The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack (3) Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  3 links from elsewhere to this Post. Click to view. #1 (permalink)  
Old Sat Apr 26, 2014, 02:50pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,558
And honestly, all of this discussion is silly when you are trying to create a situation to be illegal that has never been addressed as a problem (by any level).

But welcome to the world of the internet.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Sat Apr 26, 2014, 07:22pm
Chain of Fools
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,648
The ignore list function is a wonderful tool.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 28, 2014, 11:29am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 923
I think what Robert is trying to describe (and is potentially demonstrated by the LT in the YouTube video) is a punch and that has always been illegal. A punch and targeting are two very different things. If the action by the runner is not a punch or facemask then it's not a foul. I thoroughly expect the rule/philosophy of the NFHS targeting will be very similar to the NCAA rule.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 29, 2014, 10:57pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,915
What I meant to describe includes punches, but is not encompassed by them. I meant any sort of hit that is outside what is useful to producing tactical football advantage. The way the quoted person describes "targeting" upthread looks like exactly the same concept. But that concept has always been there, as long as there's been a rule against unnecessary roughness. It goes way back to before Fed & NCAA had their own rules.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Wed Apr 30, 2014, 12:00am
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman View Post
What I meant to describe includes punches, but is not encompassed by them. I meant any sort of hit that is outside what is useful to producing tactical football advantage. The way the quoted person describes "targeting" upthread looks like exactly the same concept. But that concept has always been there, as long as there's been a rule against unnecessary roughness. It goes way back to before Fed & NCAA had their own rules.
This is all in your mind. This is not as difficult as you want to make it.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


LinkBacks (?)
LinkBack to this Thread: https://forum.officiating.com/football/97263-new-fed-rules-up.html
Posted By For Type Date
Going to fast soon to be a penalty? | CoachHuey.com This thread Refback Thu Feb 13, 2014 04:36pm
Going to fast soon to be a penalty? | CoachHuey.com This thread Refback Thu Feb 13, 2014 02:42pm
Going to fast soon to be a penalty? | CoachHuey.com This thread Refback Thu Feb 13, 2014 02:40pm

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
When a defender fails to conform to guarding rules, do you apply screening rules? MiamiWadeCounty Basketball 3 Fri Dec 02, 2011 09:55pm
ASA Rules Approved by Playing Rules Committee IRISHMAFIA Softball 2 Wed Nov 09, 2011 03:18pm
NFHS Rules Interpreters versus IAABO Rules Interpreters dpicard Basketball 7 Mon Dec 07, 2009 01:13pm
There are no rules and those are the rules. NCAA JeffTheRef Basketball 6 Sat Feb 07, 2004 11:01pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:31am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1