.

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.

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

Milwaukee? Maybe we'll finally meet.

Yes, Milwaulkee. ;)

Peace

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?

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

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

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.....:confused:

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.