The problem is that, if you look at that third picture, he has completely dropped his head at the point of contact and has his arms tucked back. He puts himself in a really dangerous position there.
Only listened to game...so after the fact, re: Rudolph targeting (pics)
- Thread starter PSU73
- Start date
We can go over and over and over the what ifs and why but it is this simple....
If you are a defensive player go in with your head and eyes UP.
If you are a defensive player go in with your head and eyes UP.
Look, I don't know and maybe the offensive players need to change how they run as well. What I do know, empirically, is that refs are hell bent on throwing flags when they see a tackler:
A. Lower his head
B. Make no effort to form tackle or wrap up
C. Launch themselves with their heads down
D. Make forceable contact with the offensive players head and neck area.
I didn't make the rules, I also don't claim to understand the physics of tackling and reaction time etc. I am just telling you that if you want to invite a penalty, try a blend or all 4 of the above. I was on record that ellis brooks deserved a targeting in the wisconsin game, I am on record that all 4 penalties in the ole miss game were penalties as the rule is written and adjudicated. If you want to tell me it is impossible for Rudolph to tackle from anywhere else but the top of his helmet there, then fine, but it's still a penalty.
I know what the rule is, I am asking WHY it is that way? Why can the runner use his helmet as a weapon if you are so interested in player safety? And you cannot “wrap up” in that instance because you are literally 3 feet from his feet. If you stick out your arms you risk his helmet breaking your arm. Don’t cite what a coach says on tackling they will not say something stupid in public. Bye
Man. You are going after this very minor issue like it's the Zapruder film. He lowered his head. It's not allowed. No biggie.
Much like old time football with no masks and leather helmets, rugby is a great sport to teach form tackling. We used to do a drill where we had to tackle with a tennis ball in each hand. Great drill for teaching how to wrap up.
also, rugby usually gives a yellow card for your first high or illegal tackle without wrapping up. Second one is a red card where you are disqualified (usually). I’m in favor of a similar rule set for targeting.
also, rugby usually gives a yellow card for your first high or illegal tackle without wrapping up. Second one is a red card where you are disqualified (usually). I’m in favor of a similar rule set for targeting.
Bye I guess?
I don't know why the rule was made, they left me out of the rules committee meetings unfortunately, all I know is that players that launch with the top of their helmets making contact with the runners helmet get penalties. I can say that with absolute certainty based on the first 2 weeks of the season. I can totally agree that it would only be fair to punish ball carriers the same way, but they don't. If I was a coach, I wouldn't claim to have all the answers on tackling, but I would tell my players to try and keep their heads up when they tackle.
Fair enough, but such "refs" need to have a clear, explicit understanding of the "rules" and need to be consistent in application of the "rules". Consistency has absolutely NOT been established with respect to targeting, which unnecessarily but justifiably has opened the door for "preferable treatment" complaints against teams such as but not limited to OSU.
To use a baseball analogy, if a home plate umpire is CONSISTENTLY calling strikes when the ball is 1 foot outside then both teams can adapt although the situation is undesirable. But if such pitches are only called strikes for a particular pitcher (using Greg Maddux as a not-so-random example), then it is completely understandable that the questions and complaints will continue indefinitely, regardless of the validity of one particular pitch (baseball) or penalty / ejection (football).
I think if the runner is going very low the defender should stay high and push the runner to the ground. The other option is for the defender to wrap the arms around from the side as the runner approaches and ride him to the ground. You keep saying the offensive player will gain more yards, break the tackle etc. if he lowers his helmet and its an unfair advantage. If an offensive player is running forward and loses his balance at all his head will probably start to come down. Pretty tough to legislate that. It's the defenders job to get to the side of the offensive player.
I have a few practical issues with the a-d criteria. I understand them in an ideal situation, but many defensive situations aren't ideal in that both parties are moving (even after the defensive player makes his move).
Using the Ellis Brooks play
Per A, Brooks did not lower his head
Per B, there was not a lot of evidence of form tackling, but back to the situational nature of football, and the choice between form tackling a 220+ lb QB 2 yards short of a first down, and forcing him out of bounds with what was pretty much a chest/shoulder push, the latter makes more football sense to me. So all Brooks needed to do was put in hands up and around the QB as he continued to push him out of bounds was enough..seems a little too much style over substance for me.
Per C, Brooks had both feet on the ground for some time before the contact. It's hard for me to label the play as 'launching'.
Per D, yes there was post-initial contact and not with the crown of either player's helmet.. Given momentum, I think this criteria needs adjustment. Again applying physics-isn't that the science of force?, the angle of impact should be considered. The worst case scenario is a crown-to-crown where both players have their heads down. In this case, Brooks' helmet rode up the side of the QBs helmet. I don't think the helmet to helmet/or even neck contact was the majority of the contact or force, and especially questionably 'forecable' contact at that.
So of the 4, Brooks' situation had between met between 1-maybe 2 of 4. Can unquestionably meeting less than half the criteria justify this call?
I understand the desire to foster pure tackling and contact techniques that prevent unnecessary injury, but I feel getting there in one step with rules that allow broad interpretation isn't the right way.
All fair and reasonable. All I can say is that when I saw the hit, I thought for sure it was going to get penalized based on what is getting called these days, and it did get penalized(again, right or wrong is immaterial). I thought Ellis's target point was too high, whether his shoulder pad or his helmet is immaterial, I think he aimed high on the QB. His head(maybe shoulder) appeared to make first contact, and again, high. I can't fix this rule and I can't fix how it is adjudicated, you are right to suggest it is entirely too subjective. I just feel like if you are running full speed to tackle a player and you chose to use your helmet(you have probably already miscalculated), you better not hit them in their helmet. Again, fully understand that many of these offensive players are going low as well. I am all for changing the rule, but considering this is going to change outcomes this year, it might make sense to try some new tackling techniques.
Good grief.
I cannot wait to see this board when Luketa steps aside of a charging ball carrier on the PSU 15-yard line with 1:30 left in thegsame so that he can try to arm tackle a 260 pound tight end running 12 MPH to pay dirt.
Well, I thought that the player had to do three things to qualify as targeting. One of those was to launch. There is simply no way to not launch against a guy coming at you with a full head of steam unless you plan on getting run over. He made the mistake of lowering his head and hit with the crown of his helmet. Had he kept his face up, hit with his facemask, there would not have been a penalty. Easier said than done. Your natural instinct is to protect your face. And, as others have said, the RB did the same. Its a bad rule the way it is being called.
I also have to wonder, if the NCAA is so set on this, why do we still use helmets that are as hard as steel? You see kids practicing all the time with nets pulled down over helmets to afford a tiny bit of cushion (like leather-wrapped dashboards instead of steel in a car).
To the side doesn't mean you don't hit the runner......but what ever you need to pump the drama.....it means you don't hit him helmet to helmet.Good grief.
I cannot wait to see this board when Luketa steps aside of a charging ball carrier on the PSU 15-yard line with 1:30 left in thegsame so that he can try to arm tackle a 260 pound tight end running 12 MPH to pay dirt.
So you just give up 4 or 5 yards per carry? Simple physics says you can’t stop the advance with a side hit . But carry on
So under the current rules you are saying every running back averages 4 to 5 yards a carry?
If you try to run around every ball carrier to hit him from the side, yes he will . You can’t be serious. Physics pretty simple actually.
