Review on Hunter hit

[IrishHerb]

Regarding the rules above ^ ...

Texas #4 clearly is aiming at Hunter's head/neck area. The refs clearly missed it!

 

[cgvr]

Go back and look at the play in slow motion. The safety wasn't targeting the head/neck area, but more so Hunter's left shoulder. A clean hit. Had he not been knocked out, no one would even be discussing it.

Clean...what bs...

 

[cgvr]

The ACC has already agreed their officials missed the call so I'm not sure why some people seem to think there is either doubt that the call could have gone either way - it couldn't - or that the play didn't warrant a review and subsequent penalty from the booth - it did. The NCAA rule book is available online. Here is the pertinent language regarding the targeting rule:

• Rule 9-1-3: No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul. (The Texas player clearly met this definition of targeting)
• Rule 9-1-4: No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet,
  forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is
  a foul
• Rule 9-1-4, Note 1, Definition of Targeting: “Targeting” means that 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. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to: Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area" (The Texas defender clearly met this definition of targeting)
  
• Rule 9-1-4, Note 2, Definition of a defenseless player: A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier (Torii Hunter clearly met this definition of defenseless player)

To summarize, there are actually two targeting rules - one rule that says a player may not make forcible contact with the crown of his helmet, and another rule that says a player may not target a defenseless opponent's head or neck area. In the second rule it doesn't matter if the defender led with his helmet or shoulder or whatever body part he used. If he targets a defenseless opponent's head or neck area it is targeting. In this case, the Texas defender actually met both definitions of targeting. He lead with the crown of his helmet and he targeted Hunter's head and neck area at a time when Hunter didn't have an opportunity to protect himself. It's important to point out that neither definition mentions anything about the intent of the player who initiates the contact, and in both instances, if the referees aren't sure if there was targeting but they suspect it, they are supposed to throw the flag ("When in question, it is a foul").

As far as using replay the rule has already been stated but here it is again:

• The replay official may create a targeting foul, but only in egregious instances in which a foul is not called by the officials on the field. Such a review may not be initiated by a coach’s challenge.

Yes, the word "egregious" makes this rule more complicated than it should be. The word they should have chosen is "clear." Nevertheless, if the rule states that on-field officials should call targeting even if they aren't sure it was targeting, then I think any missed targeting call in which the replay clearly shows the textbook definition of targeting then it is an egregious instance. And I certainly think if a defender meets both definitions of targeting it is also egregious.

If our inept HC had any football smarts he would have challenged the call and got a review on possession/completed pass and swung the argument towards targeting too....

If there was ever a time for him to go purple this was it and he gagged....

A guy is knocked out and bleeding and our HC did nothing....absolutely nothing....

He stinks.

 

[King IDMAS]

Again, if we accept that the hit in Hunter was targeting, shouldn't you also be upset about the hit on Beuchele's interception. That was arguably a bigger game changing non-call.

 

[DieHard_Irish]

If our inept HC had any football smarts he would have challenged the call and got a review on possession/completed pass and swung the argument towards targeting too....

If there was ever a time for him to go purple this was it and he gagged....

A guy is knocked out and bleeding and our HC did nothing....absolutely nothing....

He stinks.

Please take your constant hate of CBK elsewhere, especially when you've got no clue what your saying. The rules clearly state it cannot be challenged by the coach.

 

[beachcardinal]

Please take your constant hate of CBK elsewhere, especially when you've got no clue what your saying. The rules clearly state it cannot be challenged by the coach.

Under the rule the challenge MAY NOT be initiated by the coach, Please see above.

 

[tkirish]

Again, if we accept that the hit in Hunter was targeting, shouldn't you also be upset about the hit on Beuchele's interception. That was arguably a bigger game changing non-call.

I for one did not see the hit on Beuchele. But I will try to find a video of it. That said I don't know know what was or wasn't a game changer. I look at this thing very simple. Texas played with passion, ND didn't. You could see they wanted that game more. I think ND has better talent at the moment but not enough to walk into Austin and just go through the motions. The ND defense is horrible. Texas exploited it all night. ND did eventually take the lead but weren't hungry enough to finish the job. Texas won because they played better and played with a strong desire to win. They deserved to win. They were the better team Sunday. Bad calls, non calls, dropped passes are all part of every game. Both teams had missed chances. In the end though , it was the Longhorns who showed grit and determination to get the win. That is the real game changer.

 

[cgvr]

Again, if we accept that the hit in Hunter was targeting, shouldn't you also be upset about the hit on Beuchele's interception. That was arguably a bigger game changing non-call.

"Wanted to give my two cents and then you can ban me.
1. he led with shoulder, and impacted the shoulder first, helmet contact was incidental. Was trying to knock the ball out and receiver was going to the ground. Was clearly not trying to target the receiver high."

Look King, you seem like an alright guy. However, your earlier post suggesting that a knockout blow to Hunter's head that also left him bleeding was "incidental" seems odd.

Can you tell me where in the game the hit on Beuchele occurred? I think I still have the game recorded and I'll check it out. Thanks.

OT
Also, I had to laugh at how 2 of our poster's went at it on your board. Decker versus our board's "Jack Reacher" was priceless. Holy crap ... after decker got punted they continued it over here. It was worse than a sweater fight. Let's just say I wish your board had kept them around for a few more days.

Lastly, we have some real waifs that saw fit to head to your board post game to act as some sort of pious spokespeople from Notre Dame. "Congrats on a great game...." Dear Lord, they are insufferable. "Thank you sir may I have another." One of the excessive dullards claimed to have been raised by Ara over the radio because I think his father abandoned him. (Can you really blame the father?)

You can't make this sh** up.

Anyway, Charlie Strong is a great guy. His win over Oklahoma last year was great to see. This one not so much...

PS What is Bevo's market value?

 

[cgvr]

Under the rule the challenge MAY NOT be initiated by the coach, Please see above.

kelly could have challenged the catch on gone ape sh** over the hit which would have been better than doing nothing. Finally, a chance for a legit purple tirade and he whiffed....

He's just stupid.

 

[RobertGKemp]

Interception play with clear headshot on UT QB

 

[King IDMAS]

Ha On the Bevo market value-"priceless". Seriously though, he is a champion steer from great bloodlines.

I really enjoy discourse without name calling. I didn't see the tickle fights between ours and yours- sometimes you just have to shake your head.

The hit I was referencing was on the interception that our qb threw. You can't see it on the live play but when they show the replay.

 

[cgvr]

Interception play with clear headshot on UT QB

It's at around the 6:32 mark of the third 1/4. Rochell definitely makes helmet to helmet contact after the throw. However, I don't believe it was beyond making a legal tackle. No worries if you disagree. Our guy was concussed, maimed.... Your guy hopped up like a spring chicken and the guy who hit him is a house...

Rule 9-1-3: No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below).

Note 1, Definition of Targeting: “Targeting” means that 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. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to: Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area"

 

[RobertGKemp]

It's at around the 6:32 mark of the third 1/4. Rochell definitely makes helmet to helmet contact after the throw. However, I don't believe it was beyond making a legal tackle. No worries if you disagree. Our guy was concussed, maimed.... Your guy hopped up like a spring chicken and the guy who hit him is a house...

Rule 9-1-3: No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below).

Note 1, Definition of Targeting: “Targeting” means that 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. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to: Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area"

Both probably should have been called or reviewed. The hut on Hunter was also impacted by the other defender pushing him from behind.

 

[Bumpdaddy]

Here's the only video I could find of the Buechele interception play. It' starts at the 1:23:



There isn't a clear view of what happened but it certainly looked like Rochell hit the QB around or just below the shoulders and certainly NOT the head or neck area. Also, the hit was so inconsequential that Buechele was able to attempt to make the tackle.

 

[King IDMAS]

My point being that those complaining abut one and not the other seem hypocritical.
The impact of the first non-call was every bit as impactful as the other.

I would argue the first was worse, as he could clearly see the ball had been released and then lowered his head to lead with the crown. Further, he took a full two steps before impact, he clearly meant to make that contact to the head. Now that was targeting or aiming for the head.

 

[cgvr]

Here's the only video I could find of the Buechele interception play. It' starts at the 1:23:

View embedded media

There isn't a clear view of what happened but it certainly looked like Rochell hit the QB around or just below the shoulders and certainly NOT the head or neck area. Also, the hit was so inconsequential that Buechele was able to attempt to make the tackle.

I just watched the replay at 6:32 in the third (different angle too) and there is definitely helmet to helmet contact, but it pales in comparison to Hunter's devastation.

 

[King IDMAS]

There was a clear view at the end of the clip. whether he was injured or not in this instance was not the point.
That is a textbook example of what the rule was created to stop.
He did aim, or target, our qbs head. He not only did not pull up, he lowered his head to lead wth the crown.

 

[King IDMAS]

Was the Hunter hit much harder? Yes.
But the view from the front at least shows that our DB made should to shoulder contact first.
Again, if you want one called, you need to at least be consistent.

 

[cgvr]

My point being that those complaining abut one and not the other seem hypocritical.
The impact of the first non-call was every bit as impactful as the other.

I would argue the first was worse, as he could clearly see the ball had been released and then lowered his head to lead with the crown. Further, he took a full two steps before impact, he clearly meant to make that contact to the head. Now that was targeting or aiming for the head.

I just re-watched it 3 times in 1/4 slow mo. It's one step and part of a legit rush. He also pulled back, broke off and didn't plant him...

One guy's in the hospital, concussed, bleeding and your guy is healthy as hell. Which was worse?

 

[Irishjohn68]

Go back and look at the play in slow motion. The safety wasn't targeting the head/neck area, but more so Hunter's left shoulder. A clean hit. Had he not been knocked out, no one would even be discussing it.

Are you stupid?

 

[King IDMAS]

Smh, we can disagree, but I see much more clear intent to target the head on the qb hit.

I truly feel bad for the Hunter family and hope he's okay, but the injury, or lack of, is inconsequential.

 

[cgvr]

Smh, we can disagree, but I see much more clear intent to target the head on the qb hit.

I truly feel bad for the Hunter family and hope he's okay, but the injury, or lack of, is inconsequential.

It's not inconsequential. It's specifically why there is this rule. He was a defenseless player that was fortunate to not be a quad. PS Your 2 step version is another falsehood.

 

[Bumpdaddy]

I just watched the replay at 6:32 in the third (different angle too) and there is definitely helmet to helmet contact, but it pales in comparison to Hunter's devastation.

Yeah, I just saw the different angle too and it made a difference. It should have been called as targeting but the two hits don't really compare.

 

[scary jarbro]

Yeah, I just saw the different angle too and it made a difference. It should have been called as targeting but the two hits don't really compare.

They completely compare if you're saying one should be called targeting. Rules are rules. You can't be enraged by one foul and not another.

 

[King IDMAS]

Guys, or gals, I'm not disputing that one hit was harder than the other, just that if you want one call, you need to accept the other.
Neither were called, both potential game changers.
Your coach acting like this was the only bad call is silly.
As someone above stated, if Hunter pops up after the hit, the complaints likely end or are muted.

 

[King IDMAS]

It's not inconsequential. It's specifically why there is this rule. He was a defenseless player that was fortunate to not be a quad. PS Your 2 step version is another falsehood.

In terms of enforcing the rule, it does not matter whether an injury occurred or not.

Again, no one wanted to see Hunter injured.