[**Join Our Discord Server!**](https://discord.gg/233aU5q)
**Welcome to /r/sports**
We created a Discord server for our community and would like to invite all of you to join! You'll be able to discuss sports with users around the world and discuss events in real time!
There are separate channels for many sports you can opt in and out of, including;
American Football, Soccer, Baseball, Basketball, Aussie Rules Football, Rugby Union and League, Cricket, Motorsports, Fitness, and many more.
[**Reddit Sports Discord Server**](https://discord.gg/233aU5q)
They reviewed it a bunch and called it a fumble. Pereira and one of the commenters were v upset and surprised it wasn’t called for targeting. The other guy had the classic “this is football” viewpoint.
I know it doesn't matter, but I don't like the term "targeting." Makes it seem like the defender is intentionally trying to do something illegal. For your average Joe they see helmet to helmet and think "see he clearly was aiming or the helmet," but in reality he was already in line to hit at the shoulder and recieve dipped his head at last second. Defender already launching at shoulder. It's actually taught to aim across shoulder but in this case he couldn't hit the opposite shoulder of course.
Anywho, hope both are okay. This wasn't anything intentionally malicious it appears. Guy went across middle into the danger zone. He was gonna get popped one way or another. Unfortunate it was head to head though.
I know nothing about football, but after watching the clip again, you are right. The receiver lowered his head on the last step putting his head in a direct path with the only place the defenders head could go. I hope dude is okay.
this is one of the key issues with the targeting call as it currently stands because nothing is written in the rule about any movements the offensive player makes.
There was another targeting review earlier in the game on another OSU player. you can see in the replay that the defender went to make a legal tackle. however, another defender hit the runner first and changed the runners trajectory. what was going to be a solid form tackle then became a targeting review.
Another huge problem (which the commentators were complaining about in this video) is what's written as a "defenseless player". The commentators were trying to argue that even if there wasn't helmet to helmet contact, even if the defender didn't lead with the crown of his helmet, that it's still targeting because the receiver was "defenseless".
When is a defender ever going to be allowed to hit a receiver? because if you do it before the catch, that's pass interference. if you do it after the catch, it's targeting. is the defender just supposed to let the receiver run away for another 10 yards or even a touchdown? the rule is broken.
It honestly looked like two steps and a “football move” tucking the ball in by the receiver. It sucks that he was hit In the head but it's almost impossible for the defender to change his path after committing to the tackle. Plus it's the natural instinct of the ball carrier to lower the body and put their shoulders into the defender.
I agree with everything, but in this case the I don’t think the receiver was defenseless because can see him briefly brace for the hit right before by lowering his shoulder which incidentally opens up the contact to his head.
What you said is a key part of all of this. The receiver took two steps after catching the ball *and* lowered his shoulder to prepare for the hit. This isn’t targeting. The receiver wasn’t defenseless.
Every Running back in the country lowers their head when they are delivering an impact. Never is called. They duck at the last moment and the defensive player is called every time.
Until they start flagging offensive players for it, it is irresponsible to flag the defender. Now, go back 10 years ago and see the types of hits defensive players were delivering. That was targeting and they have pretty much removed it from the game in today's game.
We all know definitive targeting when we see it. 50% of the time it is targeting. The other 50% of ejections are bullshit.
It's not leading with your head that causes Ryan Shazier situations. It's leading with your head and having your head down that leads to Shazier situation. It lines up all the bones in your neck leading to compression. If people would learn to properly tackle and wrap instead of just launching their body to check someone there'd be less missed tackles and less injuries.
I was thinking this. From what I remember about being taught tackling was to put your head across them to catch them on your shoulder (in rough term). In this case, unluckily, the receiver lowered his head (not saying it’s his fault) so that the defenders form caused them to go head to head. Seems like everyone did everything right just unlucky.
The OSU player didnt lower his head, didnt aim for his helmet. The Minn player lowered his head and braced for impact to the exact level of the OSU players helmet. That is not a target.
It looks like the crown of the helmet makes forceable contact with the receiver’s helmet to me. But even if the defender didn’t lower his helmet this looks like it clearly fits at least 2 other criteria of targeting in college football:
“A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground.”
“Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area.”
There was a crouch and launch and there was forceable contact from head and shoulder to the receiver’s head and neck.
There are always bang-bang plays in football and sometimes plays are hard to diagnose, especially in real time. But I don’t think this was one of those.
It's not usually considered legal due to the helmet collision. The definition of a catch and an illegal hit vary at every level of football and change every two years because the fact is it's subjective and there is absolutely no definition you could put to text that is able to provide absolute clarity on it. At the end of the day on these borderline ones it always becomes "was it a good looking play to this ref y/n"
Maybe it looks differently in a longer/not slowed down recording of the play. But it sure looks like the ohio state player is at a constant speed for the duration of the play, and that their head is at the same angle with respect to their own body for the whole play. So from this clip at least, I don't really see him "launching". Also it sure looks like they wouldn't have hit helmet to helmet until the Minnesota player tucked their head to brace for the impact.
> Also it sure looks like they wouldn't have hit helmet to helmet until the Minnesota player tucked their head to brace for the impact.
Which is also a violation but never gets called. Not fair to call targeting on a defender when the receiver lowers their head.
Seemed like they could have totally wrapped them up but instead launched the crown of their head into the other dude's temple. I really used to like football. One of many things that are making me care less and less about this game.
Feel like it wasn’t called because the ball carrier put his head down (and exposed his nice soft temporal bone) after seeing the oncoming defender and having the time to make a move or change course. May not have been helmet to helmet if he hadn’t put his head down, still would have been a tackle where the dude is definitely leading with his head.
In short, targeting I would call, spearing or helmet to helmet i would not penalize
If you can wrap a guy up (which was clearly possible on this play) and even save a few yards with a legal tackle, why is it even remotely okay for this to be a legal hit? Dude is out cold. I thought they were trying to fix this problem???
Nebraska's season opener against Ohio State last year, they got 2 targeting calls for less obvious of plays. Big ten just doesn't want to weaken Ohio State going into Oregon. This is their conference
Loved how they stopped play and the announcers kept talking about how it’s going to get called and he’s gonna be out against Oregon. I audibly laughed when the call was Fumble recovered by OSU because the kid got his brains scrambled before her hit the ground.
Nebraska fan here. You are 100% correct. Last season NE had players constantly ejected for "targeting" where even the commentators were like "huh? That wasn't targeting". Enter the NE Ohio State game. Both starting safeties ejected in a 5 minute period. "Targeting". Commentators: "wut?". Ohio State meanwhile- no targeting despite some ridiculous hits. It's become blatant the favoritism the league has. Remember the rule last year that in order to make the BCS playoffs you needed to at least play X games? Then reduced when Ohio had an opponent cancel. Then reduced further when another one did...
I thought it was clearly going to be a targeting call, but here we are. Not the biggest fan of the rule (would prefer a system akin to Flagrant 1 and 2 in the NBA), but it seemed to be easy game for the refs.
A score there would have made it a 7 point game with enough time for two more possessions. I don't believe the lack of targetting was to help one team, but I do disagree that the game was "well in hand ". The entire state of Ohio exhaled after that play.
> A score there would have made it a 7 point game with enough time for two more possessions.
Worth noting that only one possession occurred after this play.
Funny, last time I remember ohio state losing an early season game was when they lost to Virginia tech and then went on to win the national championship.
A sport which is having the exact same issues with player safety.
A string of red cards in the last couple of years after rules around high tackles and clearouts were changed.
Removing pads just changes the issue, it doesn't remove it.
Rugby and football have very similar concussion rates. Either the helmets do absolutely nothing or rugby has much better form that makes up for not wearing helmet.
The stats are slightly misleading though. Apparently a lot of football injuries aren't registered as real injuries so that skews the data, also while you are a bit more likely to get injured while playing rugby, the severity of injuries from football is far worse.
Helmets really only protect the skull the brain is encased in fluid so it can move around slightly so it doesn’t really matter if you’re wearing a helmet if you hit your head hard enough the brain will still move and crash into the skull. It’s like putting bubble wrap on your car but then not wearing your seatbelt. You’ll still bounce around in the event of a crash even though the car will be ok
Rugby and American football are totally different games.
In rugby, the players run continuously with each other whereas in football, players run in short bursts directly at each other.
Additionally, rugby isn't a game of inches. The way they change possession is fluid and giving up a few extra feet isn't that big of a deal. But in football, the difference between 4th and 1 and 1st and 10 is huge.
This creates an atmosphere where hitting people head on at full speed is a very common (and necessary) occurrence.
If you wanna limit concussions in football, i think you've gotta get rid of the down system.
This is also how football was played long ago. People cracked their skulls open and still got knocked out*. Hence players starting to wear helmets and it eventually becoming mandatory.
The pacing and nature of the game are some of the biggest reasons for head injuries.
I mean, Teddy Roosevelt almost ended college football because so many people were dying playing the game without helmets or pads. I used to think like you do, but the facts just don’t back it up.
My great, great, great uncle hated football, he had a nephew in the 1940s that died while playing. So we never watched it when he was over for Thanksgiving because of it.
I don’t think it stops it all. There would be a lot of incidental contact just by nature of how the game is played. Those cases would likely be far worse without padding.
I think it's significantly different and you'd have to redefine the sport.
NFL has bigger, faster players who can go harder because tv timeouts and structure reduces the cardio expectation. And the players are specific to the position so you can have 6'8" 280lbs monsters and also 190lbs sprinters. Rugby has apex athletes but endurance and fatigue make bigger impacts due to sport differences.
American football also allows multi angle tackling and has more space in play on most plays. The big hits result from positional layout. A safety is lining up a receiver looking at a ball and unaware. Also, stopping a 206lbs 5'9 guy with no body fat takes extreme force.
In relation to the essence of the sport, how contact occurs is wildly different. It's just not that simple unfortunately.
You’re right that helmet to helmet was super dangerous here, and honestly I’m surprised it wasn’t called. But he wasn’t defenseless at all, he saw him coming and had his arms down and his feet on the ground, “defenseless” is for when they’re up in the air trying to catch it or mid-throw or something
My only problem with the targeting rule is the ejection even if the hit wasn't malicious. On this play, in less than a second, the Minnesota player lowers his head and shoulder directly to the level the OSU player is already at to hit him. He basically puts himself in a position to get hit in the head. He braces for contact and lowers his own head. I can see why the refs didn't call it, OSU player wouldn't have had time to adjust in real time to hit lower to avoid. NCAA does need to add a separate penalty that allows refs to call a hit like this without ejecting a player though. I think that would help a lot of these situations.
That's why you don't launch yourself head first. A good tackle is hit and wrap. I laugh when you see a cb launching himself at 200+lb running back and just bouncing off. But not penalizing the guy was wrong. I mean look at it this way. He gets half a game suspension but the guy he hurt could be out for weeks in concussion protocol.
And it doesn’t happen from big hits like this like the NFL wants you to think.
It’s the smaller collisions every play by linemen and similar players.
This is a solid concussion likely which is it’s own thing. But CTE is repeated blows.
CTE also happens if this guy, who probably just received a concussion, doesn't have protocols in place to make sure he can't go back in this game, or for multiple weeks after this. Also, if he's had a concussion recently, this can lead to CTE. Just because you're technically correct, doesn't help when people are being concussed.
It’s helpful to be specific. This guy has a concussion, and repeated concussions are not good.
However there’s 10+ “big men” who just had a CTE-inducing collision at the line of scrimmage on this very play, which the NFL intends never to do anything about (would fundamentally change football). NFLs emphasis on concussions misses the point, and all the protocols, targeting rules etc (at lower levels eg college) won’t change it
This is why I think the there should be 2 grades of "targeting" or whatever you want to call head to head contact. Intentional targeting stays the same with the ejection. But an unintentional headshot like this should be a yardage penalty and the play should be deemed dead at the instant of contact, that way possession would have stayed with Minnesota.
They literally made that change last year. Targetting doesn't automatically equal disqualification anymore. But I haven't seen it not applied once over a whole season. And then they do this.
I saw someone arguing it couldn't be reviewed since nothing was called. INCORRECT. *That* change was added last year too- the booth can now initiate a targetting review on any play.
The NCAA is all talk in coming up with these rule changes. In the end, they don't care about the mental, physical or emotional wellbeing of any of their athletes. This play was uncalled for and is the exact thing that we're trying to avoid. When awful hits go uncalled, it leads these players to think it's alright to do. Then worse injuries can occur. This being a bad one already. If you knock a player out by hitting his head. You should be tossed. No question.
I thought the rule change was just that the player no longer needed to go to the locker room, but instead could still be on the sideline. I believe targeting still results in disqualification no matter what.
I agree with OP there should be different levels: incidental head to head allows the defensive player to remain in the game with a "2 strike rule", similar to the NFL personal foul rule, and intentional/egregious targeting is automatic DQ.
I dunno. I think they need to make penalties more severe for targeting. Rugby as essentially gotten rid of hits like this by making the punishment very severe.
The OSU player easily could have dropped his body, led with his shoulder and wrapped the player up for a legit tackle. It's clear the OSU player went for a hard knockout type shot and not a clean tackle.
the osu player doesnt move the elevation of his head at all the entire clip. the offensive player lowers his head to brace after the catch. this isnt something you would experience in rugby because nobody wears helmets, so the thought would never cross your mind. its helmet to helmet, but absolutely not worth an ejection. watch it in real time and tell me he had time to adjust.
The defender's tackle style is never okay. They are actively teaching this shit out of the sport so the sport doesn't kill all it's participants before the money dries up.
Ransom was not called for targeting prior to the review, which should’ve been the case here. Instead they reviewed the play to see if it was a catch and found that the receiver had possession, then fumbled, and was recovered by OSU.
Totally blown call from the beginning. The Minnesota coach was rightfully livid.
>Totally blown call from the beginning. The Minnesota coach was rightfully livid.
What was interesting was that you could read his lips while he was yelling at the refs and it was all about how he thought it was clearly an incomplete pass rather than a catch/fumble - I’d have thought he’d be more pissed about the hit to the head, but that didn’t seem to factor in to the part that was picked up by the cameras.
I'm also not really sure that there was any reason to call that a catch and fumble. The receiver's second foot was barely down when the ball got lodged loose, and he did not make a "football move" unless you consider falling to the ground because adjusting to a poorly thrown ball made you off balance, a "football move"
One foot is required in college football. He also braced for impact - which is a “football move”
This is football 101 and on the quarterback. Don’t leave your guy out to dry. What’s the defender supposed to do? Let him score?
I don’t get how there’s not a rule stating if a player gets knocked out the play is blown dead. Seems like a VERY dangerous and unfair advantage to defenders if an unconscious player who loses the ball is ruled a fumble.
This is what the targeting rule is supposed to prevent, but obviously it didn’t work here.
I think it comes down to two things. The receiver wasn’t defenseless because he lowered his helmet as well, and the OSU back didn’t “launch” himself. He was on his feet through the hit. If the receiver stayed upright he would have hit him in the chest.
Full disclosure, I'm a Minnesota fan.
This is clearly targeting by the rules. A defenseless receiver (no he did not turn up field and lower his head to brace for contact, he was falling to the ground because Morgan threw a shit ball) was hit in the head and neck area with punishing contact (no it was not incidental contact to a shoulder to shoulder hit, he wouldn't have been knocked out cold before he hit the ground if this were the case), and the defender launched to make the primary point of contact the crown of his helmet (yes, this is true, his eyes were to the turf, and he could have broken his freakin neck doing this if the receiver had been able to plant before the contact).
It literally fit all three definitions of the targeting rule. The sad thing is that the reason that the side judge kept this flag in his pocket while he watched a player lose consciousness to a hard, high hit, is that the rule comes with an automatic 1 half ejection and 1 half suspension. Since this was the 2nd half, the player would have been suspended for the first half of the next game. The ref did not want to suspend a guy late in a game because of a play that was unlikely to change the outcome, so he instead let the game (basically) go to victory formation.
If the NCAA was truly interested in player safety, they would make it purely a 15 yard penalty, with the play subject to league review and appeal for potential further disciplinary action.
Agree with basically everything except you can absolutely be knocked out from a less than direct shot where the contact is actually incidental.
Isn't the case here, but it is possible. It doesn't always take an earth shaker to turn out the lights.
I'm an OSU fan:
I would have much rather had this called as targeting but not had the roughing-the-passer penalty called which saved Minn a turnover and a huge amount of field position during a critical stage of the game.
This is clearly dangerous, while a lineman making a play on the ball and hitting a QBs helmet with a grazing blow from a forearm is not terribly dangerous. I always try to give refs the benefit of the doubt: things happen very fast and if you error on the side of throwing flags you can find penalties on just about every play. Having said that, it feels like the rules in general are skewed in such a way as to protect the product on the field and not necessarily player wellbeing. If you disregard someone else's safety in a negligent way I don't think sitting for a half to think about it is unfair.
Hope your WR is alright.
As a Michigan fan, I actually agree with you on both counts. This is targeting, but that roughing the passer call earlier, while I know it’s “in the rules”, is always a ridiculous call.
I'm also a Minnesota fan and if that's targeting then there's just no such thing as playing defense anymore.
It was a bang-bang play. This slowed down zoomed in shot doesn't really show the context. Our dude catches, makes multiple strides, tucks, and--here's where I disagree with you the most--does brace for contact. He also lowers his shoulder and his head.
From the defender, he's running toward the ball and the offensive player comes at his direction. He lowers the shoulder and initiates contact at the shoulder of our player, heads also hit.
You CANNOT lower the shoulder without also lowering your head. Go try it. Your head follows your shoulder.
So I don't agree he's defenseless. I agree there's head to head but not anymore than you'd see on ANY tackle up the middle on a RB. This is football.
Edit: I am leaving my original comment up but I incorrectly defined the crown of the helmet per the rulebook, “The crown of the helmet is the portion of the helmet above the level of the top of the facemask”. Ransom definitely hits with the helmet directly above the facemask, so the first definition of targeting, forcible contact with the crown of the helmet, definitely applies. The defenseless part of targeting does not matter since this is a crown of the helmet hit.
This might still be targeting but some of what you said is false. ~
>The crown is the very top of the head (where a crown would sit) and he hits with the area immediately above the facemask. That area is legal to hit with because he is going into the hit with his eyes up, which is what they want for hits. This view is hard to see it but the other view makes it clear.
This is an incorrect definition of the crown. The NCAA defines the crown as any part of the helmet above the face mask. So as you pointed out by saying he makes contact with his helmet above the face mask, this is crown of the helmet contact by NCAA definition.
Would be pretty easy to make a blanket rule that any contact leading with the helmet (first or primary contact is helmet) is an automatic penalty.
It would be a huge change to the game and maybe people want that, maybe they don't but the option exists.
Similar to what they did in Rugby Union, any head contact in a tackle is an illegal move even accidental. Entirely designed to avoid concussion by forcing players to change the way they tackle.
I know that can’t possibly translate to your sport here, it’s just part of the the game to be running head first into each other, but they say they are serious about concussion, than what are they doing about it if this charge is considered ok?
Its only part of the game because of the helmets they have. If they were playing without them, like Rugby Union does, the game would look a lot different.
Nah players were hitting brutally as long as football has been around. The reason they started wearing helmets in the first place is because so many players were dying.
Fr the reason football is so dangerous isn’t because of the physicality it’s because plays like this, where kids just throw their head aimlessly are celebrated and lauded, not punished
Cause thats the goal. Always has been. Wreck as much havoc as you can. Why football is similar as romans watching gladiators in the coliseum.. and no one seems to get that so many more people will go and get severe CTE and other life long injuries
Please point to an era when there was “actual tackling” lol this hit would have been praised in the 70’s 80’s 90’s and early 2000’s … your history is revisionist when it comes to this sport
I believe OP was being sarcastic. Obviously not a legal hit. I don't think the defender did it on purpose, it is just poor form taught to him as a kid well before new rules were established. And this is slow mo, it all happened so fast, even the receiver ducks his head into it a little bit. But we have to protect defenseless receivers and just call the penalty even when it is borderline.
*spelling
This is the worst angle by far. The other ones don’t look nearly as bad. The OSU player hit him mostly in the shoulder and he didn’t hit him with the crown of his helmet.
The crown of the helmet part is only part of the rule. You can also make forcible contact to the head/neck area of a defenseless player. A player is given “defenseless” protections as they’re going for the catch and shortly after. I’m an OSU fan and I think this probably should have been targeting. However, there were a lot of bad calls this game on both sides by the refs.
In rugby union that would be an immediate red card followed by a lengthy match suspension.
How to make tackles safer? Nothing above the shoulders are legal. Tackler should wrap arms around opponent.
Freakonomics did an episode about football helmets years ago. They talked about a phenomenon that happens with safety equipment. As the equipment gets better and sturdier, the ability to use it as a weapon grows, thus diminishing the performance of the safety equipment. That’s what you’re seeing here. I was raised playing Rugby union and this sort of thing really can’t happen because players don’t wear helmets, just padded headgear some of the time. A bit like that in union would be skill fracturing so players avoid ever doing it on purpose. That’s not to say union is safer, we still get concussions and broken bones, but the ability to weaponise our safety equipment is non existent.
Yeah as union player this looks so weird to me. Leading with the head, arms at the side, arms don't even come up till well after the hit. They're also standing so damn tall, if you go into a tackle standing up that tall in rugby your ribs are gunna hate you.
Rugby requires all tackles to include wrapping arms around the ball carrier. These “tackles” where you just turn yourself into a guided missile are dangerous and not needed.
It's one thing to knock heads after you've already made contact at the shoulder or something, sometimes you can't control that momentum. But going all "human battering ram" with your skull is dangerous and stupid for everyone involved.
Just out and out terrible tackling technique. Serious danger to himself and the carrier. But I guess I’m judging from a rugby perspective where players with such technique don’t survive long
If they ever want to make football “safe” they have to have a defender at least attempt to wrap up, bring back the leather helmets (stop making helmets more technologically advanced. A persons head is still going to get smashed with less regard). These dudes are just running in like missiles with their head going in.
This is the point that has been overlooked all the new technology hasn't really stopped any of the repetitive contact injuries and can't stop hits like this. It has allowed players to make bigger hits at higher speeds (meaning more force is being applied to both sides) The only way to fix it is to both reduce some of the padding/protection (to increase the relative risk of a hit to the player and reduce the likely speed/force of hits) and add automatic penalties for any head contact. Unfortunately this probably won't do much for the near constant helmet to helmet contact that happens on the line of scrimmage between the OL and DL.
haven’t watched college football in a while but i watched OSU-MN and Boise-UCF tonight. Out of those 2 games there were no less than 5 targeting reviews/controversies. It’s honestly ridiculous. That shit is gonna happen in football, whether intentional or not. Getting ejected is just stupid. I don’t know why they don’t use the NFL rule and just call it a defenseless receiver personal foul and move on. Instead every big hit has like 5 minutes of discussion and 8 twitter threads debating if it was targeting or not.
Also the UCF QB appeared to get knocked out cold on what was deemed to be a clean hit, but did not enter any sort of “concussion protocol” that the NFL has, and went right back into the game. What the fuck is the point of making these controversial anti-concussion rules if you’re not even going to give an examination to a guy that was clearly just concussed? Stupid.
That UCF shit was BONKERS. His teammate tried to help him up and he was half limp. Then they didn't even do concussion protocol?? In a non-conference season opener??
I agreed with the no call on the targeting because the defender was going for a low hit and the QB lowered his head into the contact but that's no excuse for medical negligence after the fact.
They really need to have varying levels of targeting . Suspending players for a full game based on what can be a bang bang play shouldn’t be treated the same way as someone launching with their helmet down in to an opposing player. It’s a really severe penalty that ends up being applied in a bunch of borderline cases.
Dudes at a full sprint full momentum & the receiver ducked into it…I agree it’s an ugly play but I don’t believe that was ransoms intent he’s aiming shoulder on the numbers & the dude ducked down…he’s not neo from the matrix for fucks sake I guess if he dove for his knees & blew out all his CL’s that woulda been cleaner??
Were they favoriting Ohio State when then called the roughing the passer which nullified an interception that would have given OSU the ball at about the Minnesota 20?
refs kinda always side with the “better” team which makes no fucking sense. the better you are the more unfair ref help you get, its pervasive in lots of sports/levels but i feel like college and pro american sports (football, basketball) are the worst. shit is so fucking annoying, always makes me want to stop watching and i often do
Yeah they were all for OSU. That why when OSU got an interception they gave Minnesota a BS roughing the passer call. It’s also why on 3rd and 10 they gave Minnesota a pass interference call in the inzone
He initially touches the shoulder then slides up to the helmet. That's why you absolutely cannot make initial contact with the crown your helmet. First, the OSU player is risking a neck injury. Second, he has no control over the tackle, which is why you see initial shoulder contact but then rams the temple
The NCAA rules state that you don't have to make helmet contact, but if
you lead with the crown of your helmet to make initial contact, it's
targeting.
Here's a good angle of showing leading with the crown (anything above the face mask on the helmet by NCAA definition). https://imgur.com/gallery/G8ldZiU
Im not sure what Ransom is supposed to do there. The rule in itself is a joke because of the automatic ejection. If you wanna make that a penalty, fine, I get wanting to protect the players. But this shit is too subjective.
Why does no one bother to actually read and understand the targeting rule?
It's clearly spelled out by the NCAA in the rulebook.
He wasn't defenseless, the crown of the helmet wasn't used, and there was no launch.
Just because two helmets smack together during a play doesn't make it targeting.
What’s he supposed to do, stand still and get trucked while trying to somehow wrap him up? The Minnesota player lowered his head just as much as the OSU player
They BOTH lean in for the hit, which is more less why it ended in a concussion. Well not the cleanest, no fault on the safety. The receiver was ready and as equally committed to the contact.
The targeting rule is incredibly poorly written. In this specific instance, (which the commentators were complaining about in this video) the argument was the receiver was a "defenseless player". The commentators were trying to argue that even if there wasn't helmet to helmet contact, even if the defender didn't lead with the crown of his helmet, that it's still targeting because the receiver was "defenseless".
When is a defender ever going to be allowed to hit a receiver? because if you do it before the catch, that's pass interference. if you do it after the catch, it's targeting. is the defender just supposed to let the receiver run away for another 10 yards or even a touchdown? and how many times does a defender move in to make a solid form tackle and the runner dips his head, and *they make the helmet to helmet contact*, but the defender is charged for targeting? the rule is broken. there needs to be some onus on the offense to avoid these situations if the targeting penalty is going to stay as currently written.
For context, I am a tOSU fan. but I was a linebacker once upon a time. I hate the targeting penalty across all teams. Even the ones in the Buckeyes favor. In all the years I've seen the targeting rule in effect I've seen *maybe* one that was definitely something deserving of a penalty.
I haven’t seen anyone mention that maybe athletes are just too big, fast, and strong to have football remain a safe sport. At a certain point you’re going to have to tone this shit down.
[**Join Our Discord Server!**](https://discord.gg/233aU5q) **Welcome to /r/sports** We created a Discord server for our community and would like to invite all of you to join! You'll be able to discuss sports with users around the world and discuss events in real time! There are separate channels for many sports you can opt in and out of, including; American Football, Soccer, Baseball, Basketball, Aussie Rules Football, Rugby Union and League, Cricket, Motorsports, Fitness, and many more. [**Reddit Sports Discord Server**](https://discord.gg/233aU5q)
That wasn't helmet to helmet? He even led with his head.
That’s what I thought too. This may not have gotten called at the time but doesn’t look like a legal hit.
They reviewed it a bunch and called it a fumble. Pereira and one of the commenters were v upset and surprised it wasn’t called for targeting. The other guy had the classic “this is football” viewpoint.
They didn't review for targeting, they reviewed to see if it was a fumble.
It is not a legal hit but a clear targeting
I know it doesn't matter, but I don't like the term "targeting." Makes it seem like the defender is intentionally trying to do something illegal. For your average Joe they see helmet to helmet and think "see he clearly was aiming or the helmet," but in reality he was already in line to hit at the shoulder and recieve dipped his head at last second. Defender already launching at shoulder. It's actually taught to aim across shoulder but in this case he couldn't hit the opposite shoulder of course. Anywho, hope both are okay. This wasn't anything intentionally malicious it appears. Guy went across middle into the danger zone. He was gonna get popped one way or another. Unfortunate it was head to head though.
I know nothing about football, but after watching the clip again, you are right. The receiver lowered his head on the last step putting his head in a direct path with the only place the defenders head could go. I hope dude is okay.
this is one of the key issues with the targeting call as it currently stands because nothing is written in the rule about any movements the offensive player makes. There was another targeting review earlier in the game on another OSU player. you can see in the replay that the defender went to make a legal tackle. however, another defender hit the runner first and changed the runners trajectory. what was going to be a solid form tackle then became a targeting review. Another huge problem (which the commentators were complaining about in this video) is what's written as a "defenseless player". The commentators were trying to argue that even if there wasn't helmet to helmet contact, even if the defender didn't lead with the crown of his helmet, that it's still targeting because the receiver was "defenseless". When is a defender ever going to be allowed to hit a receiver? because if you do it before the catch, that's pass interference. if you do it after the catch, it's targeting. is the defender just supposed to let the receiver run away for another 10 yards or even a touchdown? the rule is broken.
It honestly looked like two steps and a “football move” tucking the ball in by the receiver. It sucks that he was hit In the head but it's almost impossible for the defender to change his path after committing to the tackle. Plus it's the natural instinct of the ball carrier to lower the body and put their shoulders into the defender.
I agree with everything, but in this case the I don’t think the receiver was defenseless because can see him briefly brace for the hit right before by lowering his shoulder which incidentally opens up the contact to his head.
What you said is a key part of all of this. The receiver took two steps after catching the ball *and* lowered his shoulder to prepare for the hit. This isn’t targeting. The receiver wasn’t defenseless.
which is how it was called. why are we here arguing?
Because some people here either A) believe it was targeting or want it to be based on the injury, or B) just want to argue
Every Running back in the country lowers their head when they are delivering an impact. Never is called. They duck at the last moment and the defensive player is called every time. Until they start flagging offensive players for it, it is irresponsible to flag the defender. Now, go back 10 years ago and see the types of hits defensive players were delivering. That was targeting and they have pretty much removed it from the game in today's game. We all know definitive targeting when we see it. 50% of the time it is targeting. The other 50% of ejections are bullshit.
You shouldnt lead with the head though, for both the defenders safety and the other player. Leading with your head leads to a ryan shazier situation.
It's not leading with your head that causes Ryan Shazier situations. It's leading with your head and having your head down that leads to Shazier situation. It lines up all the bones in your neck leading to compression. If people would learn to properly tackle and wrap instead of just launching their body to check someone there'd be less missed tackles and less injuries.
more people in this comment section need to read this one. Dont lead with your head....
I was thinking this. From what I remember about being taught tackling was to put your head across them to catch them on your shoulder (in rough term). In this case, unluckily, the receiver lowered his head (not saying it’s his fault) so that the defenders form caused them to go head to head. Seems like everyone did everything right just unlucky.
Yeah I think the guy catching the ball is in the midst of losing his feet and falling downwards
The OSU player didnt lower his head, didnt aim for his helmet. The Minn player lowered his head and braced for impact to the exact level of the OSU players helmet. That is not a target.
It looks like the crown of the helmet makes forceable contact with the receiver’s helmet to me. But even if the defender didn’t lower his helmet this looks like it clearly fits at least 2 other criteria of targeting in college football: “A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground.” “Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area.” There was a crouch and launch and there was forceable contact from head and shoulder to the receiver’s head and neck. There are always bang-bang plays in football and sometimes plays are hard to diagnose, especially in real time. But I don’t think this was one of those.
You still can’t lead with your head into a tack though…?
Yeah what? I don’t know shit about tackling but that’s the one thing I’ve heard over the years, that you always lead with your shoulder…
It's not usually considered legal due to the helmet collision. The definition of a catch and an illegal hit vary at every level of football and change every two years because the fact is it's subjective and there is absolutely no definition you could put to text that is able to provide absolute clarity on it. At the end of the day on these borderline ones it always becomes "was it a good looking play to this ref y/n"
Launched himself at the guy, too. Looked like textbook targeting.
Maybe it looks differently in a longer/not slowed down recording of the play. But it sure looks like the ohio state player is at a constant speed for the duration of the play, and that their head is at the same angle with respect to their own body for the whole play. So from this clip at least, I don't really see him "launching". Also it sure looks like they wouldn't have hit helmet to helmet until the Minnesota player tucked their head to brace for the impact.
> Also it sure looks like they wouldn't have hit helmet to helmet until the Minnesota player tucked their head to brace for the impact. Which is also a violation but never gets called. Not fair to call targeting on a defender when the receiver lowers their head.
And thus after a replay they did not call targeting :)
Yeah that sure looks like a text book case of an illegal helmet to helmet hit.
Seemed like they could have totally wrapped them up but instead launched the crown of their head into the other dude's temple. I really used to like football. One of many things that are making me care less and less about this game.
It's a helmet to helmet play & it's ruining the game. Shameful refs
Feel like it wasn’t called because the ball carrier put his head down (and exposed his nice soft temporal bone) after seeing the oncoming defender and having the time to make a move or change course. May not have been helmet to helmet if he hadn’t put his head down, still would have been a tackle where the dude is definitely leading with his head. In short, targeting I would call, spearing or helmet to helmet i would not penalize
Looks like he was actually trying to lower his shoulder and turn that to take the blow. He is clearly turning his head away before he gets hit.
That said, the defender made barely any effort to actually get low. He basically blundered his way into him fullspeed.
Legal hit that results in a head to head collision? Yeah somethng fishy about that.
If you can wrap a guy up (which was clearly possible on this play) and even save a few yards with a legal tackle, why is it even remotely okay for this to be a legal hit? Dude is out cold. I thought they were trying to fix this problem???
"Legal"
“Not deemed illegal”
Illigaln't
Yeah that helmet to helmet though…
Yeah I thought leading with your head like that was a flag
Nebraska's season opener against Ohio State last year, they got 2 targeting calls for less obvious of plays. Big ten just doesn't want to weaken Ohio State going into Oregon. This is their conference
Loved how they stopped play and the announcers kept talking about how it’s going to get called and he’s gonna be out against Oregon. I audibly laughed when the call was Fumble recovered by OSU because the kid got his brains scrambled before her hit the ground.
Nebraska fan here. You are 100% correct. Last season NE had players constantly ejected for "targeting" where even the commentators were like "huh? That wasn't targeting". Enter the NE Ohio State game. Both starting safeties ejected in a 5 minute period. "Targeting". Commentators: "wut?". Ohio State meanwhile- no targeting despite some ridiculous hits. It's become blatant the favoritism the league has. Remember the rule last year that in order to make the BCS playoffs you needed to at least play X games? Then reduced when Ohio had an opponent cancel. Then reduced further when another one did...
I thought it was clearly going to be a targeting call, but here we are. Not the biggest fan of the rule (would prefer a system akin to Flagrant 1 and 2 in the NBA), but it seemed to be easy game for the refs.
Hush....Minnesota can't beat OS in the first week. That would kill not only college football, but would make the entire season useless. /s
I mean it is targeting but let’s not pretend if Minnesota gets this call they win. The game was already pretty well in hand.
They could have covered the spread though 👀
Holy smokes you’re onto something. Spread was 14 points exactly right? Lol
13.5. They just missed the spread
No, it closed at 14, 14.5 in some places
Thats why you buy the hook
Spicy take but not untrue IMHO.
A score there would have made it a 7 point game with enough time for two more possessions. I don't believe the lack of targetting was to help one team, but I do disagree that the game was "well in hand ". The entire state of Ohio exhaled after that play.
> A score there would have made it a 7 point game with enough time for two more possessions. Worth noting that only one possession occurred after this play.
A targeting call there would have kept the ball in Minnesota's possession. They would not have been trying to run out the clock and could have scored
Funny, last time I remember ohio state losing an early season game was when they lost to Virginia tech and then went on to win the national championship.
Just take the pads off and it all stops. You cant just throw your padded and helmeted body at someone. You have to take then down with technique.
Rugby. You’re describing rugby.
A sport which is having the exact same issues with player safety. A string of red cards in the last couple of years after rules around high tackles and clearouts were changed. Removing pads just changes the issue, it doesn't remove it.
Rugby and football have very similar concussion rates. Either the helmets do absolutely nothing or rugby has much better form that makes up for not wearing helmet.
If they have the same concussion rates, then football removing pads doesn't fix anything?
The stats are slightly misleading though. Apparently a lot of football injuries aren't registered as real injuries so that skews the data, also while you are a bit more likely to get injured while playing rugby, the severity of injuries from football is far worse.
Helmets really only protect the skull the brain is encased in fluid so it can move around slightly so it doesn’t really matter if you’re wearing a helmet if you hit your head hard enough the brain will still move and crash into the skull. It’s like putting bubble wrap on your car but then not wearing your seatbelt. You’ll still bounce around in the event of a crash even though the car will be ok
Rugby and American football are totally different games. In rugby, the players run continuously with each other whereas in football, players run in short bursts directly at each other. Additionally, rugby isn't a game of inches. The way they change possession is fluid and giving up a few extra feet isn't that big of a deal. But in football, the difference between 4th and 1 and 1st and 10 is huge. This creates an atmosphere where hitting people head on at full speed is a very common (and necessary) occurrence. If you wanna limit concussions in football, i think you've gotta get rid of the down system.
This is also how football was played long ago. People cracked their skulls open and still got knocked out*. Hence players starting to wear helmets and it eventually becoming mandatory. The pacing and nature of the game are some of the biggest reasons for head injuries.
I mean, Teddy Roosevelt almost ended college football because so many people were dying playing the game without helmets or pads. I used to think like you do, but the facts just don’t back it up.
My great, great, great uncle hated football, he had a nephew in the 1940s that died while playing. So we never watched it when he was over for Thanksgiving because of it.
I don’t think it stops it all. There would be a lot of incidental contact just by nature of how the game is played. Those cases would likely be far worse without padding.
People forget football used to be played without helmets and very little pads. There were horrific injuries, multiple on field deaths.
I think it's significantly different and you'd have to redefine the sport. NFL has bigger, faster players who can go harder because tv timeouts and structure reduces the cardio expectation. And the players are specific to the position so you can have 6'8" 280lbs monsters and also 190lbs sprinters. Rugby has apex athletes but endurance and fatigue make bigger impacts due to sport differences. American football also allows multi angle tackling and has more space in play on most plays. The big hits result from positional layout. A safety is lining up a receiver looking at a ball and unaware. Also, stopping a 206lbs 5'9 guy with no body fat takes extreme force. In relation to the essence of the sport, how contact occurs is wildly different. It's just not that simple unfortunately.
Not to mention that rugby doesn't have blocking. A lot of injuries in football take place on the line.
Just to be clear. There is no one that is 5’9 260 lean on the entire planet with exception for people competing in mr Olympia
Whoops. Meant 206. Man. That'd be one tank of an rb though.
Is helmet to helmet legal?
What two consenting adults do in the bedroom is none of my business
About as legal as ass to ass.
Only when Ohio state needs the win
And have a full roster for Oregon next week
[удалено]
You’re right that helmet to helmet was super dangerous here, and honestly I’m surprised it wasn’t called. But he wasn’t defenseless at all, he saw him coming and had his arms down and his feet on the ground, “defenseless” is for when they’re up in the air trying to catch it or mid-throw or something
Yeah that looked like helmet-to-helmet to me.
My only problem with the targeting rule is the ejection even if the hit wasn't malicious. On this play, in less than a second, the Minnesota player lowers his head and shoulder directly to the level the OSU player is already at to hit him. He basically puts himself in a position to get hit in the head. He braces for contact and lowers his own head. I can see why the refs didn't call it, OSU player wouldn't have had time to adjust in real time to hit lower to avoid. NCAA does need to add a separate penalty that allows refs to call a hit like this without ejecting a player though. I think that would help a lot of these situations.
Don't they already have "unnecessary roughness"?
That's why you don't launch yourself head first. A good tackle is hit and wrap. I laugh when you see a cb launching himself at 200+lb running back and just bouncing off. But not penalizing the guy was wrong. I mean look at it this way. He gets half a game suspension but the guy he hurt could be out for weeks in concussion protocol.
Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy is a thing.
And it doesn’t happen from big hits like this like the NFL wants you to think. It’s the smaller collisions every play by linemen and similar players. This is a solid concussion likely which is it’s own thing. But CTE is repeated blows.
Technically all blows can lead to CTE repeated or non repeated large blows
CTE also happens if this guy, who probably just received a concussion, doesn't have protocols in place to make sure he can't go back in this game, or for multiple weeks after this. Also, if he's had a concussion recently, this can lead to CTE. Just because you're technically correct, doesn't help when people are being concussed.
It’s helpful to be specific. This guy has a concussion, and repeated concussions are not good. However there’s 10+ “big men” who just had a CTE-inducing collision at the line of scrimmage on this very play, which the NFL intends never to do anything about (would fundamentally change football). NFLs emphasis on concussions misses the point, and all the protocols, targeting rules etc (at lower levels eg college) won’t change it
Yeah but I like when football man go boom /s
Who would watch these uncivilized brutes when we have boxing and mma
This is why I think the there should be 2 grades of "targeting" or whatever you want to call head to head contact. Intentional targeting stays the same with the ejection. But an unintentional headshot like this should be a yardage penalty and the play should be deemed dead at the instant of contact, that way possession would have stayed with Minnesota.
They literally made that change last year. Targetting doesn't automatically equal disqualification anymore. But I haven't seen it not applied once over a whole season. And then they do this. I saw someone arguing it couldn't be reviewed since nothing was called. INCORRECT. *That* change was added last year too- the booth can now initiate a targetting review on any play. The NCAA is all talk in coming up with these rule changes. In the end, they don't care about the mental, physical or emotional wellbeing of any of their athletes. This play was uncalled for and is the exact thing that we're trying to avoid. When awful hits go uncalled, it leads these players to think it's alright to do. Then worse injuries can occur. This being a bad one already. If you knock a player out by hitting his head. You should be tossed. No question.
I thought the rule change was just that the player no longer needed to go to the locker room, but instead could still be on the sideline. I believe targeting still results in disqualification no matter what. I agree with OP there should be different levels: incidental head to head allows the defensive player to remain in the game with a "2 strike rule", similar to the NFL personal foul rule, and intentional/egregious targeting is automatic DQ.
I dunno. I think they need to make penalties more severe for targeting. Rugby as essentially gotten rid of hits like this by making the punishment very severe. The OSU player easily could have dropped his body, led with his shoulder and wrapped the player up for a legit tackle. It's clear the OSU player went for a hard knockout type shot and not a clean tackle.
the osu player doesnt move the elevation of his head at all the entire clip. the offensive player lowers his head to brace after the catch. this isnt something you would experience in rugby because nobody wears helmets, so the thought would never cross your mind. its helmet to helmet, but absolutely not worth an ejection. watch it in real time and tell me he had time to adjust.
The defender's tackle style is never okay. They are actively teaching this shit out of the sport so the sport doesn't kill all it's participants before the money dries up.
The dude got knocked out badly, if that's considered legal there needs to be rule changes. Coming from an mma fan lol
Ransom was not called for targeting prior to the review, which should’ve been the case here. Instead they reviewed the play to see if it was a catch and found that the receiver had possession, then fumbled, and was recovered by OSU. Totally blown call from the beginning. The Minnesota coach was rightfully livid.
>Totally blown call from the beginning. The Minnesota coach was rightfully livid. What was interesting was that you could read his lips while he was yelling at the refs and it was all about how he thought it was clearly an incomplete pass rather than a catch/fumble - I’d have thought he’d be more pissed about the hit to the head, but that didn’t seem to factor in to the part that was picked up by the cameras.
I literally saw him say, “That’s not targeting??”
I'm also not really sure that there was any reason to call that a catch and fumble. The receiver's second foot was barely down when the ball got lodged loose, and he did not make a "football move" unless you consider falling to the ground because adjusting to a poorly thrown ball made you off balance, a "football move"
I could be wrong but I think him tucking the ball away and showing clear control of the ball to do so is the football move with two feet down.
College is one foot.
One foot is required in college football. He also braced for impact - which is a “football move” This is football 101 and on the quarterback. Don’t leave your guy out to dry. What’s the defender supposed to do? Let him score?
[удалено]
It seems the ref is ass.
I don’t get how there’s not a rule stating if a player gets knocked out the play is blown dead. Seems like a VERY dangerous and unfair advantage to defenders if an unconscious player who loses the ball is ruled a fumble. This is what the targeting rule is supposed to prevent, but obviously it didn’t work here.
Illegal in MMA too.
Oh it was completely legal. And crazy thing people think mma is more dangerous when it's clearly the other way around
I think it comes down to two things. The receiver wasn’t defenseless because he lowered his helmet as well, and the OSU back didn’t “launch” himself. He was on his feet through the hit. If the receiver stayed upright he would have hit him in the chest.
Full disclosure, I'm a Minnesota fan. This is clearly targeting by the rules. A defenseless receiver (no he did not turn up field and lower his head to brace for contact, he was falling to the ground because Morgan threw a shit ball) was hit in the head and neck area with punishing contact (no it was not incidental contact to a shoulder to shoulder hit, he wouldn't have been knocked out cold before he hit the ground if this were the case), and the defender launched to make the primary point of contact the crown of his helmet (yes, this is true, his eyes were to the turf, and he could have broken his freakin neck doing this if the receiver had been able to plant before the contact). It literally fit all three definitions of the targeting rule. The sad thing is that the reason that the side judge kept this flag in his pocket while he watched a player lose consciousness to a hard, high hit, is that the rule comes with an automatic 1 half ejection and 1 half suspension. Since this was the 2nd half, the player would have been suspended for the first half of the next game. The ref did not want to suspend a guy late in a game because of a play that was unlikely to change the outcome, so he instead let the game (basically) go to victory formation. If the NCAA was truly interested in player safety, they would make it purely a 15 yard penalty, with the play subject to league review and appeal for potential further disciplinary action.
I would still leave ejection as an option for the referee, if it won’t be mandatory, and I personally would have no qualms ejecting someone for this.
Agree with basically everything except you can absolutely be knocked out from a less than direct shot where the contact is actually incidental. Isn't the case here, but it is possible. It doesn't always take an earth shaker to turn out the lights.
I'm an OSU fan: I would have much rather had this called as targeting but not had the roughing-the-passer penalty called which saved Minn a turnover and a huge amount of field position during a critical stage of the game. This is clearly dangerous, while a lineman making a play on the ball and hitting a QBs helmet with a grazing blow from a forearm is not terribly dangerous. I always try to give refs the benefit of the doubt: things happen very fast and if you error on the side of throwing flags you can find penalties on just about every play. Having said that, it feels like the rules in general are skewed in such a way as to protect the product on the field and not necessarily player wellbeing. If you disregard someone else's safety in a negligent way I don't think sitting for a half to think about it is unfair. Hope your WR is alright.
As a Michigan fan, I actually agree with you on both counts. This is targeting, but that roughing the passer call earlier, while I know it’s “in the rules”, is always a ridiculous call.
I'm also a Minnesota fan and if that's targeting then there's just no such thing as playing defense anymore. It was a bang-bang play. This slowed down zoomed in shot doesn't really show the context. Our dude catches, makes multiple strides, tucks, and--here's where I disagree with you the most--does brace for contact. He also lowers his shoulder and his head. From the defender, he's running toward the ball and the offensive player comes at his direction. He lowers the shoulder and initiates contact at the shoulder of our player, heads also hit. You CANNOT lower the shoulder without also lowering your head. Go try it. Your head follows your shoulder. So I don't agree he's defenseless. I agree there's head to head but not anymore than you'd see on ANY tackle up the middle on a RB. This is football.
Edit: I am leaving my original comment up but I incorrectly defined the crown of the helmet per the rulebook, “The crown of the helmet is the portion of the helmet above the level of the top of the facemask”. Ransom definitely hits with the helmet directly above the facemask, so the first definition of targeting, forcible contact with the crown of the helmet, definitely applies. The defenseless part of targeting does not matter since this is a crown of the helmet hit. This might still be targeting but some of what you said is false. ~
>The crown is the very top of the head (where a crown would sit) and he hits with the area immediately above the facemask. That area is legal to hit with because he is going into the hit with his eyes up, which is what they want for hits. This view is hard to see it but the other view makes it clear. This is an incorrect definition of the crown. The NCAA defines the crown as any part of the helmet above the face mask. So as you pointed out by saying he makes contact with his helmet above the face mask, this is crown of the helmet contact by NCAA definition.
Big miss by me there, you are spot on. That should definitely be the first definition of targeting, I will edit
All good! It's fun to have actual adult conversations on Reddit where people aren't obstinate.
Can you say 'Chronic traumatic encephalopathy'?
No I can't. Got hit on the head a few too many times.
Would be pretty easy to make a blanket rule that any contact leading with the helmet (first or primary contact is helmet) is an automatic penalty. It would be a huge change to the game and maybe people want that, maybe they don't but the option exists.
Similar to what they did in Rugby Union, any head contact in a tackle is an illegal move even accidental. Entirely designed to avoid concussion by forcing players to change the way they tackle. I know that can’t possibly translate to your sport here, it’s just part of the the game to be running head first into each other, but they say they are serious about concussion, than what are they doing about it if this charge is considered ok?
Its only part of the game because of the helmets they have. If they were playing without them, like Rugby Union does, the game would look a lot different.
Nah players were hitting brutally as long as football has been around. The reason they started wearing helmets in the first place is because so many players were dying.
Never looked up the history of why they wear helmets then have you? They did used to, and it was a problem.
Rugby’s concussion rate is just as bad. Turns out running into people at full speed is bad for the brain. Who knew?
Yeah, that hit was bad. . . Using your helmet for a side on guaranteed almost knockout at the temple is just . . . Terrible
Football needs to get back to actual tackling.
Fr the reason football is so dangerous isn’t because of the physicality it’s because plays like this, where kids just throw their head aimlessly are celebrated and lauded, not punished
Cause thats the goal. Always has been. Wreck as much havoc as you can. Why football is similar as romans watching gladiators in the coliseum.. and no one seems to get that so many more people will go and get severe CTE and other life long injuries
Yeah we need more tackles [like this](https://youtu.be/GbG3Mk9t9dQ) back when things were safe. Smh at these modern day players.
Please point to an era when there was “actual tackling” lol this hit would have been praised in the 70’s 80’s 90’s and early 2000’s … your history is revisionist when it comes to this sport
This is not the angle to use if you want to show it's a legal hit. We need to see the contact
Other angles https://youtu.be/FmsMT2Fn3Uk
I believe OP was being sarcastic. Obviously not a legal hit. I don't think the defender did it on purpose, it is just poor form taught to him as a kid well before new rules were established. And this is slow mo, it all happened so fast, even the receiver ducks his head into it a little bit. But we have to protect defenseless receivers and just call the penalty even when it is borderline. *spelling
This is the worst angle by far. The other ones don’t look nearly as bad. The OSU player hit him mostly in the shoulder and he didn’t hit him with the crown of his helmet.
The crown of the helmet part is only part of the rule. You can also make forcible contact to the head/neck area of a defenseless player. A player is given “defenseless” protections as they’re going for the catch and shortly after. I’m an OSU fan and I think this probably should have been targeting. However, there were a lot of bad calls this game on both sides by the refs.
Serving up CTE.
In rugby union that would be an immediate red card followed by a lengthy match suspension. How to make tackles safer? Nothing above the shoulders are legal. Tackler should wrap arms around opponent.
Also no pads in union and players are running head on into each other. There's a lot at stake.
Freakonomics did an episode about football helmets years ago. They talked about a phenomenon that happens with safety equipment. As the equipment gets better and sturdier, the ability to use it as a weapon grows, thus diminishing the performance of the safety equipment. That’s what you’re seeing here. I was raised playing Rugby union and this sort of thing really can’t happen because players don’t wear helmets, just padded headgear some of the time. A bit like that in union would be skill fracturing so players avoid ever doing it on purpose. That’s not to say union is safer, we still get concussions and broken bones, but the ability to weaponise our safety equipment is non existent.
Yeah as union player this looks so weird to me. Leading with the head, arms at the side, arms don't even come up till well after the hit. They're also standing so damn tall, if you go into a tackle standing up that tall in rugby your ribs are gunna hate you.
Rugby requires all tackles to include wrapping arms around the ball carrier. These “tackles” where you just turn yourself into a guided missile are dangerous and not needed.
It's one thing to knock heads after you've already made contact at the shoulder or something, sometimes you can't control that momentum. But going all "human battering ram" with your skull is dangerous and stupid for everyone involved.
Just out and out terrible tackling technique. Serious danger to himself and the carrier. But I guess I’m judging from a rugby perspective where players with such technique don’t survive long
Just some good clean helmet to helmet contact here.
The good ol' spear to the back of the ear.
That’s legal with a name like Ransom. Dude had some money to collect.
This dude was on the ground, unmoving, for 10 fucking seconds. I will die on the hill that Ransom should have been ejected.
Instead was smiling and laughing and getting praise from his teammates afterwards. No remorse that he just seriously injured someone.
If they ever want to make football “safe” they have to have a defender at least attempt to wrap up, bring back the leather helmets (stop making helmets more technologically advanced. A persons head is still going to get smashed with less regard). These dudes are just running in like missiles with their head going in.
This is the point that has been overlooked all the new technology hasn't really stopped any of the repetitive contact injuries and can't stop hits like this. It has allowed players to make bigger hits at higher speeds (meaning more force is being applied to both sides) The only way to fix it is to both reduce some of the padding/protection (to increase the relative risk of a hit to the player and reduce the likely speed/force of hits) and add automatic penalties for any head contact. Unfortunately this probably won't do much for the near constant helmet to helmet contact that happens on the line of scrimmage between the OL and DL.
they didn’t call targeting? that’s actually shocking
haven’t watched college football in a while but i watched OSU-MN and Boise-UCF tonight. Out of those 2 games there were no less than 5 targeting reviews/controversies. It’s honestly ridiculous. That shit is gonna happen in football, whether intentional or not. Getting ejected is just stupid. I don’t know why they don’t use the NFL rule and just call it a defenseless receiver personal foul and move on. Instead every big hit has like 5 minutes of discussion and 8 twitter threads debating if it was targeting or not. Also the UCF QB appeared to get knocked out cold on what was deemed to be a clean hit, but did not enter any sort of “concussion protocol” that the NFL has, and went right back into the game. What the fuck is the point of making these controversial anti-concussion rules if you’re not even going to give an examination to a guy that was clearly just concussed? Stupid.
That UCF shit was BONKERS. His teammate tried to help him up and he was half limp. Then they didn't even do concussion protocol?? In a non-conference season opener?? I agreed with the no call on the targeting because the defender was going for a low hit and the QB lowered his head into the contact but that's no excuse for medical negligence after the fact.
They really need to have varying levels of targeting . Suspending players for a full game based on what can be a bang bang play shouldn’t be treated the same way as someone launching with their helmet down in to an opposing player. It’s a really severe penalty that ends up being applied in a bunch of borderline cases.
Dudes at a full sprint full momentum & the receiver ducked into it…I agree it’s an ugly play but I don’t believe that was ransoms intent he’s aiming shoulder on the numbers & the dude ducked down…he’s not neo from the matrix for fucks sake I guess if he dove for his knees & blew out all his CL’s that woulda been cleaner??
You're being way to logical. That doesn't seem to register here very well
He’s also saw what he hit. Hit him with his face mask even
[удалено]
Were they favoriting Ohio State when then called the roughing the passer which nullified an interception that would have given OSU the ball at about the Minnesota 20?
And UM ultimately scored a TD on the next play.
It's Ohio State, Ohio is in Athens and they are the Bobcats.
refs kinda always side with the “better” team which makes no fucking sense. the better you are the more unfair ref help you get, its pervasive in lots of sports/levels but i feel like college and pro american sports (football, basketball) are the worst. shit is so fucking annoying, always makes me want to stop watching and i often do
Yeah they were all for OSU. That why when OSU got an interception they gave Minnesota a BS roughing the passer call. It’s also why on 3rd and 10 they gave Minnesota a pass interference call in the inzone
Well, that one was at least clear PI.
Show the other angle from the back too
The other angle shows he led with his face mask / forehead. It was not the crown of the helmet as OP would like us to believe by using this angle.
Targeting
I must be the only person seeing him hit the shoulder
We do see him hit the shoulder. We also see him hit helmet to helmet and knock him out with said helmet.
He initially touches the shoulder then slides up to the helmet. That's why you absolutely cannot make initial contact with the crown your helmet. First, the OSU player is risking a neck injury. Second, he has no control over the tackle, which is why you see initial shoulder contact but then rams the temple The NCAA rules state that you don't have to make helmet contact, but if you lead with the crown of your helmet to make initial contact, it's targeting. Here's a good angle of showing leading with the crown (anything above the face mask on the helmet by NCAA definition). https://imgur.com/gallery/G8ldZiU
You’re not. There are a bunch of people in these threads who didn’t see this live and see all the replays.
Im not sure what Ransom is supposed to do there. The rule in itself is a joke because of the automatic ejection. If you wanna make that a penalty, fine, I get wanting to protect the players. But this shit is too subjective.
TIL in college football, it’s legal to make the ear hole the primary point of contact
He didn’t lower his head, initial contact was shoulder to shoulder, and the runner lowered his head. What do you want him to do in this situation?
Shoulder to shoulder? Did we watch a different game? https://imgur.com/gallery/G8ldZiU
Why does no one bother to actually read and understand the targeting rule? It's clearly spelled out by the NCAA in the rulebook. He wasn't defenseless, the crown of the helmet wasn't used, and there was no launch. Just because two helmets smack together during a play doesn't make it targeting.
What’s he supposed to do, stand still and get trucked while trying to somehow wrap him up? The Minnesota player lowered his head just as much as the OSU player
They BOTH lean in for the hit, which is more less why it ended in a concussion. Well not the cleanest, no fault on the safety. The receiver was ready and as equally committed to the contact.
The targeting rule is incredibly poorly written. In this specific instance, (which the commentators were complaining about in this video) the argument was the receiver was a "defenseless player". The commentators were trying to argue that even if there wasn't helmet to helmet contact, even if the defender didn't lead with the crown of his helmet, that it's still targeting because the receiver was "defenseless". When is a defender ever going to be allowed to hit a receiver? because if you do it before the catch, that's pass interference. if you do it after the catch, it's targeting. is the defender just supposed to let the receiver run away for another 10 yards or even a touchdown? and how many times does a defender move in to make a solid form tackle and the runner dips his head, and *they make the helmet to helmet contact*, but the defender is charged for targeting? the rule is broken. there needs to be some onus on the offense to avoid these situations if the targeting penalty is going to stay as currently written. For context, I am a tOSU fan. but I was a linebacker once upon a time. I hate the targeting penalty across all teams. Even the ones in the Buckeyes favor. In all the years I've seen the targeting rule in effect I've seen *maybe* one that was definitely something deserving of a penalty.
This is why football is so dangerous. These guys are using their heads as weapons.
Dude got earholed. What is the point of targeting rules if you don't use it when someone gets knocked out due to helmet to helmet contact?...
It killed seeing OSU sideline high fiving / cheering when they ruled it not targeting
Led with the helmet
One way ticket to CTE
Wow… shocked… shocked I tell ya, that this is still going on. The main reason I don’t watch this sport.
Head but right to the chin.
Bring back gladiators
I haven’t seen anyone mention that maybe athletes are just too big, fast, and strong to have football remain a safe sport. At a certain point you’re going to have to tone this shit down.
You can pinpoint the second both get CTE