Young's Hit

  • Fanatics -

    Thank you for your patience today and welcome to the newest version of Cyclone Fanatic!

    Most of the changes we have made are very simple, but will greatly improve your user experience while visiting the website.

    We have upgraded our forum software to speed things up. Our homepage is much cleaner and should be even more mobile friendly than before.

    We appreciate your loyalty and are committed to not only keeping Cyclone Fanatic in tip-top shape, but continuing to build this community for the next decade and beyond.

    We ask that if you are experiences any glitches to let us know in this thread . Will will be diligently working on the site all day.

    Thanks again.

    Chris Williams - Publisher

MuskieCy

Well-Known Member
Nov 4, 2006
1,018
1,597
113
If the offensive guy is considered a runner at the point of contact, lowers their head that initiated the contact, they can be thrown for targeting. Doesn’t happen often but remember it happening twice last year in games I watched.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: isutrevman

Cyclonepride

Thought Police
Staff member
Apr 11, 2006
87,907
39,718
113
50
A pineapple under the sea
www.oldschoolradical.com
The rule is way too punitive. Its ridiculous to kick a guy out of the game unless he is purposely head-hunting like Vontaze Burfict
The rule is too punitive, and shouldn't be automatic, but they do that so that they can wash their hands of controversy, Discretion on a play by play basis should be allowed. He led with his shoulder, and the contact was not with the crown of the helmet.
 

BWRhasnoAC

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Apr 10, 2013
12,570
8,719
113
Somewhere between the seas
The rule has nothing to do with if the offensive player lowers his head or not. It was a target and is something that Young should correct.
Ya gotta disagree. Young turned his body so that his shoulder would hit. What is he supposed to do let him score a touchdown? They are both going full speed. Head to head contact was incidental.
 

chuckd4735

Well-Known Member
Mar 29, 2006
27,237
7,859
113
37
Indianola
Ya gotta disagree. Young turned his body so that his shoulder would hit. What is he supposed to do let him score a touchdown? They are both going full speed. Head to head contact was incidental.
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.
 

cyrocksmypants

Well-Known Member
Dec 29, 2008
74,686
64,525
113
Washington DC
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.
I think Horne’s the play before was because it wasn’t with the crown of the helmet.
 

clone4life82

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Dec 17, 2008
1,227
343
83
Ankeny
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 wr wasn’t defenseless though. He caught the ball, turned, took multiple steps then lowered his head to where young was dropping his head to shield the blow.
 

flycy

Well-Known Member
Jul 17, 2008
1,357
1,183
113
Crescent, IA
the WR shouldn’t have ducked his head down into young prior to getting hit. Had he not ducked, young’s hit would’ve been fine
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.
 

JM4CY

Well-Known Member
Aug 23, 2012
9,415
14,823
113
America
I'd like to see football take the basketball approach to the flagrant 1 and flagrant 2. Seems to me now, that the rule has no nuance and there should be more levels of severity, not just a yes or no verdict.
This would solve so many problems is a great idea. Young MAYBE should of gotten ejected (based solely on how they seem to be policing the game, right or wrong). However, there’s not fair world where the kid can’t play half of the next game based on a football hit like that.
 

cyrocksmypants

Well-Known Member
Dec 29, 2008
74,686
64,525
113
Washington DC
I said this in the game thread at the time, but I’m fine with the call. I’m fine with the ejection rule. But they’ve REALLY got to get rid of the ridiculous penalty of the carryover into the next game. It’s such a stupid and pointless rule and has such a drastic effect on a game that it shouldn’t. MAYBE you can implement it in a way like for repeat offenders, kind of like the NBA does with flagrant fouls.
 

Rural

Well-Known Member
Feb 3, 2010
28,475
15,688
113
They need officials that know a cheap shot when they see it not this fricking nonsense.
 

chuckd4735

Well-Known Member
Mar 29, 2006
27,237
7,859
113
37
Indianola
I said this in the game thread at the time, but I’m fine with the call. I’m fine with the ejection rule. But they’ve REALLY got to get rid of the ridiculous penalty of the carryover into the next game. It’s such a stupid and pointless rule and has such a drastic effect on a game that it shouldn’t. MAYBE you can implement it in a way like for repeat offenders, kind of like the NBA does with flagrant fouls.
Yes I agree that that needs to be fixed. What bothers me is that if the penalty occurs one second into the second half, or with just one second left in the second half, it carries over into the first half of the next game. They're definitely needed to be some latitude there.
 

cyclonespiker33

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
Jan 19, 2011
12,030
4,590
113
How was Young supposed to tackle on that play?

The only way to make the tackle without doing what he did would be to go for the ball carrier's knees. Is that any more safe?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: isutrevman