I don't think malice has anything to do with it. The rule calls for an automatic ejection if the player targets the head or neck AREA.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Targeting and Ejection
- Thread starter Uncle Ken
- Start date
That was about as good a hit as I have seen in a long time. Shoulder to chest. Not sure how the replay could have confirmed the call but you tell that kid after the game to keep bringing that level of play on each and every snap.
That was Jeremy Bloom.
I somewhat agree but at least they go to replay to confirm the ejection. In high school football, that call is automatic ejection and that player is out for the entire next game as well, no appeals.
Geez, if you want it to be a bitch sport, don't strap it up. It's not that hard to see what's dirty and what isn't.
My favorite route was a slant, loved it. I knew what would be waiting on me. That made it my responsibility to get a good release, get inside quick. That way I could keep from getting killed.
The WR was absolutely defenseless. You may not like the rule, that's fine, but that's the rule - you launch yourself and hit a defenseless player near the head or neck area and it's a penalty - that's what happened.
The ejection is automatic if the call stands. So again, you might not like that rule, but it's a rule.
The WR caught the ball, landed on one foot, looked at Laguda, and then was smacked right in the chest. So what is Laguda supposed to do there, just let the WR catch the ball and walk into the end zone? Clean hit, should not have been a penalty, just more flag happy refs. So glad they added another one, one more dumbass into the mix to screw things up.
Well next time he can just give him a box of chocolates . Give me a break.
People that play are aware of the risks. There isn't one play that might not be your last. You know that as soon as you decide to play.
Did not launch himself. Ran through the hit as you're supposed to do. I do think his helmet caught the guy in the facemask and that's a penalty these days. But I didn't think it was an ejection for targeting if the player doesn't launch himself?
h/t to CL34 on the Rivals board for making gifs of the play.
BehindEnemyLines
beware the habu
Best hit I've seen in a long time.
Read the rule, I'm not going to read it for you.
Launching is only an indicator, but isn't required to call the penalty. He makes helmet-to-helmet contact and makes no attempt to wrap him up. By the book, that's a penalty and ejection is automatic.Did not launch himself. Ran through the hit as you're supposed to do. I do think his helmet caught the guy in the facemask and that's a penalty these days. But I didn't think it was an ejection for targeting if the player doesn't launch himself?
h/t to CL34 on the Rivals board for making gifs of the play.
Sorry that isn't a penalty
sorry not sorry
FlatironsBuff
Well-Known Member
Only bad part IMO is he didn't wrap up.
watching that GIF, i see why they called it a penalty. first, the wr's head snaps back and the top of the db's helmet contacts the face mask. second, you can make a case he launched himself at the wr. he's off his feet and he didn't wrap up. third, that wr is clearly in a defenseless position.
all that said, i don't think they should have called it an ejection, but i really doubt we're going to get any help on this from officiating review this week.
all that said, i don't think they should have called it an ejection, but i really doubt we're going to get any help on this from officiating review this week.
BehindEnemyLines
beware the habu
An AF wr just got penalized and ejected for a helmet to helmet hit. Crack back block on a SJ linebacker.
Again, the ejection is automatic.
Hmmm. Guess I wrote that wrong. Sorry. Meant, if you are going to eject a guy, then you better be 100% sure he was doing it malicious.
According to the refs that hang around reddit, Laguda hit the guy's facemask during the hit causing the players head to turn which is a targeting penalty. I didn't buy it until I saw the angle posted above, definitely looks like the Laguda's helmet hits his facemask.. Quite unfortunate.
Last edited:
Looks like a good solid hit nothing that would warrant ejection.Did not launch himself. Ran through the hit as you're supposed to do. I do think his helmet caught the guy in the facemask and that's a penalty these days. But I didn't think it was an ejection for targeting if the player doesn't launch himself?
CL34 on the Rivals board for making gifs of the play.
This. The perspective of the view we saw in the stadium was from behind Laguda. It showed that Laguda's head went well to the side, and there was no evidence of any helmet to helmet contact in that video (which is why the crowd reacted the way we did). The video in this angle shows something quite different.
What some of us might be forgetting (in what I still think wasn't a good call - at least not the ejection part) is that even though that was a penalty on us and Laguda was ejected, ZERO points were scored on the drive due to the defense stiffening up and Moeller picking off the 3rd down pass in the end zone. So even though that call sucked for us, Laguda finishing off the play helped keep any more points from going on the board - for the rest of the game. Looking back, I'd take that call and result every time if it led to our defense responding like they did.
I don't know if anyone is forgetting that. It was a big moment in the game and for this team primarily because of how they responded to adversity -- particularly Moehler who had been toasted earlier so it was a personal response in that sense, too.
I think what we're debating is whether we like the way the targeting rule is written and interpreted.
I'm struggling with my desire to protect players from head injuries balanced against this being a collision sport and sometimes in the course of making a legitimate football play guys will hit helmets.