STEELER WEEK..... v2.0 ..... and this one is in 2021!
-
@the-gipper said:
I don't know if it was dirty....but it WAS illegal. If you lower your head and hit someone with the crown of your helmet...it is "spearing"...or what they are now calling Targeting. And it didn't matter if Fields spun. He did not spin "into" the hit, he actually spun away from the hit. If he had not spun, then he would have been speared in the gut or chest instead of the side or back.
I know why he spun gipper. The spin however created a targeting call that should have never been called. I don't blame fields for spinning, i do blame the terrible NCAA for how it was enforced and is enforced.
-
And I'm done in here on the matter. Cal is a dipshit and so are you gipper.
-
the replay CLEARLY shows him intentionally lowering and leading with helmet.
PS = it wasn't his first time
Cal, when people say stuff like this to me it's obvious they've never played an organized sport at a high level. Instant replay also changes how things are perceived. it wasn't a dirty hit, fields spun into it otherwise he's getting hit in his side in a perfectly legal manner. I guess people think these players should be able to manipulate space and time like they are in the matrix. It's an absurd implementation of a rule that SHOULD have a discretionary angle to how it's enforced. It's no different than a roughing the passer in the nfl when a defensive lineman for example is at the QB but he gets ride of the ball while the lineman is in the motion of making a tackle and a flag is thrown. It wasn't a dirty hit, it will never be a dirty hit and that kid shouldn't have been ejected. Period.
Cal, when people say stuff like this to me it's obvious they've never played an organized sport at a high level. Instant replay also changes how things are perceived. it wasn't a dirty hit, fields spun into it otherwise he's getting hit in his side in a perfectly legal manner. I guess people think these players should be able to manipulate space and time like they are in the matrix. It's an absurd implementation of a rule that SHOULD have a discretionary angle to how it's enforced. It's no different than a roughing the passer in the nfl when a defensive lineman for example is at the QB but he gets ride of the ball while the lineman is in the motion of making a tackle and a flag is thrown. It wasn't a dirty hit, it will never be a dirty hit and that kid shouldn't have been ejected. Period.
oh, bs. It WAS a dangerous hit, and those are AGAINST the rules, and it calls for an immediate ejection.
It doesn't matter that you played football - in this case, you are completely wrong. He intentionally led with his helmet as a weapon. That is wrong no matter what team did it.
Did you lose money on a clemson would win bet or what?
-
Cal, when people say stuff like this to me it's obvious they've never played an organized sport at a high level. Instant replay also changes how things are perceived. it wasn't a dirty hit, fields spun into it otherwise he's getting hit in his side in a perfectly legal manner. I guess people think these players should be able to manipulate space and time like they are in the matrix. It's an absurd implementation of a rule that SHOULD have a discretionary angle to how it's enforced. It's no different than a roughing the passer in the nfl when a defensive lineman for example is at the QB but he gets ride of the ball while the lineman is in the motion of making a tackle and a flag is thrown. It wasn't a dirty hit, it will never be a dirty hit and that kid shouldn't have been ejected. Period.
oh, bs. It WAS a dangerous hit, and those are AGAINST the rules, and it calls for an immediate ejection.
It doesn't matter that you played football - in this case, you are completely wrong. He intentionally led with his helmet as a weapon. That is wrong no matter what team did it.
Did you lose money on a clemson would win bet or what?
oh, bs. It WAS a dangerous hit, and those are AGAINST the rules, and it calls for an immediate ejection.
It doesn't matter that you played football - in this case, you are completely wrong. He intentionally led with his helmet as a weapon. That is wrong no matter what team did it.
Of course it matters. It allows someone to understand that things happen in seconds and I this case fields spun into the crown. If fields doesn't spin it's a text book form tackle. There is no other way to look at it either from a rational point of view. Homer glasses everywhere in here.
AKA SNATCH98 or Rorbotron. The boards glorious admins decided to get cute and change my name to "homotron" Classy group of people. (Lost a bet with Columbus king and got banned for a month) -
College football players penalized for targeting and disqualified from games will be allowed to remain on the sideline following the calls rather than having to leave the field and go to the locker room.
The modification to the targeting rule, which called for players to be ejected since 2013, was among a series of rules changes approved by the NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel on Monday and announced Tuesday.
-
oh, bs. It WAS a dangerous hit, and those are AGAINST the rules, and it calls for an immediate ejection.
It doesn't matter that you played football - in this case, you are completely wrong. He intentionally led with his helmet as a weapon. That is wrong no matter what team did it.
Of course it matters. It allows someone to understand that things happen in seconds and I this case fields spun into the crown. If fields doesn't spin it's a text book form tackle. There is no other way to look at it either from a rational point of view. Homer glasses everywhere in here.
Of course it matters. It allows someone to understand that things happen in seconds and I this case fields spun into the crown. If fields doesn't spin it's a text book form tackle. There is no other way to look at it either from a rational point of view. Homer glasses everywhere in here.
oh, why not shut up and look it up? You are completely wrong.
In college football, targeting is defined as, “making forcible contact with the crown of the helmet,” or “making forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless player”. Under current strictures, a targeting call leads to a 15-yard penalty and automatic ejection of the player that committed the targeting foul.
-
Of course it matters. It allows someone to understand that things happen in seconds and I this case fields spun into the crown. If fields doesn't spin it's a text book form tackle. There is no other way to look at it either from a rational point of view. Homer glasses everywhere in here.
oh, why not shut up and look it up? You are completely wrong.
In college football, targeting is defined as, “making forcible contact with the crown of the helmet,” or “making forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless player”. Under current strictures, a targeting call leads to a 15-yard penalty and automatic ejection of the player that committed the targeting foul.
oh, why not shut up and look it up? You are completely wrong.
In college football, targeting is defined as, “making forcible contact with the crown of the helmet,” or “making forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless player”. Under current strictures, a targeting call leads to a 15-yard penalty and automatic ejection of the player that committed the targeting foul.
And the current structure is too black and white. The end.
-
https://www.si.com/college/2018/08/21/college-football-helmet-targeting-rule-explained
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."
Get SPORTS ILLUSTRATED's best stories every weekday. Sign up now.
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.
Since 2008, the committee has implemented rules to prohibit forcible contact using the helmet and target defenseless opponents. In 2013, it became an ejectionable offense, in addition to incurring a 15-yard penalty.
-
oh, why not shut up and look it up? You are completely wrong.
In college football, targeting is defined as, “making forcible contact with the crown of the helmet,” or “making forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless player”. Under current strictures, a targeting call leads to a 15-yard penalty and automatic ejection of the player that committed the targeting foul.
And the current structure is too black and white. The end.
-
I didn't love the call and I don't love the rules. If anything, throw a flag for 15 yards, but don't toss him out. The biggest thing for me was that he didn't keep his eyes up, therefore hitting with the crown. It didn't seem malicious because Fields was spinning and I honestly think the LB was just trying to make a solid stick. But eyes were down, thus crown of the helmet.
-
If you can't see what you are hitting, because you are looking straight down at the ground, it is textbook targeting. It doesn't matter if Fields spun, did backflips, or cartwheels - the Clemson LB lead with his head.
One of the worst offenders I saw doing this consistently was ex-Browns safety Brodney Pool. How he didn't end up paralyzed is beyond me. I'm not sure he ever saw who he tackled.
-
@vagitron said:
Pretty simple? How many times did you rewatch the play? He is squared up for a text book form tackle and fields spun into the crown. There is a reason is being labeled as a controversial call. It should not have been called. His head is up, he's formed up and fields spun. Suggesting otherwise is being a Homer.
Again, was that game in the matrix?
The simple part is don’t lower your helmet like he did he clearly led with the Crown of the helmet.
-
Think about it, and I view them completely different by the way.
- Both try to appear smarter than everyone else
- Both will continue to hammer a point no matter what is said against it
- Both resort to foul language and insults frequently
- Both take no responsibility for their actions
- Both brag about their accomplishments whether in life or being right
Thought I was "the other" earlier... but not now.
Now thinking "Ghoulie"?
-
the replay CLEARLY shows him intentionally lowering and leading with helmet.
PS = it wasn't his first time
Cal, when people say stuff like this to me it's obvious they've never played an organized sport at a high level. Instant replay also changes how things are perceived. it wasn't a dirty hit, fields spun into it otherwise he's getting hit in his side in a perfectly legal manner. I guess people think these players should be able to manipulate space and time like they are in the matrix. It's an absurd implementation of a rule that SHOULD have a discretionary angle to how it's enforced. It's no different than a roughing the passer in the nfl when a defensive lineman for example is at the QB but he gets ride of the ball while the lineman is in the motion of making a tackle and a flag is thrown. It wasn't a dirty hit, it will never be a dirty hit and that kid shouldn't have been ejected. Period.
Cal, when people say stuff like this to me it's obvious they've never played an organized sport at a high level. Instant replay also changes how things are perceived. it wasn't a dirty hit, fields spun into it otherwise he's getting hit in his side in a perfectly legal manner. I guess people think these players should be able to manipulate space and time like they are in the matrix. It's an absurd implementation of a rule that SHOULD have a discretionary angle to how it's enforced. It's no different than a roughing the passer in the nfl when a defensive lineman for example is at the QB but he gets ride of the ball while the lineman is in the motion of making a tackle and a flag is thrown. It wasn't a dirty hit, it will never be a dirty hit and that kid shouldn't have been ejected. Period.
I know exactly what high level I played AND coached at.
Now sure, people can look at something with biased eyes. But come on man, you trying to say anyone not agreeing with your perception of the play obviously never played at a high level is ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS.
1. You notice how almost every time a player is called for targeting (HS, College, Pro) they are up in arms about it? I wonder why you didn't see that last night?
2. You can certainly give him the benefit of doubt if you want (even with his history), but maybe watch the video slowly. At best, he started by lowering his head, and probably within a frame (one way or another) of the start of the spin
3. Skalski is very lucky he himself didn't get hurt. Lowering you head is the FIRST THING a little league player is taught, much less HS or college. And if you REALLY believe he went in with his head up then you need an optometrist or more. Whether it was his fault, Fields fault, or the officials fault, there is ABSOLUTELY NO POSSIBLE WAY to say his head was down (crown of helmet) with that hit, but wouldn't have been with no spin.
If you wanted to make the argument that he wouldn't have made contact with his head had JF not spun then that is a logical argument, but that is NOT what you said. You argument is that his HEAD WAS DOWN because of the spin.
Now you may want to call out others for lack of "experience", but I don't think you want to do that with me.
-
Cal, when people say stuff like this to me it's obvious they've never played an organized sport at a high level. Instant replay also changes how things are perceived. it wasn't a dirty hit, fields spun into it otherwise he's getting hit in his side in a perfectly legal manner. I guess people think these players should be able to manipulate space and time like they are in the matrix. It's an absurd implementation of a rule that SHOULD have a discretionary angle to how it's enforced. It's no different than a roughing the passer in the nfl when a defensive lineman for example is at the QB but he gets ride of the ball while the lineman is in the motion of making a tackle and a flag is thrown. It wasn't a dirty hit, it will never be a dirty hit and that kid shouldn't have been ejected. Period.
I know exactly what high level I played AND coached at.
Now sure, people can look at something with biased eyes. But come on man, you trying to say anyone not agreeing with your perception of the play obviously never played at a high level is ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS.
1. You notice how almost every time a player is called for targeting (HS, College, Pro) they are up in arms about it? I wonder why you didn't see that last night?
2. You can certainly give him the benefit of doubt if you want (even with his history), but maybe watch the video slowly. At best, he started by lowering his head, and probably within a frame (one way or another) of the start of the spin
3. Skalski is very lucky he himself didn't get hurt. Lowering you head is the FIRST THING a little league player is taught, much less HS or college. And if you REALLY believe he went in with his head up then you need an optometrist or more. Whether it was his fault, Fields fault, or the officials fault, there is ABSOLUTELY NO POSSIBLE WAY to say his head was down (crown of helmet) with that hit, but wouldn't have been with no spin.
If you wanted to make the argument that he wouldn't have made contact with his head had JF not spun then that is a logical argument, but that is NOT what you said. You argument is that his HEAD WAS DOWN because of the spin.
Now you may want to call out others for lack of "experience", but I don't think you want to do that with me.
I know exactly what high level I played AND coached at.
Now sure, people can look at something with biased eyes. But come on man, you trying to say anyone not agreeing with your perception of the play obviously never played at a high level is ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS.
1. You notice how almost every time a player is called for targeting (HS, College, Pro) they are up in arms about it? I wonder why you didn't see that last night?
2. You can certainly give him the benefit of doubt if you want (even with his history), but maybe watch the video slowly. At best, he started by lowering his head, and probably within a frame (one way or another) of the start of the spin
3. Skalski is very lucky he himself didn't get hurt. Lowering you head is the FIRST THING a little league player is taught, much less HS or college. And if you REALLY believe he went in with his head up then you need an optometrist or more. Whether it was his fault, Fields fault, or the officials fault, there is ABSOLUTELY NO POSSIBLE WAY to say his head was down (crown of helmet) with that hit, but wouldn't have been with no spin.
If you wanted to make the argument that he wouldn't have made contact with his head had JF not spun then that is a logical argument, but that is NOT what you said. You argument is that his HEAD WAS DOWN because of the spin.
Now you may want to call out others for lack of "experience", but I don't think you want to do that with me.
My play football comment was more for dipshit cal who is routinely out of his depth right along side is cross eyed side kick gipper. It was more troll than anything else. I also agree he's lucky to have not been hurt, it still doesn't change the fact that fields and his effort to spin is why his crown made first contact. I mean shit man look at all the traffic on that play, you can't make a perfect tackle every time as players aren't just running north and south.
And no my argument is NOT his head was down because of the spin, my argument is he hit him with the crown because fields tried to spin. Where did i say his crown was down because of the spin? if it reads that way that was never my intent. Fields and his attempt at spinning is why the crown made contact. It's the ONLY thing i've been arguing.
By rule, he should have been ejected and he was BUT the rule is stupid and should consider other factors for crown contact, in this case fields spinning into his crown.
EDIT: AND I don't believe i directed the play football comment at you, i'm familiar with your background from reading here and as mentioned in this thread you are one of the more level headed posters.
-
@vagitron said:
Pretty simple? How many times did you rewatch the play? He is squared up for a text book form tackle and fields spun into the crown. There is a reason is being labeled as a controversial call. It should not have been called. His head is up, he's formed up and fields spun. Suggesting otherwise is being a Homer.
Again, was that game in the matrix?
This is where you said what I referred to.
And yes I know that you weren't directing it to me, but you also said that NOBODY with experience would feel that way...
Just pointing out that I have a whole bunch and I feel that way.
And just for a bit more context:
From James Skalski:
"Everyone can have their opinion on it, but the bottom line is I gotta keep my head up. I have nothing but respect for the game and the people I get to compete against. I have to be better."
So my point is, by his OWN words his head was down, and since I am not a mind reader, I have no way to interpret what you are saying (at least once, not going back to look or quote more) that his head is up.
Now, I don't know what the happy medium is, because I think the meaning behind the rule (and thus consequence) is good. But I don't know that missing the remaining game is good. But I think that part is better than missing the 1st half of next game. I certainly don't agree with that part.
But since it was brought up by someone else, and I don't think it had anything to do with the decision during the game, but his past also comes into play. By the rule, obviously it was targeting even you said that. And I honestly don't think he was trying to hurt Fields, but since his 1st action was to lower his head, I do think he was trying to do that. And while I wouldn't go as far as calling him dirty, I would say that I think by his previous actions he is a disrespectful player, especially his trash talking. I think he is a REALLY good football player, and one that I personally would not want on the Browns, Buckeyes, and I certainly wouldn't tolerate on any of my teams. But I guess I am old school too, I much prefer the Larry Fitzgerald/Nick Chubb manner than most guys today
-
so vag played football and yet is completely wrong and says he's trolling to cya.
It doesn't take someone who played the game to give him the NCAA DEFINITION on the targeting.
Fields spinning has nothing to do with the call.
egad. Did you headbutt goalposts the entire time you played football, vag?
totally wrong, you are.
-
oh, bs. It WAS a dangerous hit, and those are AGAINST the rules, and it calls for an immediate ejection.
It doesn't matter that you played football - in this case, you are completely wrong. He intentionally led with his helmet as a weapon. That is wrong no matter what team did it.
Of course it matters. It allows someone to understand that things happen in seconds and I this case fields spun into the crown. If fields doesn't spin it's a text book form tackle. There is no other way to look at it either from a rational point of view. Homer glasses everywhere in here.
@vagitron said:
Lol, yea right. It bleeds of bias and that's fine. It's clear youve never played a lick of football at a high level. Plays happen quickly and players move quickly. He was in for a form tackle and fields spun into the crown. I know by definition it is against the rules but in situations like that the ncaa should use some situational discretion. It wasn't fucking targeting. He lost his bowl game because the ncaa sucks.
Of course it matters. It allows someone to understand that things happen in seconds and I this case fields spun into the crown. If fields doesn't spin it's a text book form tackle. There is no other way to look at it either from a rational point of view. Homer glasses everywhere in here.
There is where you are saying Fields spun into the crown.
But I detect that you aren't understanding my point. Whether Skalski made contact with/without spin, or no contact at all, he was still going in head first.
So you kept saying perfect form etc. That is FAR from perfect. He is in good position, and if he had just sunk his hips, flexed his neck it would have been about perfect.
Now, since maybe someone it appears you respect has said something, maybe go back and watch the replay again. We can bicker back and forth on whether he was actually going in for tackle before the spin (it's EXTREMELY close either way), but just watch Skalski. His FIRST move is putting his head down. Now he may have been trying/anticipating getting a hat on ball, but that is the absolute worst way of doing it.
I said it immediately targeting and gone. And I certainly don't think that Skalski would have been the difference in winning and losing. Whereas I think Wade last year may have (and guess what, by the rule that was correct as well). But the other controversial call last year is one of the worst calls I have ever seen. And you have seen me on here before saying a number of times that a penalty called on Browns (that most complained about) was the correct call.
-
@vagitron said:
Oh and for the record that targeting call was HORRENDOUSLY bad. Justin Fields SPUN into that hit which created the situation with the crown of the helmet. It's a terrible rule that is poorly enforced and now that kid's senior season is tainted even tho Clemson got throttled. The fact that you are in here trying to label it as dirty is all i need to see on the matter. The NCAA is a horrid governing body and again the targeting rules need amended. HORRIBLE CALL!
and for the record my mother in law is a giant OSU fan, most of my extended family went to Ohio State and almost all of them have entire basements dedicated to OSU. AGAIN HORRIBLE fucking call.
The only one who did more spinning than Fields in this thread was Gipper.
I'll defer to Gunz- if he thinks it was targeting, I'll go by his far more expert opinion than mine. Personally, I thought the call was iffy.
And again..... this thread got derailed for the second time... First by what constitutes a "rivalry", now OSU- Clemson has exactly what to do with the Browns playing the Steelers? Gonna have to clean up a truckload of OT garbage I see.... And I'll lock this, I wasted about 20 minutes cleaning up crap. The gameday thread is live.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login