Timu Hit

[uw2010]

Was that targeting call on Timu a legit penalty? I didn't really get a good look at it during the game since they only showed a couple quick replays in the stadium. Initially it just looked like he led with his shoulder and the receiver dropped down into the hit. I'm just wondering if the TV broadcast had any good replays/angles. I'm not trying to harp on refs or anything here, just legitimately wondering whether or not it was the correct call.

 

[dnc]

looked like the right call to me

 

[CuntWaffle]

It was a penalty but that hit was fucking awesome.

 

[TierbsHsotBoobs]

It was textbook targeting:
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)

I was STUNNED when the replay booth let him stay in the game.

 

[ApostleofGrief]

I saw his head snap back, but I thought he made contact shoulder-to-shoulder.

 

[CaptainPJ]

It was textbook targeting:
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)

I was SHOCKED when the replay booth let him stay in the game.

Were you offended to?

Scarves up, Brah. It was clearly uncalled for.

Christ

 

[chuck]

The rule sucks. It's the ball carrier's actions that create the infraction more often than not. If he gets lower than the defender there's a chance of contact above the shoulder pads. For the defender to ensure he stays below the ball carrier he has to put his head down, increasing the odds of: 1) missing the tackle, or 2) hitting the guy somewhere with the crown of the helmet. Timu did everything right...kept his head up and turned his shoulder into the hit. He was unlucky as the receiver got about 3" too low and the contact was square on his neck/head. Clear infraction but it's still bull shit.

It was also correct that they didn't eject him since they're judging intent to make that decision. His intent was obviously to hit him in the shoulder.

 

[TierbsHsotBoobs]

The rule sucks. It's the ball carrier's actions that create the infraction more often than not. If he gets lower than the defender there's a chance of contact above the shoulder pads. For the defender to ensure he stays below the ball carrier he has to put his head down, increasing the odds of: 1) missing the tackle, or 2) hitting the guy somewhere with the crown of the helmet. Timu did everything right...kept his head up and turned his shoulder into the hit. He was unlucky as the receiver got about 3" too low and the contact was square on his neck/head. Clear infraction but it's still bull shit.

It was also correct that they didn't eject him since they're judging intent to make that decision. His intent was obviously to hit him in the shoulder.

Intent has NOTHING to do with the way the targeting ejection rule is written. That ejection should have been confirmed, not overturned, but Pac-12 refs like to make their own rules.

 

[chuck]

The rule sucks. It's the ball carrier's actions that create the infraction more often than not. If he gets lower than the defender there's a chance of contact above the shoulder pads. For the defender to ensure he stays below the ball carrier he has to put his head down, increasing the odds of: 1) missing the tackle, or 2) hitting the guy somewhere with the crown of the helmet. Timu did everything right...kept his head up and turned his shoulder into the hit. He was unlucky as the receiver got about 3" too low and the contact was square on his neck/head. Clear infraction but it's still bull shit.

It was also correct that they didn't eject him since they're judging intent to make that decision. His intent was obviously to hit him in the shoulder.

Intent has NOTHING to do with the way the targeting ejection rule is written. That ejection should have been confirmed, not overturned, but Pac-12 refs like to make their own rules.

I was talking about how they are making the decision, not how the rule is written. I haven't seen a ton of them this year, but on the ones I've seen, the ejection should have been upheld every time based on the rule. It's obvious the refs are deciding based on intent and not just in the Pac-12.

 

[TierbsHsotBoobs]

The rule sucks. It's the ball carrier's actions that create the infraction more often than not. If he gets lower than the defender there's a chance of contact above the shoulder pads. For the defender to ensure he stays below the ball carrier he has to put his head down, increasing the odds of: 1) missing the tackle, or 2) hitting the guy somewhere with the crown of the helmet. Timu did everything right...kept his head up and turned his shoulder into the hit. He was unlucky as the receiver got about 3" too low and the contact was square on his neck/head. Clear infraction but it's still bull shit.

It was also correct that they didn't eject him since they're judging intent to make that decision. His intent was obviously to hit him in the shoulder.

Intent has NOTHING to do with the way the targeting ejection rule is written. That ejection should have been confirmed, not overturned, but Pac-12 refs like to make their own rules.

I was talking about how they are making the decision, not how the rule is written. I haven't seen a ton of them this year, but on the ones I've seen, the ejection should have been upheld every time based on the rule. It's obvious the refs are deciding based on intent and not just in the Pac-12.

I've seen several overturns where the contact did not meet the definition of the targeting foul.

That overturn yesterday was only the second incorrect overturn I've seen all year.

 

[chuck]

The rule sucks. It's the ball carrier's actions that create the infraction more often than not. If he gets lower than the defender there's a chance of contact above the shoulder pads. For the defender to ensure he stays below the ball carrier he has to put his head down, increasing the odds of: 1) missing the tackle, or 2) hitting the guy somewhere with the crown of the helmet. Timu did everything right...kept his head up and turned his shoulder into the hit. He was unlucky as the receiver got about 3" too low and the contact was square on his neck/head. Clear infraction but it's still bull shit.

It was also correct that they didn't eject him since they're judging intent to make that decision. His intent was obviously to hit him in the shoulder.

Intent has NOTHING to do with the way the targeting ejection rule is written. That ejection should have been confirmed, not overturned, but Pac-12 refs like to make their own rules.

I was talking about how they are making the decision, not how the rule is written. I haven't seen a ton of them this year, but on the ones I've seen, the ejection should have been upheld every time based on the rule. It's obvious the refs are deciding based on intent and not just in the Pac-12.

I've seen several overturns where the contact did not meet the definition of the targeting foul.

That overturn yesterday was only the second incorrect overturn I've seen all year.

You're probably right but what does this have to do with Emma Watson? Fuck you for wrecking my train of thought.

 

[TierbsHsotBoobs]

The rule sucks. It's the ball carrier's actions that create the infraction more often than not. If he gets lower than the defender there's a chance of contact above the shoulder pads. For the defender to ensure he stays below the ball carrier he has to put his head down, increasing the odds of: 1) missing the tackle, or 2) hitting the guy somewhere with the crown of the helmet. Timu did everything right...kept his head up and turned his shoulder into the hit. He was unlucky as the receiver got about 3" too low and the contact was square on his neck/head. Clear infraction but it's still bull shit.

It was also correct that they didn't eject him since they're judging intent to make that decision. His intent was obviously to hit him in the shoulder.

Intent has NOTHING to do with the way the targeting ejection rule is written. That ejection should have been confirmed, not overturned, but Pac-12 refs like to make their own rules.

I was talking about how they are making the decision, not how the rule is written. I haven't seen a ton of them this year, but on the ones I've seen, the ejection should have been upheld every time based on the rule. It's obvious the refs are deciding based on intent and not just in the Pac-12.

I've seen several overturns where the contact did not meet the definition of the targeting foul.

That overturn yesterday was only the second incorrect overturn I've seen all year.

You're probably right but what does this have to do with Emma Watson? Fuck you for wrecking my train of thought.