Because it is targeting per the rules. Why do you continue to say it wasn't when it expressly was per the rules? You seem not to get it. Why do you not want all players, no matter the team, held to the same rules?
Exactly what I was going to say. Score 6 against us and 63 against UT... the next week! College football, man, you never know what's going to happen.
it was targeting, will not be overturned. Don’t think he had intent on injury, but led with crown and made contact with the others helmet. Targeting.
Terrible call. The people making these calls have distorted the intent of the rule. When a tackler ducks his head 5cm it is not leading with the crown of the helmet. Weirdly, the Ref in his announcement said the penalty was for leading with the crown. BS.
I'll bet Coach at Thanksgiving dinner this week that I can throw a football over them mountains. He'll put me in. No doubt. No doubt in my mind.
ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting. When in question, it is a foul. ... Note 1: "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 indications of targeting (emphasis NCAA's) 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 the helmet Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14). When in question, a player is defenseless. Examples of defenseless players include but are not limited to: A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass 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 A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier A player on the ground A player obviously out of the play A player who receives a blind-side block A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped A quarterback any time after a change of possession a ball carrier who has obviously given himself up and is sliding feet first"
^^^^ What that boils down to is: ANY forcible contact to the head and neck area of a defenseless player is targeting. If the player is not defenseless, it’s any forcible contact to the head and neck area, and must also include an indicator. i.e. launch, leading with the crown, etc. In this scenario, Ventrell did lower his head, and initiated helmet to helmet contact with the crown. It’s debatable whether or not that contact was “forcible”, as the brunt of the impact was to the shoulder and, imo, the helmet to helmet was both incidental and insignificant, but, by rule, if it’s in question, it’s a foul. IMO, the call on the field will be upheld. Ventrell will sit out the first half against fsu. I don’t like the way the rule is written, or the way it’s enforced, but unfortunately nobody asked for my opinion.
Respond to number 1 since you obviously didn’t know. And you are hellbent on him being suspended it wasn’t targeting. Period. End of story. Go back to where you came from.
Bingo. We just need to want it more than they do. If we played the way we played the South Carolina game, we should take it. We need AR to get a 100 rushing, not 400 passing. We are capable of winning, we just need to go back to our identity.
Totally agree. It was my last game as a student and I just remember the talk the entire week that we were going to lose. Sitting in the stands watching the QBs getting rotated in and out was just brilliant.
Sounds like fsu folks are a bit overconfident, which is always dangerous. Gators could certainly win. AR brings his A game, no turnovers, SC defense shows up and the coaches unveil some creative plays.
