All tackles lead with the head

Red_Alert said:
Duh Fuq?

The vast, vast majority of injuries are to the player that the dumb-fuck blasted with the crown of his helmet.

I've no sympathy for the player using his helmet as a weapon.
Click to expand...
The vast majority of concussions occur in practices without the help of these amazingly wonderous 'targeting' calls.

The crown isn't an issue because of what it may do to someone else, it is an issue because it compresses the spinal cord of the person hitting like that. You didn't "spear" because of the chance of hurting yourself, not someone else.

You call it a weapon, I call that comment completely ridiculous. If someone is trying to injure someone, sure, that's flagrant and I am for punishment. If not, and it is a bang bang play like 99% of these are (especially when taking into the consideration the last second movements of the person that is trying to be tackled, you never know what could happen) then stop trying to regulate split-split second movements. Again, if you prefer two hand touch or flag football, that's you.

Spare me this, cry me a river with this 'what about the concussion' nonsense. It is a KNOWN risk in ANY collision sport. Risk it or don't, your choice. Again, I doubt it would change the minds of many given that the amount of significant or permanent injury isn't great when looking at the total number of athletes.
 
Red_Alert said:
Yet you apparently haven't been able to convince even one Hoopla member.
Click to expand...
You’re “nod at my boyfriends for approval” argument is well noted and prolifically used around here, but it’s not very convincing.
(Funny tho that you so enthusiastically and explicitly do it. Yikes.)
 
ELTEXAN said:
Yes. Just like all form tackles. I’ve given you literally hundreds of examples in this thread.

every form tackle exposes enough crown to catch this penalty
Click to expand...
Who cares?
 
Blackshirts BLVD said:
The vast majority of concussions occur in practices without the help of these amazingly wonderous 'targeting' calls.

The crown isn't an issue because of what it may do to someone else, it is an issue because it compresses the spinal cord of the person hitting like that. You didn't "spear" because of the chance of hurting yourself, not someone else.

You call it a weapon, I call that comment completely ridiculous. If someone is trying to injure someone, sure, that's flagrant and I am for punishment. If not, and it is a bang bang play like 99% of these are (especially when taking into the consideration the last second movements of the person that is trying to be tackled, you never know what could happen) then stop trying to regulate split-split second movements. Again, if you prefer two hand touch or flag football, that's you.

Spare me this, cry me a river with this 'what about the concussion' nonsense. It is a KNOWN risk in ANY collision sport. Risk it or don't, your choice. Again, I doubt it would change the minds of many given that the amount of significant or permanent injury isn't great when looking at the total number of athletes.
Click to expand...

It's an issue in both cases.

Yeah, let's open the door back up for players to be malicious with their helmets. "OOOPS!!! I didn't mean to ring your bell"
Unfortunately there will be a few cases of accidental collateral damage calls, but it's about overall player safety.

Should we bring back chop-blocks as well? After all they too are sometimes accidental.
We can take a bunch of knees/ankles out permanently.
 
It’s an ambiguous rule, it asks for the impossible, it’s capriciously enforced, and it hasn’t changed the way defenders tackle… so it’s a failure! If anything, it explicitly incentivizes going in high (Head up, face up) which brings helmets together. Baffling to find any reason why you would support this rule.
 
White Knight said:
Who cares?
Click to expand...
Excellent add on. You’re a brainiac.
But let’s see: the people that don’t want this sport’s games decided by capricious refs enforcing an ambiguous rule.
we want games decided by football plays.
 
ELTEXAN said:
It’s an ambiguous rule, it asks for the impossible, it’s capriciously enforced, and it hasn’t changed the way defenders tackle… so it’s a failure! If anything, it explicitly incentivizes going in high (Head up, face up) which brings helmets together. Baffling to find any reason why you would support this rule.
Click to expand...

Hey Einstein.... Do you know why this Clemson player is wearing that white thing behind his helmet?

Screenshot (45).png
 
Hint..... It's to limit how far his head goes back when he makes a real head up "form tackle".

Why wear it if you're gonna lower the 'CROWN' of your helmet and spear anyway?

Because it looks cool?
 
ELTEXAN said:
Excellent add on. You’re a brainiac.
But let’s see: the people that don’t want this sport’s games decided by capricious refs enforcing an ambiguous rule.
we want games decided by football plays.
Click to expand...
Schools are concussion crazy.
 
White Knight said:
Schools are concussion crazy.
Click to expand...

My boy got a concussion in practice last season, but not from helmet-to-helmet contact.

He was playing tight end, went up for a high pass, the defender took his legs out from under him (from behind), and the back of his helmet hit the astro-turf which is asphalt underneath.

Out of practice, games and even classes for 2 weeks, wearing sunglasses. They don't want you to as much as read a book to study.
If it were a game the defender would have been flagged for targeting a 'defenseless player'.

But.... "iT's FoOtBaLl aNd iF YoU dOn'T WaNt tO GeT hUrT, tHen DoN't pLaY"

He's limited to 3 total concussions before he's ruled permanently ineligible to play any more athletics.
 
Last edited:
All tackles lead with the head... fact.
 
Red_Alert said:
It's an issue in both cases.

Yeah, let's open the door back up for players to be malicious with their helmets. "OOOPS!!! I didn't mean to ring your bell"
Unfortunately there will be a few cases of accidental collateral damage calls, but it's about overall player safety.

Should we bring back chop-blocks as well? After all they too are sometimes accidental.
We can take a bunch of knees/ankles out permanently.
Click to expand...

Red_Alert said:
Bring back Chop-Blocks.

"iT's FoOtBaLl aNd iF YoU dOn'T WaNt tO GeT hUrT, tHen DoN't pLaY"
Click to expand...
HAHAHAHAHA....

I accept your surrender.
 
LMAO. Oregon player completely horizontal. Completely head first. Complete crown head toward offense player.
NO targeting ONLY because he didn’t happen to clash helmets. Lmao.
You idiots keep supporting this rule.
 
So, if the defender hits the ‘defenseless’ player with any part of his body while this defenseless player is trying to get into the end zone, even if the tackler tries to lead with his shoulder and tries to do the safe thing by going in at leg level… it’s still targeting because he just happens to make contact with the runner’s helmet. Y’all keep arguing for thus rule.
 
Here’s pretty much the EXACT same play as the PSU AUBURN one above. Runner is in the grasp and twisting and falling from one tackler. A second tackler goes in for a stop. In this one, the tackler *more leads with helmet and goes in *higher actually. But this Longhorn play causes a fumble and is universally cheered by the commentators, and is not called targeting… only because the runner’s helmet didn’t happen to get hit. Keep supporting this ambiguous rule that is capriciously enforced.
why was the PSU one targeting, and this Rice one is not? if the answer is “because of random happenstance of the runner’s head position at time of impact,” you’ve got yourself a dunce argument and a stupid rule.

45604DE9-263C-42E3-8CA8-29F43835832D.jpeg
 
Gatorchip said:
Did eltexan convince anyone yet?
Click to expand...
It’s hard to convince status quo warriors who just like to nod at their boyfriends when they chuckle… instead of making any valid arguments whatsoever.
 
ELTEXAN said:
So, if the defender hits the ‘defenseless’ player with any part of his body while this defenseless player is trying to get into the end zone, even if the tackler tries to lead with his shoulder and tries to do the safe thing by going in at leg level… it’s still targeting because he just happens to make contact with the runner’s helmet. Y’all keep arguing for thus rule.
Click to expand...


dumbest fucking rule ever.

Even this PSU fan hated the call and the ejection. Let the damn kids play or make them wear flags.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top