January Bowl Games

#76      
IL metro east burbs of St. Louis
Huh?
fc71aaa0-4ca3-11eb-be6d-bb9bd9a38016
Yaaah.. Fields twisted into him.. first thing to hit was shoulder... uh no.. He lowered his head and lunged forward. Look at Field's feet in that twist he never moved lines and was still going forward over the hash marks. He didn't have to lower his head and could of tackled properly but he chose not too. He put Field's and his own health in danger with that poor choice.
 
#78      
The LB put himself in the most dangerous position by lowering his head. It doesnt matter what Fields did. If the LB had his head up like he is supposed to, that's a highlight hit. Instead he almost paralyzed himself
It is exactly correct to say that it's the defensive player who is most at risk there. And you're right that the coaching point is always to keep your head up and "see what you hit".

That's easier said than done in practice though, and the angles they were showing on the broadcast last night made it look to me like he dove in for a shoulder tackle and Fields changed lanes into his head.

But based on the slow mo angle which appears to show a purposeful spear (which by the way was illegal 25 years ago, that's not new) it was clear he was going to be gone.

Still, as in my original comment, same hit but an RB pops up after it and trots back to the huddle no one would have batted an eyelash.
 
#79      

Deleted member 654622

D
Guest
It is exactly correct to say that it's the defensive player who is most at risk there. And you're right that the coaching point is always to keep your head up and "see what you hit".

That's easier said than done in practice though, and the angles they were showing on the broadcast last night made it look to me like he dove in for a shoulder tackle and Fields changed lanes into his head.

But based on the slow mo angle which appears to show a purposeful spear (which by the way was illegal 25 years ago, that's not new) it was clear he was going to be gone.

Still, as in my original comment, same hit but an RB pops up after it and trots back to the huddle no one would have batted an eyelash.
I can agree with the last part. I even made a comment to my buddy that if Fields laid there on purpose it was a hell of a move.
The fact it's not called all the time is on the refs. Call it every time and there will be a lot less of this
 
#80      
The defender played it right, Fields turned his body at the last second which the defender had no time to react. Should have been a no call. This is the about the same as a flop. There was no reason to turn into the defender. He was not trying to elude the player. If he kept his current momentum, the helmet would not have came close. I hope the NCAA changes the rule as this is fraud.
Wow! I completely disagree with this take.
 
#81      

Deleted member 654622

D
Guest
Fields moved into the helmet. Why turn if you are not avoiding the player? I will give you another analogy, its like a batter leaning into the pitch. The officials looked like they got it right but an over zealous booth clown injected into the play.
Again the rule in this particular play is about the defender lowering his head. It doesnt matter what Field did or did not do. He lowered his head therefore he is wrong and responsible for everything that happens afterwards
 
#82      
The defender played it right, Fields turned his body at the last second which the defender had no time to react. Should have been a no call. This is the about the same as a flop. There was no reason to turn into the defender. He was not trying to elude the player. If he kept his current momentum, the helmet would not have came close. I hope the NCAA changes the rule as this is fraud.

Once the defender lowers his head he’s no longer playing it right. That’s the rule. It’s pretty black and white.
 
#83      
Once the defender lowers his head he’s no longer playing it right. That’s the rule. It’s pretty black and white.
Again, that's trickier as a universal rule than it sounds.

It's trickier than avoiding the offensive player's head as a target.

I do wish there would be more candor about the truth of drawing these broad, bright-line rules to try and create a safe harbor and change the nature of the game (which is good! They should not be ashamed of that!) rather than making individualized determination of intent and risk in individual instances.

But if they apply the "you may not lower your head ever" rule evenly, that is going to mean a TON of throwing guys out of the game for no-intent, low-risk hits. So instead we have certain areas of the rulebook that are "open in case someone hurts a QB", and that's kinda annoying and doesn't serve player safety interests as well.

I'm not a general purpose "let em play" critic of this kind of thing, for whatever that's worth. I think the stuff about blows to the head against defenseless players is really working and changing the way defenders play for the better. You CAN tackle without headhunting.

It's just that the one last night seemed to be more clearly a coincidental accident initiated by the offensive player than these things usually are.
 
Last edited:
#84      
I talked to an official friend of mine last night and he agrees with me. He told me that the rule is more complicated than written. He looked at all the angles given and he believed the Clemson player was not at fault even though he lowered his head. His thinking is that even with his head up, he had no time to react to Fields turning and his head would have hit him regardless of where his head was so we will agree to disagree
But you also understand that if he hits him with his face mask first it’s not a penalty right? It’s a crown of the helmet penalty-Looking at your cleats while tackling is never good for anyone
 
#85      
I talked to an official friend of mine last night and he agrees with me. He told me that the rule is more complicated than written. He looked at all the angles given and he believed the Clemson player was not at fault even though he lowered his head. His thinking is that even with his head up, he had no time to react to Fields turning and his head would have hit him regardless of where his head was so we will agree to disagree
You seem to just be intent upon being right. You have seen the evidence and have had the rule clearly explained to you. You seem to simply be in denial that any of that matters. And yes, your friend that is an official, is wrong, also.
 
#86      
I don't like the rule, but it is not just for the protection of the player who is hit. Players are taught to "see what you hit", keep your head up. Attacking with the crown of the head is dangerous for the tackler, a vulnerable position for spinal cord injuries. Hopefully enforcement, however poorly applied at times, will prevent some serious injuries to tacklers.
 
#87      
Scottsdale, Arizona
The defender played it right, Fields turned his body at the last second which the defender had no time to react. Should have been a no call. This is the about the same as a flop. There was no reason to turn into the defender. He was not trying to elude the player. If he kept his current momentum, the helmet would not have came close. I hope the NCAA changes the rule as this is fraud.
Wait, what?