Elijah Shumate Ejection
- Thread starter Golden Domer93
- Start date
Bad rule but good call. Should be okay with Farley and Redfield at safety for first half.
I disagree! It was incidental contact at most. In fact Shumate seemed to be turning away from the contact. BTW, I've watched it several times and it seems the official's flag comes out almost before the contact.
Agree 100 %
- The receiver actually lowers his head into Shumate's - the receiver initiated the head to head contact. completely unintentional type play. I get why the NCAA instituted this rule. But, when it is unintentional on either the receiver or the defensive player - there should not be an ejection and there should not be a half game suspension the following game. A 15 yarder if it needs to be called is damaging enough. The NCAA needs to re-evaluate this penalty and how it is enforced.
It's just a really stupid rule that is being overused. Hopefully it will be modified at some point in the near future.
I didn't agree with the call and thought it was a little suspect.
But.a question in statement form.
If Shumate wasn't playing lazy, AGAIN, it wouldn't have even looked anything close.
Bend your knees there stick that shoulder through his guts and absolutely no call. Want to know how high Shumate was tackling. That receiver was launched in the air making him even higher than normal. Yet a helmet/neck region hit. ?
Come on and tackle correctly. Just ****ing once. Please.
But.a question in statement form.
If Shumate wasn't playing lazy, AGAIN, it wouldn't have even looked anything close.
Bend your knees there stick that shoulder through his guts and absolutely no call. Want to know how high Shumate was tackling. That receiver was launched in the air making him even higher than normal. Yet a helmet/neck region hit. ?
Come on and tackle correctly. Just ****ing once. Please.
This was a bad call by the refs plain and simple. Here are the targeting guidelines. Here is a link to video of the play.
There are two elements to targeting:
1. Targeting and Initiating Contact With the Crown of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3)
2. Targeting and Initiating Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player (Rule 9-1-4)
Note: Beginning in 2013, ejection from the game is a part of the penalty for violation of both Rule 9-1-3 and Rule 9-1-4.
The WR is both rotating and falling after dropping the ball. Two points: When Shumate lowers his head and shoulders, he is eye level with the WRs jersey numbers. When the helmets collide, the contact with Shumates helmet is behind Shumates ear, almost at the back of the helmet.
First - there was no crown of helmet collision which is a requirement for ejection. Shumate shouldn't have been ejected.
The definition of targeting includes "apparent intent". This play was the definition of incidental.
*In the "less risk of a foul section", two indicators are:
There are two elements to targeting:
1. Targeting and Initiating Contact With the Crown of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3)
2. Targeting and Initiating Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player (Rule 9-1-4)
Note: Beginning in 2013, ejection from the game is a part of the penalty for violation of both Rule 9-1-3 and Rule 9-1-4.
The WR is both rotating and falling after dropping the ball. Two points: When Shumate lowers his head and shoulders, he is eye level with the WRs jersey numbers. When the helmets collide, the contact with Shumates helmet is behind Shumates ear, almost at the back of the helmet.
First - there was no crown of helmet collision which is a requirement for ejection. Shumate shouldn't have been ejected.
The definition of targeting includes "apparent intent". This play was the definition of incidental.
*In the "less risk of a foul section", two indicators are:
- Head is to the side rather than being used to initiate contact
- Incidental helmet contact that is not part of targeting but is due to the players changing position during the course of play
The minute Shumate put his head down he ran the risk of a targeting penalty. The rule doesn't say it has to be on purpose and it was clearly a helmet-to-helmet hit. The rule defines what a target is;
Target—to take aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with an apparent intent that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball.
Shumte clearly lowers his head to tackle. Once he does that he ran the risk of hitting the opposing in the neck or head area. The WR was clearly defenseless which is another aspect of the rule.
Pennick is correct. Bad rule but absolutely the correct call.
There probably should be an Independent panel of former players/coaches that players could appeal the suspension of a half a game the Msu UM Game there was a linebacker from UM that got ejected for targeting when the Msu lineman shoved him down into the player making helmet to helmet contact that was a ridiculous call I saw Shumate's hit as incidental and not intentional that's why I think they should be allowed to appeal a suspension of a half the calls to subjective
really ? more of your nonsense ? for the umpteenth time what's your football background ? some of your posts including this one are so ridiculous. you've already proven that you're quite uneducated when it comes to linebacker play. safety play now ? you were way off on Farley. shumate made a solid play. unfortunately he was the victim of a bad rule. what's next an uneducated lesson on d-line play ? for the love of God the library is your friend.
here's the thing if they don't throw a flag on that they're gonna hear about it from their supervisor. it's not necessarily a bad rule it's just that the application of it needs addressed.
I've seen various surveys of NCAA officials - they strongly tend to want to have their hands tied on helmet-to-helmet contact. Right around the time of the rule change, a survey of about 200 Div. I Officials showed, for example, that 75% of officials believed a ball carrier could be called for targeting, but over 80% said they would be reluctant to call that penalty. The view was that existing helmet-to-helmet rules were inadequately enforced.
Its kinda like the 5 yard vs. 15 yard facemask distinction that was short lived - Officials don't want to guess about a player's intentions.
I don't like the present enforcement, but I don't see it changing anytime soon.
You are wrong here. The crown by the hitter does not have to used for this to be a penalty. If you strike the hittee in the neck, head region you are drawing a flag no matter if you use shoulder or your helmet or crown. That supersedes everything else. Striking defenseless player in the neck up area is getting you laundry.
Again...I echo the millionth time....why is it so hard to bend our knees and tackle properly? You can still get a nice hit at times and you make sure a few things. #1...no penalty....#2...a sure tackle with no more gain. But nooooooo we have to Frankenstein everything and that is why our defense get decimated at times. We don't finish tackles off like we should.
That is on the coaches. Period.
more nonsense. what you read in your book wouldnt't apply in that situation. you should really watch the games.
Nice job on this......you have changed my mind. I thought it was targeting based on every call I have seen around targeting this year...and knew he was going once I saw the replay. So I think referees/replay guys have been consistent....but consistently misapplying the rules as you state. They have already changed the rule once - allowing the replay on ejection. Now - they need to take the next step - and allow replay to both take away the penalty and the ejection.
That said - we need stiff penalties/rule enforcement to reduce head injuries in football....it is really important in the longer term, so don't mind the rule generally just how it is being applied.
The rule is horrible for more than couple of reasons. Its is almost always called on the away team. In the Clemson game, the Boulware kid made a great tackle near the sideline. But it would have been called targeting 9 times out of 10 if someone from Notre Dame would have made same tackle in that game. It seems like road teams get the short end of the stick from the games I have seen. I think the Michigan kid was the only time I saw it called on a home team. The offensive players who lower their head to initiate contact never get called for it.
