Will Coley's ejection be reviewed by the SEC?

[HighcountryHog]

100% agree.

Needs LESS pads, imo.  All this "protection" gives the players the idea they can just hurl their body with full force any time.  Be real men, like rugby players.

[jgphillips3]

If that is an ejectable penalty, then egregious face masks like the one that nearly paralyzed RW3 and the one on AA last night need to be ejectable fouls too.  What Coley did had about a .0001% chance of causing serious injury and should not deserve an ejection.  The face masks, as we have seen, can cause far greater damage.  Change the rules and make them balanced or put pink skirts and flags on them and get it over with.

[BadHog]

If that is an ejectable penalty, then egregious face masks like the one that nearly paralyzed RW3 and the one on AA last night need to be ejectable fouls too.  What Coley did had about a .0001% chance of causing serious injury and should not deserve an ejection.  The face masks, as we have seen, can cause far greater damage.  Change the rules and make them balanced or put pink skirts and flags on them and get it over with.

I've wondered this every time I see a face mask especially on a QB or receiver. Perhaps because it happens so frequently that too many players would be ejected

[wildhogman]

I've wondered this every time I see a face mask especially on a QB or receiver. Perhaps because it happens so frequently that too many players would be ejected

Make it ejectable and I bet you see players quit doing it. I remember people saying lots will be tossed from games when the targeting rule came about. Not so fast my friend. It changed the way defenders hit and tackle.  Suddenly those big de-cleating espin high light reel type hits became not so good, and a simple wrap up and tackle was more important, 'and kept you in the game'

[SkeeterHawg]

If that is an ejectable penalty, then egregious face masks like the one that nearly paralyzed RW3 and the one on AA last night need to be ejectable fouls too.  What Coley did had about a .0001% chance of causing serious injury and should not deserve an ejection.  The face masks, as we have seen, can cause far greater damage.  Change the rules and make them balanced or put pink skirts and flags on them and get it over with.

Actually the facemask against AA should have been a targeting call also.  Because according to the rule (quoted from the handbook Page 91 on targeting):
   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.

AND:
  Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14): • A player in the act   of or   just after throwing a pass.

AA had just passed and the guy hit him in the head with his hand and slammed him to the ground by the facemask.  Technically targeting.  He should have been ejected.  I told this to my wife as soon as it happened, "That's targeting, he should be gone."  But those rules seem to be only enforced against us.  I thought there was just a rule against hitting a QB in the helmet with you hands at all.  Seems to me I have seen DL get it called on them when trying to block a pass, missing an slapping the QB on the helmet.

Number 9 last week against AL speared DM in the back while he was on the ground and it wasn't called and was clear in my opinion.

[ErieHog]

The call wasn't questionable.  It is the standard the league office all year;  TAMU's had a lot of issues with it,  Tennessee has had a number of issues with it--  I think, before this weekend,  Kentucky was the only SEC team that hadn't had it come up.

You just can't hit someone above the numbers.  Even then,  'when in doubt, it is a foul'  is the rule-- and the league is pretty consistent in applying it.

Yes, there are a hundred other dangerous things in football, some often more dangerous than a whack at the top of the numbers.  No, they're not going to eject people for them, unless its a second unsportsman like conduct in association with the foul.

Yes, people don't like the rule;  no, it isn't going anywhere.    This is the new normal.

[hog.goblin]

But the side view showed space between helmets through the entire hit.  Coley's hekmet never touched the WR

That's irrelevant.  If his helmet makes contact, or close enough you can see space between the helmets of you are at the right andgle, then the defender is hitting too high under the current rules.  Once the Ole Miss players head snapped back it became a no brainer.  The sec will uphold it if they are asked to review it.

[Science Fiction Greg]

Once the Ole Miss players head snapped back it became a no brainer. 

PHRASING

[LMS]

https://twitter.com/CrimReaper_21/status/787462331391352834

https://twitter.com/HitManGaines_26/status/787462776721506304

https://twitter.com/HitManGaines_26/status/787463447113895938

https://twitter.com/HitManGaines_26/status/787464190780846080

Hope I posted those tweets right. Gaines and a few others were very vocal about the targeting call and then the facemask on Allen directly after. The facemask on Allen was also completely intentional, in my opinion. He had clearly already thrown the ball, the defender never even tried to grab him or his jersey, just went straight for the facemask, then started chirping back at Austin after he got up and was saying something to him along the lines of "WTH dude?" (if you go by Austin's body language and him raising his hands up).

[hawginbigd1]

I posted in game thread, watching on tv, I said to my buddy: this is gonna be picked, as soon as he picked it I said, but we have a penalty for targeting before the end of the return! Because I am an official I can just about call every penalty on the field as I am watching if it happens in the camera shot.

This was not a brutal hit but he hit him in the head when he was defenseless, when in doubt it is a penalty for targeting. It was so weak and poor camera angles the league let the play stand, I would doubt anything more happens with this ruling.

[Rzbakfromwaybak]

I can certainly understand the targeting calls to the head & neck area, & leading with the helmet, etc. & agree with making things safer for players.  Hitting another player with your shoulder, around their shoulders (unless from the back), is another thing.  Believe we also have some rules about hitting/blocking too low in certain situations.  Too high, too low, what's next, touch football ?  Guess all players will have a 8" red stripe painted on their jerseys around their waist.  If you hit them anywhere else, it's some kind of a penalty. Tackle football, is just not going to be a safe sport. 

A huge problem that is not being enforced correctly, are the defensive backs on passing plays. About 50% of the time,  there is a DB running down field with his hands on a receiver, pushing, shoving, grabbing an arm/jersey & holding. Too often, nothing is called.  Either enforce that penalty every time it happens, or do away with the rule altogether.  Only calling it a penalty part of the time, is not enforcing the rule.  If the ref's can't see these uncalled penalties, they need to be replaced or have instant replay involved more in this area.  Silly to say that certain plays can't be reviewed by officials, yet fans at home on TV can see all the mistakes being made that effect the outcome of games.

[hog.goblin]

PHRASING

Got to keep people honest 

[LA Football fan]

His shoulder hit him DIRECTLY in the chest, not the head, not the neck, but the chest.  The only thing that could have gotten the targeting call was the possibility his forearm pushed up under his chin during the hit.  The receiver was not defenseless.  The receiver had time to see him coming and you can clearly see him start putting his hands in front of him to take the hit.  The hit was just a good tough block after the interception and if it had clearly been targeting the call would have been confirmed rather than the call stands as called.  Even the replay ref was having trouble and took the easy way out and just let the call stand.  Hopefully due to this the SEC will come down and say that him missing the rest of the game is enough punishment for a borderline call but getting positive results from the SEC is pretty much nonexistent if you aren't Bama.

[ErieHog]

His shoulder hit him DIRECTLY in the chest, not the head, not the neck, but the chest.  The only thing that could have gotten the targeting call was the possibility his forearm pushed up under his chin during the hit.  The receiver was not defenseless.  The receiver had time to see him coming and you can clearly see him start putting his hands in front of him to take the hit.  The hit was just a good tough block after the interception and if it had clearly been targeting the call would have been confirmed rather than the call stands as called.  Even the replay ref was having trouble and took the easy way out and just let the call stand.  Hopefully due to this the SEC will come down and say that him missing the rest of the game is enough punishment for a borderline call but getting positive results from the SEC is pretty much nonexistent if you aren't Bama.

Anything at the numbers or higher, that causes a person's head to whip back is going to draw that flag.    That's the nature of the 'when in doubt, it is a foul' call.

[jbcarol]

https://twitter.com/aldotcomSports/status/788386707821498368

SEC first reviewed it from the bunker in Birmingham in near real time.

https://twitter.com/SECNetwork/status/787463727943655424

[ErieHog]

""Obviously I don't like the fact that that he has to sit out, but it's the rules and we play by them and it was the right call."

-  Bret Bielema

[Kevin]

""Obviously I don't like the fact that that he has to sit out, but it's the rules and we play by them and it was the right call."

-  Bret Bielema

he was probably told to cool it with the refs after the bama game

[rljjr]

""Obviously I don't like the fact that that he has to sit out, but it's the rules and we play by them and it was the right call."

-  Bret Bielema

Did you hear how he said it? He's saying the right words to make the conference happy, but the tone was far different.

[hogpc]

Did you hear how he said it? He's saying the right words to make the conference happy, but the tone was far different.

So the ref on the field calls it, the replay upholds it, the SEC office confirms it and OUR coach says it is the right call - but you say they're all wrong? Dude, get over it. It was the right call.

[PorkSoda]

Don't lower the shoulder and go for the hit there, just use the hands and shove him out of the play.

That does not sound like form tackling

I hate the way the rule is applied, but it was the correct call by definition. However, the rule and definition will drive you nutts.

Here are a couple of good articles on the rule. Note the part about defenseless players.

http://www.cornnation.com/2016/9/5/12792446/college-football-targeting-rule-definition

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/9/7/12829482/targeting-penalty-rulebook-ncaa-football

um no it wasn't applied correctly

he didn't lead with the head and he didn't hit the neck or head area.

[PorkSoda]

Anything at the numbers or higher, that causes a person's head to whip back is going to draw that flag.    That's the nature of the 'when in doubt, it is a foul' call.

it didn't 'whip back'

[PorkSoda]

That's irrelevant.  If his helmet makes contact, or close enough you can see space between the helmets of you are at the right andgle, then the defender is hitting too high under the current rules.  Once the Ole Miss players head snapped back it became a no brainer.  The sec will uphold it if they are asked to review it.

it didn't snap back, it stayed the same in relation to his body.  you fools are making crap up.

it was an obvious bad call.

[PorkSoda]

The call wasn't questionable.  It is the standard the league office all year;  TAMU's had a lot of issues with it,  Tennessee has had a number of issues with it--  I think, before this weekend,  Kentucky was the only SEC team that hadn't had it come up.

You just can't hit someone above the numbers.  Even then,  'when in doubt, it is a foul'  is the rule-- and the league is pretty consistent in applying it.

Yes, there are a hundred other dangerous things in football, some often more dangerous than a whack at the top of the numbers.  No, they're not going to eject people for them, unless its a second unsportsman like conduct in association with the foul.

Yes, people don't like the rule;  no, it isn't going anywhere.    This is the new normal.

so you go from above the numbers to near the top of the numbers?

way to move the goal posts in your own posts.  it was a BS call and anyone with eyes can see it.

[ErieHog]

so you go from above the numbers to near the top of the numbers?

way to move the goal posts in your own posts.  it was a BS call and anyone with eyes can see it.

It was the right call.  The coach said as much, the league office confirmed as much,  and the call was made without hesitation on the field.

There's no goalpost moving---  the only way to avoid that flag, is to not put it in that area that has still been consistently flagged all year.

And his tone wasn't sarcastic or objectionable, or toned down.  It was an acknowledgement of wrongdoing, and it was in the context of a need for further emphasis on the need for teaching it in their coaching.

Notice there's no one from any other fan base but our own, except those who dislike targeting as a thing overall (sissifying football!)   that say this was a bad call.  None.

Its an easy call.  Its the right call.   It just sucked, situationally.

[rljjr]

So the ref on the field calls it, the replay upholds it, the SEC office confirms it and OUR coach says it is the right call - but you say they're all wrong? Dude, get over it. It was the right call.

Whatever, DUDE. I'm not under it. Have a great day, Hog fan.

[PorkSoda]

It was the right call.  The coach said as much, the league office confirmed as much,  and the call was made without hesitation on the field.

There's no goalpost moving---  the only way to avoid that flag, is to not put it in that area that has still been consistently flagged all year.

And his tone wasn't sarcastic or objectionable, or toned down.  It was an acknowledgement of wrongdoing, and it was in the context of a need for further emphasis on the need for teaching it in their coaching.

Notice there's no one from any other fan base but our own, except those who dislike targeting as a thing overall (sissifying football!)   that say this was a bad call.  None.

Its an easy call.  Its the right call.   It just sucked, situationally.

I'm not generally one that trying to blame the refs or constantly complains about bad calls, but IMO it was a bad call.  it was shoulder to the chest, it happens a 30 times a game.   it was a hard hit, but that is all it was.

my opinion is that it was a bad call.  and I don't expect beliema to openly complain about a call in a game we won.

[Sow Lancelot]

he was probably told to cool it with the refs after the bama game

This

[hog.goblin]

it didn't snap back, it stayed the same in relation to his body.  you fools are making crap up.

it was an obvious bad call.

You must be watching the wrong play.  It snapped back.  The announcers said it snapped back.  The official that reports to the television audience on calls said it snapped back.  I saw it snap back.

Certain homers aren't seeing it...

[Karma]

That does not sound like form tackling um no it wasn't applied correctly

he didn't lead with the head and he didn't hit the neck or head area.

Our coach disagrees.

[root_hawg]

and the league and the official but hey some of the experts on hogville say it wasn't so I guess it wasn't

[HogBreath]

Number 9 last week against AL speared DM in the back while he was on the ground and it wasn't called and was clear in my opinion.

Exactly right..the guy clearly led with the crown of his helmet, I thought it was an obvious call, but the jackazz refs just stood around looking stupid, thought they also missed a late hit against AA that nite.

It seems pretty obvious to me these Hogs have faced a rather stacked deck with the refs so far this season.

[WBOBO]

Bad rule with too much ambiguity to the wording.  The rule sounds like lawyer terms instead of laymen terms for a game of football in college.

[hogpc]

I hope you don't bring references like that to a job interview.  The Sec is the most corrupt conference in college sports.  But yeah let's just go along with whatever they "confirm."  Gracious.  And OUR coach is already in hotwater withe the People's Republic of the Southeastern Conference, so again not really a credible reference.  It was close, by rule.  The problem is the rule is fricking retarded, and very very poorly interpreted from play to play.  It is quite possibly the most inconsistent call in the history of sports. 
If they're so worried about safety put some money into equipment.  This is the typical overreaction you see in society everyday.  A bunch of old players started having problems after playing in an era with nowhere close to equipment they play with now.  Does anyone remeber Joe Montana wearing the body armour Austin Allen does or Cam Newton?  With today's technology there is absolutely no reason they can't come up with equipment that will better protect the player, and decrease the chance of long term problems.
Those of you saying it was the right call, will be complaining about missed tackles on Saturday.  See the correlation? It's football.  Let them play, and protect them with better equipment.

I like big hits as much as anybody, but, I think its a good rule to protect defenseless players. No sense getting someone crippled for life on the ball field. Also, no need for you to get personal - but just fyi I don't go on job interviews, I own my company.

[hogcard1964]

Stupid call and application of the rule .I hope the SEC Office tosses this.

I'm confident they will.

[Pork Twain]

This was a bad call but might have been made partly based on the last one of these he received.

[ErieHog]

I'm confident they will.

They've already confirmed the ejection and his suspension for the first half of next week, so, no.

[PorkSoda]

Our coach disagrees.

our coach is being on best behavior after his last outburst.

but also our coach is big on player safety so he is going to err on that side. 

thats fine

the announcers thought and everyone I was watching with thought it was a bad call.  I can see where they might make the call because it was a big hit, but it was still a bad call. 

it is what it is.

he did not lead with his head, he did not hit in the neck or head area, he also hit the receiver a split second after the ball got there exactly like he is supposed to.

we won, who cares, but its still a bad call.

[GuvHog]

It was the right call.  The coach said as much, the league office confirmed as much,  and the call was made without hesitation on the field.

There's no goalpost moving---  the only way to avoid that flag, is to not put it in that area that has still been consistently flagged all year.

And his tone wasn't sarcastic or objectionable, or toned down.  It was an acknowledgement of wrongdoing, and it was in the context of a need for further emphasis on the need for teaching it in their coaching.

Notice there's no one from any other fan base but our own, except those who dislike targeting as a thing overall (sissifying football!)   that say this was a bad call.  None.

Its an easy call.  Its the right call.   It just sucked, situationally.

No, it was a bad call. CBB had no choice BUT to say what he did because even the slightest criticism of the officials would get he and the University fined big time.

[GuvHog]

Anything at the numbers or higher, that causes a person's head to whip back is going to draw that flag.    That's the nature of the 'when in doubt, it is a foul' call.

That's not the way the rule reads.

[HawgTrough]

terrible call

[ErieHog]

That's not the way the rule reads.

It is, but as usual, what it actually says remains irrelevant to you Guv.

[hogcard1964]

terrible call

They have to be looking at this.

[hog.goblin]

No, it was a bad call.

in case there was any doubt, now we know it was the right call

[hog.goblin]

the announcers thought and everyone I was watching with thought it was a bad call.

Razorback radio announcers?  Because the TV announcers made it clear it was the right call along with the official that called in to the broadcast.

[Atlhogfan1]

The rule specifies head and neck area.  Not if the hit causes the head to move.  If they want the numbers area to be included, then include it in the rule.  Specify anything above the waist for that matter.  As of now, head and neck AREA.  AREA gives them leeway.  Official on field covers his butt by calling it.  League upholds to cover theirs.  So when the lawsuit comes, they can say they overcompensated and were strict. 

[hog.goblin]

Head snaps back:

www.seccountry.com/arkansas/watch-arkansas-deandre-coley-ejected-for-targeting-after-one-handed-interception-by-henre-toliver/amp?client=safari

[Andrew Hogfan]

our coach is being on best behavior after his last outburst.

but also our coach is big on player safety so he is going to err on that side. 

thats fine

the announcers thought and everyone I was watching with thought it was a bad call.  I can see where they might make the call because it was a big hit, but it was still a bad call. 

it is what it is.

he did not lead with his head, he did not hit in the neck or head area, he also hit the receiver a split second after the ball got there exactly like he is supposed to.

we won, who cares, but its still a bad call.

This

[Atlhogfan1]

Head snaps back:

www.seccountry.com/arkansas/watch-arkansas-deandre-coley-ejected-for-targeting-after-one-handed-interception-by-henre-toliver/amp?client=safari

So?  Is that part of the rule?

"In addition, the replay official is empowered to "create" a foul if he sees an obvious and egregious targeting action that the officials on the field miss."   Is it part of this creating a foul even though the officials on the field called it?

[hog.goblin]

So?  Is that part of the rule?

"In addition, the replay official is empowered to "create" a foul if he sees an obvious and egregious targeting action that the officials on the field miss."   Is it part of this creating a foul even though the officials on the field called it?

He led with the helmet, though appears to have missed with the helmet (debatable), which resulted in leading with the shoulder.  But he hit him in the head and/or neck area.

Combine that with the WR being defenseless and it's targeting.

It's that simple.

I think it's too protective of a rule, but there is no doubt this is a penalty under the current rules

[Atlhogfan1]

He led with the helmet, though appears to have missed with the helmet (debatable), which resulted in leading with the shoulder.  But he hit him in the head and/or neck area.

Combine that with the WR being defenseless and it's targeting.

It's that simple.

I think it's too protective of a rule, but there is no doubt this is a penalty under the current rules

He didn't lead with his helmet.  It's that simple.  If anything he did wrong it was bring his right arm and shoulder up to deliver the hit.