(11-11-2013 01:06 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  What was unintentional? He launched himself at a defenseless WR.

I get his point. The UH kid was down 30+lbs on Perriman, who also had a head of steam. He chose to launch to try to neutralize some of that momentum and then curl up and brace for the impact.

That said, if you close your eyes and turn away before you pull the trigger on a gun, it doesn't change your intent or the liabilities for what happens next.

What happened was that he launched and ended up going helmet to facemask with Perriman.

(11-11-2013 01:10 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 01:04 PM)coogrfan Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 12:56 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  If your safety can't form tackle a defenseless WR, he shouldn't be playing college football.

If McMillian had attempted what you are suggesting he almost certainly would have been the one carted off the field.

Proper form tackling prevents injuries like this. Learn about the sport before you talk about it.

With all due respect, what in the Hell are you talking about?

"Proper form tackling" (i.e lowering his head and leading with his shoulder into Perriman's chest or lower) in that situation (facing an opponent with both a full head of steam and a 30 lb weight advantage) would have gotten McMillian run over, and could easily have resulted in the defender suffering exactly the sort of head inury the targeting rule is intended to prevent. To claim otherwise is ludicrous.

(11-11-2013 01:19 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 01:16 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 01:06 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  What was unintentional? He launched himself at a defenseless WR.

You act like the pass sailed over the WR's outstetched hands and the DB took a cheap shot when the WR was extended in mid air.

Your WR caught the ball, planted one foot, and the second foot hit the ground at the same time as our DB hit the WR

We are allowed to hit a WR in the chest to tackle and/or dislodge the ball. Which is exactly what we did.

Watch the replay. The head of your WR does not snap back like the Memphis kick returner did.

"Defenseless". You clearly don't understand the definition of that word.

This. Other houston fans get it, I don't get why a few, including this one, still think it wasn't an illegal play given the rules written for 2013.

(11-11-2013 01:13 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 01:06 PM)billetingman1 Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 12:56 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  If your safety can't form tackle a defenseless WR, he shouldn't be playing college football.

Don't know if you ever played D1 Football, but when your in real time legal, or illegal hit its hard to determine where your going to hit someone going full speed. Obviously he tried to hit the guy with his shoulder, he hit him high but in a 13-7 game do you think any player for any team is going for the legs? No way your going to try and dislodge the ball. Its football, its a brutal game and throwing over the middle, and high is usually never going to end well for the receiver. Glad the player is okay but this was not a cheap shot its just football. Not arguing one way or the other about illegal or legal hit, it was at full speed and the receiver was making a play and our DB was. It was a play the just happened at full speed. No different then someone at full speed accidently grabbing a facemask by accident and almost ripping a guys head off. The speed of the game causes illegal plays every game some worse than others.

Oh I am in no way calling him a dirty player or that tackle a cheap shot, please don't think that's the case. If anything, it's just muscle memory at this point to tackle the way he's been taught for probably a decade, and the way he tackled showed that he was at least *trying* to correct it, albeit too late to prevent the outcome. It's just that, it clearly fit the definition of what the rule was put in place for.

Really depends on the official and what league.....I watch a lot of SEC football and the SEC officials on a couple of occasions this year would have left this one alone....Not everytime but I've seen them let it go....Bad call good call doesn't matter, football is a violent sport, this stuff is going to heppen every Saturday.

(11-11-2013 01:21 PM)billetingman1 Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 01:13 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 01:06 PM)billetingman1 Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 12:56 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  If your safety can't form tackle a defenseless WR, he shouldn't be playing college football.

Don't know if you ever played D1 Football, but when your in real time legal, or illegal hit its hard to determine where your going to hit someone going full speed. Obviously he tried to hit the guy with his shoulder, he hit him high but in a 13-7 game do you think any player for any team is going for the legs? No way your going to try and dislodge the ball. Its football, its a brutal game and throwing over the middle, and high is usually never going to end well for the receiver. Glad the player is okay but this was not a cheap shot its just football. Not arguing one way or the other about illegal or legal hit, it was at full speed and the receiver was making a play and our DB was. It was a play the just happened at full speed. No different then someone at full speed accidently grabbing a facemask by accident and almost ripping a guys head off. The speed of the game causes illegal plays every game some worse than others.

Oh I am in no way calling him a dirty player or that tackle a cheap shot, please don't think that's the case. If anything, it's just muscle memory at this point to tackle the way he's been taught for probably a decade, and the way he tackled showed that he was at least *trying* to correct it, albeit too late to prevent the outcome. It's just that, it clearly fit the definition of what the rule was put in place for.

Really depends on the official and what league.....I watch a lot of SEC football and the SEC officials on a couple of occasions this year would have left this one alone....Not everytime but I've seen them let it go....Bad call good call doesn't matter, football is a violent sport, this stuff is going to heppen every Saturday.

I agree, the LSU v Bama game had a ridiculous hit by LSU player that should have been ejected. The Bama guy was tackled and the LSU player launched himself at the WRs head. Ridiculous it wasn't called.

That being said, it doesn't change the fact it is a rule and was called correctly.

I do not think a player should be ejected though, it should be a 15yd penalty and move on.

(11-11-2013 01:20 PM)coogrfan Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 01:10 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 01:04 PM)coogrfan Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 12:56 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  If your safety can't form tackle a defenseless WR, he shouldn't be playing college football.

If McMillian had attempted what you are suggesting he almost certainly would have been the one carted off the field.

Proper form tackling prevents injuries like this. Learn about the sport before you talk about it.

With all due respect, what in the Hell are you talking about?

"Proper form tackling" (i.e lowering his head and leading with his shoulder into Perriman's chest or lower) in that situation (facing an opponent with both a full head of steam and a 30 lb weight advantage) would have gotten McMillian run over, and could easily have resulted in the defender suffering exactly the sort of head inury the targeting rule is intended to prevent. To claim otherwise is ludicrous.

Proper form tackling does not include 'lowering his head', and if you had ever stepped foot on a football field you'd know that 'lowering your head' is pretty much the exact opposite of what you're taught when form tackling ie; you're literally taught to not put your head down.

Now, run along.

(11-11-2013 01:19 PM)SublimeKnight Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 01:06 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  What was unintentional? He launched himself at a defenseless WR.

I get his point. The UH kid was down 30+lbs on Perriman, who also had a head of steam. He chose to launch to try to neutralize some of that momentum and then curl up and brace for the impact.

That said, if you close your eyes and turn away before you pull the trigger on a gun, it doesn't change your intent or the liabilities for what happens next.

What happened was that he launched and ended up going helmet to facemask with Perriman.

To me launch is a strong word here. His feet never left the ground. He hit the receiver high but it was not a launch he was ejected for a high shot. I think if the receiver would have gotten up it would have been a no call, judging by the late flag. But again its football these things happen every Saturday.

(11-11-2013 01:22 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 01:21 PM)billetingman1 Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 01:13 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 01:06 PM)billetingman1 Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 12:56 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  If your safety can't form tackle a defenseless WR, he shouldn't be playing college football.

Don't know if you ever played D1 Football, but when your in real time legal, or illegal hit its hard to determine where your going to hit someone going full speed. Obviously he tried to hit the guy with his shoulder, he hit him high but in a 13-7 game do you think any player for any team is going for the legs? No way your going to try and dislodge the ball. Its football, its a brutal game and throwing over the middle, and high is usually never going to end well for the receiver. Glad the player is okay but this was not a cheap shot its just football. Not arguing one way or the other about illegal or legal hit, it was at full speed and the receiver was making a play and our DB was. It was a play the just happened at full speed. No different then someone at full speed accidently grabbing a facemask by accident and almost ripping a guys head off. The speed of the game causes illegal plays every game some worse than others.

Oh I am in no way calling him a dirty player or that tackle a cheap shot, please don't think that's the case. If anything, it's just muscle memory at this point to tackle the way he's been taught for probably a decade, and the way he tackled showed that he was at least *trying* to correct it, albeit too late to prevent the outcome. It's just that, it clearly fit the definition of what the rule was put in place for.

Really depends on the official and what league.....I watch a lot of SEC football and the SEC officials on a couple of occasions this year would have left this one alone....Not everytime but I've seen them let it go....Bad call good call doesn't matter, football is a violent sport, this stuff is going to heppen every Saturday.

I agree, the LSU v Bama game had a ridiculous hit by LSU player that should have been ejected. The Bama guy was tackled and the LSU player launched himself at the WRs head. Ridiculous it wasn't called.

That being said, it doesn't change the fact it is a rule and was called correctly.

I do not think a player should be ejected though, it should be a 15yd penalty and move on.

Agreed. I know what play you were talking about the Bama Lsu game. I've even seen SEC officials let a lot more violent hits go unnoticed.

(11-11-2013 01:24 PM)billetingman1 Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 01:19 PM)SublimeKnight Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 01:06 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  What was unintentional? He launched himself at a defenseless WR.

I get his point. The UH kid was down 30+lbs on Perriman, who also had a head of steam. He chose to launch to try to neutralize some of that momentum and then curl up and brace for the impact.

That said, if you close your eyes and turn away before you pull the trigger on a gun, it doesn't change your intent or the liabilities for what happens next.

What happened was that he launched and ended up going helmet to facemask with Perriman.

To me launch is a strong word here. His feet never left the ground. He hit the receiver high but it was not a launch he was ejected for a high shot. I think if the receiver would have gotten up it would have been a no call, judging by the late flag. But again its football these things happen every Saturday.

The more calls I see, the more it seems that your arm placement, specifically if you're attempting to make a tackle as opposed to just hitting the offensive players, seems to matter. Keep your head up, lead with your body, and I think it's a no call.

This is the very definition of launching using the crown of the helmet above the shoulders. I can't comment on the UH call because I didn't see it.

The fumble and td return that resulted from this hit was the deciding play in this game. Call the damn foul or do away with the rule.

(11-11-2013 01:07 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 01:00 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 12:57 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  It was reviewed and upheld, you might not agree with it, but a "BS call" it is not.

The BS portion I am calling is the ejection. I didn't think it was "targeting" but can/will listen to the arguments. It was close either way.

What's clear is it was unintentional and should not have resulted in an ejection.

Upheld or not refs make bad calls. Either way it’s not why we lost. It didn't help but we had a chance to win and didn't capitalize.

Per the rule itself: Rule 9-1-4: Targeting and initiating contact to head or neck area of a defenseless player. No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul.

I think he tried to correct himself just prior to the hit, but that's not what defines a penalty. Intent isn't a factor in whether the penalty is called, because that's an impossible metric to use. He launched himself, leading with his shoulder, into the upper part of Perrimans body without any attempt at making an actual tackle. Any fans calling this kid a thug are complete asshats who don't have the slightest clue or understanding of the sport, but it was a textbook example of what this rule was designed for.

I didn't like it but I can live with the penalty it's the ejection that was suspect. I disagree withe the ejection. He was building up momentum and getting in a position to make a play but short of him pulling a superman it's clear that it was unintentional concerning any contact to the head and neck area.

(11-11-2013 01:36 PM)uofmbrad Wrote:  This is the very definition of launching using the crown of the helmet above the shoulders. I can't comment on the UH call because I didn't see it.

The fumble and td return that resulted from this hit was the deciding play in this game. Call the damn foul or do away with the rule.

He didn't launch. His feet never left the ground. He may have led with his crown, but it is clear that he makes a shoulder tackle and wraps the player up. That is the difference. He wasn't targeting the player for a vicious hit. He wrapped him up and took him to the ground. And this is a true freshman RB that knows how to properly tackle here.

Targeting, IMO is when they leave the ground to intentionally lay out the "defensless" player. If you hit them and you don't wrap up and go to the ground with them, you are probably targeting.

The rule isn't about the crown making contact with the head or neck. Its about the intent and the intent of our RB was to wrap up your player and tackle him to the ground. And your player was running down field with his head up and clearly not defensless.

(11-11-2013 01:06 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  If I were UH fans i'd be more pissed at my OC for calling 3 pass plays in a row with two timeouts on the 7yd line when you probably would have scored a TD with a couple run plays either by okorn or the rb.

Agree to disagree on the ejection but as far as this statement I couldn't agree more.

(11-11-2013 01:36 PM)uofmbrad Wrote:  This is the very definition of launching using the crown of the helmet above the shoulders. I can't comment on the UH call because I didn't see it.

The fumble and td return that resulted from this hit was the deciding play in this game. Call the damn foul or do away with the rule.

yah your own picture disagrees with you. He is clearly wrapping up in the chest, and he didn't launch himself (he didn't even leave his feet). Finally, it wasn't a defenseless player.

Anyone mixing "intent" into whether or not McMillian should have been ejected doesn't understand the rule. It's not about intent and never has been. These types of hits where a receiver doesn't have any opportunity to protect himself have to be taken out of the game and the only way to underscore the seriousness of that is to eject players who break the rule against them. If it was a standard 15 yard personal foul McMillian and everybody else would have forgotten it by now, and the next time the opportunity arose for him to make a hit just like that one he would do it again. Now he probably won't do that again, and that's a good thing.

I love football just as much as anyone, but I don't believe guys should be subjected to such serious long term health risks just so I can watch some jaw-dropping hits. It's just f*&$ing entertainment to me, and part of the game I can do without if it means the athletes who play it so well are more likely to be able to remember their kids' names at 45 years old.

(11-11-2013 01:43 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 01:06 PM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  If I were UH fans i'd be more pissed at my OC for calling 3 pass plays in a row with two timeouts on the 7yd line when you probably would have scored a TD with a couple run plays either by okorn or the rb.

Agree to disagree on the ejection but as far as this statement I couldn't agree more.

UCF had a similar situation vs UL. We ran the ball first and passed only when we had to. I think with 2 running plays Okorn or the RB would have gotten in, based on how that drive was leading up to the final plays. I was pleasantly surprised when they came out 5 wide that o korn didn't just run up the middle for a TD.

(11-11-2013 01:42 PM)MagicKnightmare Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 01:36 PM)uofmbrad Wrote:  This is the very definition of launching using the crown of the helmet above the shoulders. I can't comment on the UH call because I didn't see it.

The fumble and td return that resulted from this hit was the deciding play in this game. Call the damn foul or do away with the rule.

He didn't launch. His feet never left the ground. He may have led with his crown, but it is clear that he makes a shoulder tackle and wraps the player up. That is the difference. He wasn't targeting the player for a vicious hit. He wrapped him up and took him to the ground. And this is a true freshman RB that knows how to properly tackle here.

Targeting, IMO is when they leave the ground to intentionally lay out the "defensless" player. If you hit them and you don't wrap up and go to the ground with them, you are probably targeting.

The rule isn't about the crown making contact with the head or neck. Its about the intent and the intent of our RB was to wrap up your player and tackle him to the ground. And your player was running down field with his head up and clearly not defensless.

Rule 9-1-3

No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.

(11-11-2013 01:52 PM)uofmbrad Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 01:42 PM)MagicKnightmare Wrote:  

(11-11-2013 01:36 PM)uofmbrad Wrote:  This is the very definition of launching using the crown of the helmet above the shoulders. I can't comment on the UH call because I didn't see it.

The fumble and td return that resulted from this hit was the deciding play in this game. Call the damn foul or do away with the rule.

He didn't launch. His feet never left the ground. He may have led with his crown, but it is clear that he makes a shoulder tackle and wraps the player up. That is the difference. He wasn't targeting the player for a vicious hit. He wrapped him up and took him to the ground. And this is a true freshman RB that knows how to properly tackle here.

Targeting, IMO is when they leave the ground to intentionally lay out the "defensless" player. If you hit them and you don't wrap up and go to the ground with them, you are probably targeting.

The rule isn't about the crown making contact with the head or neck. Its about the intent and the intent of our RB was to wrap up your player and tackle him to the ground. And your player was running down field with his head up and clearly not defensless.

Rule 9-1-3

No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.

His crown may have hit your player's facemask, but this photo, provided by YOU, makes a clear argument that he initiated contact with his shoulder and as he was wrapping up the textbook tackle, the crown did contact the facemask.

All of which is irrelevant because the game is over.

(11-11-2013 01:57 PM)MagicKnightmare Wrote:  the crown did contact the facemask.

Rule 9-1-3

No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.

And all of this ignores the fact that video evidence shows that Warford DIDN'T fumble even after the illegal hit.

Not to mention the BS call on the NEXT kick return.

I wouldn't be so adamant about this if it were some routine holding or block in the back infraction.

This is the single most emphasized rule change in college football in years, and the refs ate their whistle on what was THE deciding play in a game.