Young's Hit

[Rural]

Anthony and Brock Forsey in the Smurf Bowl, that's what they have in mind.

Both the ones yesterday, total nonsense.

 

[NickTheGreat]

This, If they really want to limit helmet to helmet collisions, offensive players need to have the same rules. If an offensive players lowers their head in to a collision, they get the same penalty. Virtually impossible for a defensive player to avoid that hit in real time without just not tackling.

This. The receive caused the hit. Not Young.

 

[BCClone]

This is where things get into fuzzy interpretation. A running back plowing in to the line pf scrimmage gets boinked by multiple defense players, some helmet to helmet. No penalty.

A receiver becomes a runner, does the helmet to helmet contact rule continue to remain in force? I can't figure that one out.

It is supposed to stop once he becomes a runner

 

[isutrevman]

I think Horne’s the play before was because it wasn’t with the crown of the helmet.

Neither was Young's. Primary contact was shoulder to shoulder, then the sides of both players' helmets touched.

 

[GoFast]

I don’t think Youngs hit qualified as targeting, given these rules. I do think the NCAA is being somewhat over bearing and pro active in calling targeting in order to emphasize matters. It’s impossible to determine a players intent.

Targeting does not solely occur when players initiate helmet-to-helmet contact. It's defined as occurring when a player "takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball." Instances include, but are not limited to:

• Launch--a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area.
• 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.
• Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of his helmet.

 

[BCClone]

I don’t think Youngs hit qualified as targeting, given these rules. I do think the NCAA is being somewhat over bearing and pro active in calling targeting in order to emphasize matters. It’s impossible to determine a players intent.

Targeting does not solely occur when players initiate helmet-to-helmet contact. It's defined as occurring when a player "takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball." Instances include, but are not limited to:

• Launch--a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area.
• 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.
• Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of his helmet.

Pretty sure Young left his feet.

 

[BWRhasnoAC]

They need officials that know a cheap shot when they see it not this fricking nonsense.

It's the rule. Needs to be changed.

 

[BWRhasnoAC]

The rule is still there to protect the offensive player who was defenseless. I can't find a replay anywhere, but from what I can recall, Young did make contact with his shoulder first, but he also lowered his head which is what the rule is trying to stop.

I 100% agree that in the full speed of a game this is easier said than done, and that there was zero intent by Young, but I think the rule was correctly interpreted. That being said, I was surprised the targeting a few plays before was waived off, which just proves the subjectivity of this rule is a mess and needs to be fixed, especially with a rule that has the consequences of this one.

The rule is written wrong and I don't even agree that his hit is clearly against the current rule.

 

[GoFast]

Pretty sure Young left his feet.

I didn't see him as launching. It’s a distinction that seemingly gets overlooked. The rule isn’t about leaving ones feet, it’s about launching.

 

[BCClone]

I didn't see him as launching. It’s a distinction that seemingly gets overlooked. The rule isn’t about leaving ones feet, it’s about launching.

I know but officials have read it as any time both feet leave the ground you are launching.

 

[BWRhasnoAC]

I know but officials have read it as any time both feet leave the ground you are launching.

That's the problem, they adopted a more general interpretation to cover their ass. On this hit in particular the helmets hit because of the direction of the vectors not because Young aimed for it and if lowering your head is going to be a penalty then it's basically unfixable. You're trained since day one in football when you're a little kid, the lower man wins in one on one hits. That's a bang bang play. Needs to be discretion involved.

 

[GoFast]

I know but officials have read it as any time both feet leave the ground you are launching.

That’s just it, I just watched the replay and one foot appeared to be off the ground while the other was firmly planted on the ground. Plus it appeared as if Young turned somewhat sideways. Clearly not launching.
In any event, hard for me to call his hit as targeting given the rules.
Hard it? Yes.
Targeting? I think the refs missed this one.

 

[BWRhasnoAC]

That’s just it, I just watched the replay and one foot appeared to be off the ground while the other was firmly planted on the ground. Plus it appeared as if Young turned somewhat sideways. Clearly not launching.
In any event, hard for me to call his hit as targeting given the rules.
Hard it? Yes.
Targeting? I think the refs missed this one.

Hard to say they missed it when they do a second look on video. They just have a terrible rule that is too broadly interpreted IMO, probably for the expedience of the refs.

 

[GoFast]

Hard to say they missed it when they do a second look on video. They just have a terrible rule that is too broadly interpreted IMO, probably for the expedience of the refs.

For sure. Nitpicking after the fact on my part is ez. Hopefully rullings involving targeting become more concise as more games are played and the rules become a little more defined etc.
Good win for the Cyclones none the less.

 

[stateofmind]

I know but officials have read it as any time both feet leave the ground you are launching.

 

[Cydwinder]

As others have said, make it an ejection from the game and leave it at that. Suspension for the first half of the next game is way too severe, particularly for teams that aren’t as deep. Clemson and UGA have talent in the backups that schools like ISU or K State just don’t have. If it is a truly dirty hit, let the conference review it and decide if a further suspension of a game of more is necessary and factor in player history in that review.

 

[cyrocksmypants]

Neither was Young's. Primary contact was shoulder to shoulder, then the sides of both players' helmets touched.

Young “launched” by the definition of the term (which I disagree with). Horne didn’t.

 

[GoFast]

How can one launch with one foot remaining on the ground?

Also, how do you know what the specific action was that the refs used to make their decision? Targeting is not limited to, nor is it specifically defined by launching. The refs could have based their rulling on a number of things outside of launching. So how do you know?

 

[SCarolinaCy]

IMO, With a 3 score lead late in the 4th Qtr, Young and other key players should have been off the field.

 

[BWRhasnoAC]

IMO, With a 3 score lead late in the 4th Qtr, Young and other key players should have been off the field.

I agree I think the starters were in too long, but that game got so choppy, and you didn't want to give Tech any breath of life.