(01-02-2015 02:44 PM)eaglewraith Wrote:  

(01-02-2015 01:24 PM)slycat Wrote:  

(01-02-2015 01:00 PM)eaglewraith Wrote:  

(01-02-2015 12:49 PM)slycat Wrote:  

(01-02-2015 03:12 AM)el gato Wrote:  Player safety I think holds higher value than entertainment. I'm glad they really taking more steps to protect these young men. The data on the after effects of years of concussions are having on players is pretty scary. It's the reason my wife and I have decided hat we wI'll never allow our son to play football. To Damm dangerous.

100% agree. A fleeting moment of joy from a big hit isn't worth seriously injuring someone. This hit was from guy amped to wipe out a dude that had no ability to make a play on the ball. Nothing says big man like targeting the smallest guy on the field.

Lippett - 6'3" 185
Callahan - 5'9" 185

He gives up 6", but we have CB's that are 5'11" going up against WR's so there's not much difference there. Weight wise they're identical. I'm not seeing a problem here.

The height difference is probably why Lippett had to get low to deliver the hit. All he was doing was cutting off backside pursuit. If the returner had to stop/hesitate for any reason, Callahan would have been in the play. This removed him from the play.

If the kicker had been just standing there, then you have a point. This was a football play. Apparently the kid is ok, he joked about it on Twitter afterward.

Crap. facts. Who has time for those haha. I know it's a reality of the game but I still like player safety. The safety continues to evolve from the early days of leather helmets.

I'm all in favor of player safety and have no issues with the targeting rule. Unfortunately, it's a rough sport. The repeated collisions cause more damage than incidences like this (for the most part). At some point you just have to realize that things like this are going to happen, but if it had looked dirty I'd be calling for a flag too. It was a well made hit, physics just weren't in favor of the kicker.

There is a perfectly good reason why all good football coaches preach to their players "KEEP YOUR HEAD ON A SWIVEL!" That was a clean hit even though it would be classified as a "SLOBBER KNOCKER"!

(01-02-2015 07:35 AM)eaglewraith Wrote:  

(01-02-2015 01:19 AM)Tiguar Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 10:26 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  That gif downloaded in super slow motion for me and that did not look like targeting. Yeah, the guy launched, but he nailed the other guy with his shoulder, not his helmet. Good smash-mouth football and as the cat on the bufalo said, a potential game-changer.

you dont have to lead with the helmet to be targeting. contact to the head or neck area to a defenseless player is targeting, as is any time you launch into that area.

"Targeting and Initiating Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player (Rule 9-1-4)

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. (Rule 2-27-14)


Defenseless player—a player not in position to defend himself.

Examples (Rule 2-27-14):

A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
A receiver attempting to catch a pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return.
A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick.
A player on the ground.
A player obviously out of the play
A player who receives a blind-side block.
A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped.
A quarterback any time after a change of possession.



textbook targeting

Not sure that there was head or neck contact. At the very least you can't tell from that angle, the kicker's body blocks the view from moment of contact. Launching only really comes into play when they're leading with their helmet.

It also wasn't a blind side block, it was from relatively straight on. That they're both running at an angle skews the frame of reference a bit. It's a vicious hit no doubt, but it looks clean.

Quote:When in question, it is a foul

call was blown. its textbook targeting.

(01-02-2015 04:46 PM)BlueRaiderBoy Wrote:  

(01-02-2015 02:44 PM)eaglewraith Wrote:  

(01-02-2015 01:24 PM)slycat Wrote:  

(01-02-2015 01:00 PM)eaglewraith Wrote:  

(01-02-2015 12:49 PM)slycat Wrote:  100% agree. A fleeting moment of joy from a big hit isn't worth seriously injuring someone. This hit was from guy amped to wipe out a dude that had no ability to make a play on the ball. Nothing says big man like targeting the smallest guy on the field.

Lippett - 6'3" 185
Callahan - 5'9" 185

He gives up 6", but we have CB's that are 5'11" going up against WR's so there's not much difference there. Weight wise they're identical. I'm not seeing a problem here.

The height difference is probably why Lippett had to get low to deliver the hit. All he was doing was cutting off backside pursuit. If the returner had to stop/hesitate for any reason, Callahan would have been in the play. This removed him from the play.

If the kicker had been just standing there, then you have a point. This was a football play. Apparently the kid is ok, he joked about it on Twitter afterward.

Crap. facts. Who has time for those haha. I know it's a reality of the game but I still like player safety. The safety continues to evolve from the early days of leather helmets.

I'm all in favor of player safety and have no issues with the targeting rule. Unfortunately, it's a rough sport. The repeated collisions cause more damage than incidences like this (for the most part). At some point you just have to realize that things like this are going to happen, but if it had looked dirty I'd be calling for a flag too. It was a well made hit, physics just weren't in favor of the kicker.

There is a perfectly good reason why all good football coaches preach to their players "KEEP YOUR HEAD ON A SWIVEL!" That was a clean hit even though it would be classified as a "SLOBBER KNOCKER"!

I think you may be confusing "clean" with "legal." It was a dirty, useless, classless hit, even if it may have been legal.

(01-02-2015 07:09 PM)USAJag2011 Wrote:  

(01-02-2015 04:46 PM)BlueRaiderBoy Wrote:  

(01-02-2015 02:44 PM)eaglewraith Wrote:  

(01-02-2015 01:24 PM)slycat Wrote:  

(01-02-2015 01:00 PM)eaglewraith Wrote:  Lippett - 6'3" 185
Callahan - 5'9" 185

He gives up 6", but we have CB's that are 5'11" going up against WR's so there's not much difference there. Weight wise they're identical. I'm not seeing a problem here.

The height difference is probably why Lippett had to get low to deliver the hit. All he was doing was cutting off backside pursuit. If the returner had to stop/hesitate for any reason, Callahan would have been in the play. This removed him from the play.

If the kicker had been just standing there, then you have a point. This was a football play. Apparently the kid is ok, he joked about it on Twitter afterward.

Crap. facts. Who has time for those haha. I know it's a reality of the game but I still like player safety. The safety continues to evolve from the early days of leather helmets.

I'm all in favor of player safety and have no issues with the targeting rule. Unfortunately, it's a rough sport. The repeated collisions cause more damage than incidences like this (for the most part). At some point you just have to realize that things like this are going to happen, but if it had looked dirty I'd be calling for a flag too. It was a well made hit, physics just weren't in favor of the kicker.

There is a perfectly good reason why all good football coaches preach to their players "KEEP YOUR HEAD ON A SWIVEL!" That was a clean hit even though it would be classified as a "SLOBBER KNOCKER"!

I think you may be confusing "clean" with "legal." It was a dirty, useless, classless hit, even if it may have been legal.

Cannot disagree more, that is a good football play. Whistle to whistle, when in doubt find someone to hit.

(01-01-2015 07:25 PM)ManOnABuffalo Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 05:05 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  This looks like an illegal (but HUGE) hit to me... Am I wrong?

Great hit, I played the game from pee wee into college. That is a part of football, it is one of the aspects why we tune in every week and also one of the reasons nerves sink in every time right before the balls kicked. It is a shame the targeting and personal foul era of soccer has crept into our sport.

See the kids jumping up and down on the sideline when that hit is laid? A good eraser hit is like a turnover or quick TD, it can completely change the momentum of a game. For a referee to then change that outcome by awarding the other team and throwing a player out, is absurd.

Years ago Rice came to Cajun Field and we had a kid name Brian Mitchell at quarterback. He wasn't that big but he was one of the strongest players on the team (later played NFL). Anyway, I recall one play where we ran a sweep to the left and then reversed field back to the right.

As the player with the ball came running back in the direction of the home stands, several big Rice linemen were in hot pursuit. Mitchell stepped up, set one foot and then waylayed one of those big guys with his arms and elbows. I swear that guy's heels were the last thing to hit the ground.

It was an epic takedown and I'll guarantee if that lineman saw that play last night he had a flashback to that night long ago at Caun Field.