All tackles lead with the head

Answer question? I’d he his him face mask to face mask, can he still get ejected for targeting? Yes

if he put his arms out like you advocate but still hit him the way he did, could he still get ejected for targeting? Yes again.

the rule is stupid and your excuses are irrelevant.
You can and AILL get ejected for targeting in all the cases we just mentioned.
 
ELTEXAN said:
Answer question? If he his him face mask to face mask, can he still get ejected for targeting? Yes

if he put his arms out like you advocate but still hit him the way he did, could he still get ejected for targeting? Yes again.

the rule is stupid and your excuses are irrelevant.
You can and AILL get ejected for targeting in all the cases we just mentioned.
Click to expand...

Your "IF's" are fucking stupid as we have clear video of what actually happened.

Your "IF's" are the very definition of 'Dying on your hill'.

Your snapshot (after the hit) was misleading to try and make your weak ass point of this dumbass thread.

I put the actual video up for all to see how malicious and unnecessary the hit was. That initial contact was made to Mertz' head with the CROWN of the defender's helmet.
That Mertz' head indeed snapped to the side.

All things you avoided presenting and denied until video proved otherwise.

Hence you now moving the goalposts with "IF's".
 
Red_Alert said:
Your "IF's" are fucking stupid as we have clear video of what actually happened.

Your "IF's" are the very definition of 'Dying on your hill'.

Your snapshot (after the hit) was misleading to try and make your weak ass point of this dumbass thread.

I put the actual video up for all to see how malicious and unnecessary the hit was. That initial contact was made to Mertz' head with the CROWN of the defender's helmet.
That Mertz' head indeed snapped to the side.

All things you avoided presenting and denied until video proved otherwise.

Hence you now moving the goalposts with "IF's".
Click to expand...
Still not answering. For the fifth time.
 
ELTEXAN said:
You must be trolling.
Click to expand...
In Love Reaction GIF by Searchlight Pictures
 
ELTEXAN said:
Even in your dumb irrelevant example, the defender’s head is closer to the runner than his shoulders
Click to expand...
You do realize that physiologically our heads usually are above our shoulders ... but hey don't let me interrupt your absolute statement that all tackle lead with the head. I would not want you to run to a safe place.
 
Voltaire said:
You do realize that physiologically our heads usually are above our shoulders ... but hey don't let me interrupt your absolute statement that all tackle lead with the head. I would not want you to run to a safe place.
Click to expand...
Yes. You’ve stated the point I’ve made a million times. Thanks for catching up nine pages later. Our heads do lead our shoulders when going forward because of human physiology. Yup. That’s my point.

(if the tackler below does LITERALLY THE EXACT SAME TACKLE, but the runner decides to crouch or slide and their helmets smack, the defender would get ejected for targeting under this exact same rule we’re discussing)

8198752E-F230-48FE-A154-F1E99441BA6F.jpeg
 
ELTEXAN said:
Still not answering. For the fifth time.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to play an "IF's" game when I have clear video to show myself and others what actually happened.

The defender targeted Mertz in an unnecessary and violent way. It's clear and convincing video evidence.
There are no "IF's" necessary unless someone is trying to distract from what actually happened.
 
Red_Alert said:
I'm not going to play an "IF's" game when I have clear video to show myself and others what actually happened.

The defender targeted Mertz in an unnecessary and violent way. It's clear and convincing video evidence.
There are no "IF's" necessary unless someone is trying to distract from what actually happened.
Click to expand...
Got it. You won’t answer.

if you go in head up, eyes up, wrapping arms, if your face mask hits the runners helmet (which is MORE likely when you go high like you’re advocating), you are not only increasing the odds of violent head to head collision (the thing this rule is trying to avoid), you can and DEFENDERS DO STILL get ejected under this same rule.

this is the fourteenth time I’ve written the same thing… you still have no answer for this absolute fact.
 
ELTEXAN said:
Yes. You’ve stated the point I’ve made a million times. Thanks for catching up nine pages later. Our heads do lead our shoulders when going forward because of human physiology. Yup. That’s my point.

(if the tackler below does LITERALLY THE EXACT SAME TACKLE, but the runner decides to crouch or slide and their helmets smack, the defender would get ejected for targeting under this exact same rule we’re discussing)

View attachment 41552
Click to expand...

In your IF scenario, the tackler's facemask would make the contact because his head and eyes are up.

The initial contact would not be with the 'CROWN' of his helmet, which is the crux of that particular aspect of the targeting rule.

You still don't know what the 'CROWN' of a helmet is do you?

Is it help with that you're desperately seeking?
 
ELTEXAN said:
Got it. You won’t answer.

if you go in head up, eyes up, wrapping arms, if your face mask hits the runners helmet (which is MORE likely when you go high like you’re advocating), you are not only increasing the odds of violent head to head collision (the thing this rule is trying to avoid), you can and DEFENDERS DO STILL get ejected under this same rule.

this is the fourteenth time I’ve written the same thing… you still have no answer for this absolute fact.
Click to expand...

False!!! And you have no video evidence to support your assertion. You're reaching for anything to save yourself from your own stupidity.

In your scenario where a facemask were to hit an opponents helmet and targeting is called on the field, it was likely called for other reasons like 'defenseless player'.

There may have been flags thrown in situations of violent hits like in your "IF", but they were likely overturned in the review booth as not meeting the criteria of 'targeting'.

1) Did the crown of the helmet make initial contact?
2) Did the blocker/defender launch?
3) Was the hit player defenseless?

In this video Kenny Bell is in violation of at least 2 and 3 of the 'targeting' rule and he was rightfully ejected. There was intent to unnecessarily blast that defender into the next century.

8JbF.gif


OrderlyVengefulIcelandgull-size_restricted.gif
 
Last edited:
Going for form tackle like in the collage i posted above. Shoulder was gonna hit. But since runner juked to his right, helmet hit. Ejected.
literaly what I’ve been writing over and over again.
 
You cannot do a form tackle without exposing the crown (enough of whatever you want to call the crown) of your helmet, and thus making you susceptible to this dumb rule and ejection.
Literally nothing you can do to avoid the penalty if you try to do a regular form tackle.

Unless you are this person.
 
ELTEXAN said:
Going for form tackle like in the collage i posted above. Shoulder was gonna hit. But since runner juked to his right, helmet hit. Ejected.
literaly what I’ve been writing over and over again.
Click to expand...


Again.... Keep your head UP and don't lead with the 'CROWN' of your helmet.
 
The reason the 'CROWN' of his helmet makes initial contact is because his head is down.

The runner "juking" is not the reason the 'CROWN' of the helmet is the first to make contact there. The 'CROWN' of the helmet is the first to make contact because the defender put it there for the collision.
 
Clemson player LOWERING his head for the 'CROWN' of his helmet to make initial contact.

Targeting with the 'CROWN and can also lead to neck injury for the Clemson defender.

Screenshot (34).png
Screenshot (35).png
Screenshot (36).png
 
Another angle showing the lowering of the head to expose the 'CROWN' was unnecessary and dangerous to both players.

Screenshot (39).png
Screenshot (40).png
Screenshot (41).png
Screenshot (42).png
Screenshot (43).png
 
Keep your head up.

It's simple unless you're intent on inflicting pain, or you're just a dunce like OP.
 
ELTEXAN said:
How was he to do a form tackle without exposing enough of his crown to make him eligible for ejection… without being that Norwegian woman I linked to?
Click to expand...

By NOT lowering his head as to lead with the 'CROWN' of his helmet, you dumb fucker.

It's NOT a "form tackle" if you're leading with the 'CROWN' of your helmet.

At this point it's obvious you'll never know which portion of the helmet constitutes the 'CROWN'.

Hint.... It's not the facemask, it's not the back, it's not the sides.

It's where a "CROWN' would be located if placed on your head. Hence the term 'CROWN'.

A 5 year old would have understood this 10 pages ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top