Sunday summary...post Florida

[Blue Heaven]

Heard somebody say after the game that they thought we changed our defense after Franks went out. I don't know enough about football to say. It could be simply that the back-up was better and making quicker decisions.

I do know that we had Franks completely befuddled. Right before he was hurt he was completely falling apart. There's a good chance we would've seen the back-up on the next drive anyway even if there hadn't been an injury.

Make no mistake about it we changed. Went from pressuring Franks to laying off the backup and rushing only four guys. We were in zone coverage. He ate us alive. Couple that with Grans playing not to lose mentality in the 2nd half and it was a recipe for disaster. Coaches need to man up if you ask me.

[catfaninin]

I’ve seen the slow mo of that last targeting call and I get more pissed off everytime I see it. I originally thought it was the correct call even if it was a flat out stupid interpretation. After seeing it more and more, I do not see how you could conclude it was a targeting play.

Florida’s QB clearly lowered his head to force a targeting call and there’s nothing Carter could’ve done. It boggles the mind how the refs didn’t come away with that interpretation. If the targeting call is being used as a means of drawing the other team into a penalty, this sport is done.

This is a case of a total misunderstanding of the rule. Targeting is defined as leading with the crown of the helmet, which the UK player clearly did. Helmet to helmet contact does not "force a targeting call." On that play if the QB does not lower his head and takes the blow to the chest it's still targeting. It matters not if the contact is to the head, ribs or knee. The issue is using the helmet as a weapon. In this case the rule as written was absolutely called correctly.

[Lighthouse]

A friend who lives in Gainesville and a huge Florida fan told me he wasn't surprised with how well the backup played. He is Big and has a great arm. And we gave him plenty of time to use it.

[Dwight Schrute]

This is a case of a total misunderstanding of the rule. Targeting is defined as leading with the crown of the helmet, which the UK player clearly did. Helmet to helmet contact does not "force a targeting call." On that play if the QB does not lower his head and takes the blow to the chest it's still targeting. It matters not if the contact is to the head, ribs or knee. The issue is using the helmet as a weapon. In this case the rule as written was absolutely called correctly.

Seems like the The definition is more complex than that, otherwise literally every play in football would be subject.

The official 2018 Football Code of the NCAA Football Rules Committee stresses that "players and coaches should emphasize the elimination of targeting and initiating contact against a defenseless opponent and/or with the crown of the helmet." 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.

https://www.si.com/college-football/...rule-explained

What am I missing? It seems there’s no way that call is targeting if he doesn’t force the contact to the head. Unless the definition was changed to be more stringent in 2019, I believe it requires more than putting your head down and running to tackle.

[Dwight Schrute]

^^
The rules are a bit more stringent for quarterbacks because he’s considered a defenseless player but the rules still seem to require contact above the shoulders unless I’m mistaken.

Edit - i guess under the rules it was, but a closer examination ought to conclude he wasn’t actually targeting, as Trask lowers his head to initiate the striking of the crown. That’s BS.

[catfaninin]

Seems like the The definition is more complex than that, otherwise literally every play in football would be subject.

The official 2018 Football Code of the NCAA Football Rules Committee stresses that "players and coaches should emphasize the elimination of targeting and initiating contact against a defenseless opponent and/or with the crown of the helmet." 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.

https://www.si.com/college-football/...rule-explained

What am I missing? It seems there’s no way that call is targeting if he doesn’t force the contact to the head. Unless the definition was changed to be more stringent in 2019, I believe it requires more than putting your head down and running to tackle.

It's in this post 4 different times.

[Joneslab]

I actually think they could call targeting 90% of the time. Looks like to me they all tackle similarly, and that's very often with their helmet down. Sometimes there's a weird thing that happens (twice this year it's the offensive player falling toward our tackler) that makes the actual hit come at the top of the helmet, but it looks to me like many of these guys are doing the same thing when they tackle.

Which suggests either they're (a) taught to do that, or (b) it's instinctual somehow.

The question also has to be asked: does the targeting rule help anything? I sort of go back to the way they've done basketball, which is to over-call and over-video review things. I wonder if football is going that same way simply because they're trying to create uniformity or something.

My understanding of concussions is that they happen because the brain rattles around in the skull. Obviously the head-down method may be to blame for neck/spine injuries (how many of those are there in the sport?), but if it's a concussion issue then it seems like head-up tackling would be just as dangerous.

[Spiritof96]

Which suggests either they're (a) taught to do that, or (b) it's instinctual somehow.

The question also has to be asked: does the targeting rule help anything? I sort of go back to the way they've done basketball, which is to over-call and over-video review things. I wonder if football is going that same way simply because they're trying to create uniformity or something.

My understanding of concussions is that they happen because the brain rattles around in the skull. Obviously the head-down method may be to blame for neck/spine injuries (how many of those are there in the sport?), but if it's a concussion issue then it seems like head-up tackling would be just as dangerous.

You have asked THE question.

The obvious answer is no, it doesn't help anything. Or anything that couldn't also be addressed by proper enforcement of an unnecessary roughness rule to prevent players from using their head as a weapon against another players head.

As violent as the game is, there is still PLENTY of mechanism of injury for concussions. This rule is a worthless PR/CYA rule that is absolute trash.

They should change the rule to "tackling too hard" and "failure to levitate in mid-air".

BTW, Sawyer took more than one incidental "crown lead" helmet to helmet hit (shown on big screen in the stadium) but the officiating crew decided it was better to rig the game for a "traditional SEC power".

[Dwight Schrute]

It's in this post 4 different times.

Thank you for the remark, but you've seemingly not read past it where it includes the line about causing contact in the opponents head and neck. If the rule was what you're suggesting - merely leading with the head or going head first - basically every play would be subject to targeting.

The rule was designed to minimize head injuries to the head or neck of the player being tackled.

[Dwight Schrute]

You have asked THE question.

The obvious answer is no, it doesn't help anything. Or anything that couldn't also be addressed by proper enforcement of an unnecessary roughness rule to prevent players from using their head as a weapon against another players head.

As violent as the game is, there is still PLENTY of mechanism of injury for concussions. This rule is a worthless PR/CYA rule that is absolute trash.

They should change the rule to "tackling too hard" and "failure to levitate in mid-air".

BTW, Sawyer took more than one incidental "crown lead" helmet to helmet hit (shown on big screen in the stadium) but the officiating crew decided it was better to rig the game for a "traditional SEC power".

For all the wringing of hands over concussions, the only serious injury that happened Saturday night was when Florida's QB had his ankle snapped in half in a perfectly legal and clean hit.

[40bill]

A friend who lives in Gainesville and a huge Florida fan told me he wasn't surprised with how well the backup played. He is Big and has a great arm. And we gave him plenty of time to use it.

There it is.
whether I agree with the target call or not, that's a college wide issue. UK sitting back in a zone when 1) THE COACHES AND EVERYONE IN FOOTBALL KNEW OUR SECONDARY WAS GREEN, 2) that green secondary was short two from injury and ejection.and 3) the coaches had had prior success is just amazingly head spinning.
I get even more frustrated when I read Stoops transcript that they KNEW THAT THE 'packages' were messed up because of injury,etc but decided to do it anyway.
I like this coaching crew and appreciate all they've done, but this zone defense thing they did was either arrogant, stupid, or ..... I don't know.
4th and one....okay. gunslinger quarterback...no problem. Missed field goal....just football.
that defensive scheme from guys that guys that are supposed to be masterminds is highly upsetting.

[Dwight Schrute]

FYI I'm listening to the Leach Report now who just blatantly called out Florida's QB for ducking his head on that last targeting call.

[Brasslock]

Even the announcers noted that Fla was slicing our zone coverage up. We may have used zone to protect our inexperienced secondary. The Fla receivers are fast. If the man-to-man breaks down it is a TD. We were in man-to-man on that last PI call. We are just thin and inexperienced in the secondary and Fla had enough skill to take advantage of this in the 4th quarter. Experience just takes reps. As someone has already noted this game, with the game decided by a late field goal, was the way we won more than a few games last year. We just missed it. McGinnis had us spoiled. Well, he had me spoiled in any event. I think we definitely won the battle in the trenches. This could be another really good season barring further injuries. Bowden will make his presence felt even more before all is said and done.

[Dwight Schrute]

Even the announcers noted that Fla was slicing our zone coverage up. We may have used zone to protect our inexperienced secondary. The Fla receivers are fast. If the man-to-man breaks down it is a TD. We were in man-to-man on that last PI call. We are just thin and inexperienced in the secondary and Fla had enough skill to take advantage of this in the 4th quarter. Experience just takes reps. As someone has already noted this game, with the game decided by a late field goal, was the way we won more than a few games last year. We just missed it. McGinnis had us spoiled. Well, he had me spoiled in any event. I think we definitely won the battle in the trenches. This could be another really good season barring further injuries. Bowden will make his presence felt even more before all is said and done.

Poole just pulled the kick to the right. I'm a little unclear why they didn't try to get the ball to the middle so he could kick in the center of the field, though.

[Lighthouse]

Poole just pulled the kick to the right. I'm a little unclear why they didn't try to get the ball to the middle so he could kick in the center of the field, though.

I agree, a run to the left might have gotten us a first down too.