Rohan Gaines Ejection

[Hogsmo Kramer]

It is not a matter of pulling up. It is a matter of where the tackler impacts the intended or real ball carrier. If he had hit the player in the mid section, he may have been flagged for a late hit but he would not have been ejected.

What about the player was falling down do you not understand?

The receiver was a moving target not a stationary tackling dummy.

[hogsanity]

Had Gaines had his head UP, he would have seen the ball sail over both their heads and known not to hit the guy at all.  This is actually the case on most of the targeting calls anymore, DB's with their heads DOWN, so they can't see what happens with the ball. Saw the exact thing happen in one of the early games Sat, WR had a ball go over his head, he jumped, DB dropped his head for a big hit, WR missed the ball by several feet, and was off balance, DB hit him in the head/neck area, 15 yards and ejected. 

[Hogsmo Kramer]

Love the quote, "It's football, not checkers!"   Although I am kind of violent if I lose at checkers.

In school our coach would give out a black shirt with a skull and crossbones on it, for the best hit in the game. He gave us skull and crossbones stickers for hits too to put on our helmets for big hits in the games. We were taught to get the man to the ground any way possible and put our helmet right between the numbers and separate the man from the ball.

I know, times have changed.     

Yes they have unfortunately, and it just drives me crazy the pussification of my favorite sport.

I mean it's a contact sport for a reason just like rugby, just like MMA, boxing, hockey, etc. and you'll never take that away nor eliminate injuries related to that contact in any of them unless you take the sport away completely.

That said can player safety be increased? Yes, but in a reasonable manner with reasonable rules and the ejection part of that rule isn't reasonable IMO.

Also my HS had something similar as well. We had the WAC (whoop arss club). Our coaches would vote on the best hits each week in each game and those players would become part of the club with his name written on the board and a shirt given to him that simply said in big black letters WAC with a football helmet beneath.

Now I know that sounds corny now but make no mistake every player wanted to be a part of that club and it was looked at with a lot of pride since only the best hitters usually made it in.

[hogsanity]

Yes they have unfortunately, and it just drives me crazy the pussification of my favorite sport.

I mean it's a contact sport for a reason just like rugby, just like MMA, boxing, hockey, etc. and you'll never take that away nor eliminate injuries related to that contact in any of them unless you take the sport away completely.

That said can player safety be increased? Yes, but in a reasonable manner with reasonable rules and the ejection part of that rule isn't reasonable IMO.

Also my HS had something similar as well. We had the WAC (whoop arss club). Our coaches would vote on the best hits each week in each game and those players would become part of the club with his name written on the board and a shirt given to him that simply said in big black letters WAC with a football helmet beneath.

Now I know that sounds corny now but make no mistake every player wanted to be a part of that club and it was looked at with a lot of pride since only the best hitters usually made it in.

Coaches used to not let players have water during practice or games either, and made them play with concussions, ans other injuries. Too bad that stuff changed too I guess.

And no one is taking away big hits to the body, just the head. I watched a lot of football this weekend, saw lots of big hits that drew no flags.

[Piggfoot]

What about the player was falling down do you not understand?

The receiver was a moving target not a stationary tackling dummy.

What about it being a high hit do you not understand? The receiver had not fallen to his knees and thus received a high hit.

[Hogsmo Kramer]

Coaches used to not let players have water during practice or games either, and made them play with concussions, ans other injuries. Too bad that stuff changed too I guess.

And no one is taking away big hits to the body, just the head. I watched a lot of football this weekend, saw lots of big hits that drew no flags.

I guess you missed where I said reasonable huh?

Those changes are reasonable, I've even said flagging a player is reasonable.

However, unless it's a blatant hit to injure a player, and not just a kid trying to make a play that just messes up, I do not think ejecting them is reasonable and quite frankly I find it ridiculous.

[southarkhog06]

why cant we just wrap up when we tackle its like dbs arent coached to do this anymore. its hard to deliver the kinda hit that gets you flagged/ejected when your head is up and you are wrapping up the ballcarrier.

[hogsanity]

I guess you missed where I said reasonable huh?

Those changes are reasonable, I've even said flagging a player is reasonable.

However, unless it's a blatant hit to injure a player, and not just a kid trying to make a play that just messes up, I do not think ejecting them is reasonable and quite frankly I find it ridiculous.

So now we want the refs trying to judge malicious intent? How about just not dropping your head? If these db's kept their eyes up, most of these plays would never happen.

[Hogsmo Kramer]

What about it being a high hit do you not understand? The receiver had not fallen to his knees and thus received a high hit.

It ended up being high but you guys are making it out like Gaines was head hunting and in his own mind said "hmm here's my opportunity, I'm gonna take this dudes head off and put him out of the game" and that's BS.

It's football stuff happens. Players accidentally get hit high, they get rolled up on, they get stepped on, you gonna start flagging and ejecting players for all of it?

That's just stupid use some freaking common sense.

[hogsanity]

That's just stupid use some freaking common sense.

Common sense would be players, knowing the rule, tackling with eyes up so they can avoid getting flagged and ejected.  In another year or two these type plays will have been eliminated because the players will have been playing under these rules for their whole college careers.

I do not think there was anything malicious in Gaines intent, but it was a needless play and completely avoidable.

[GolfnHog]

I'm in favor of calling the targeting rule but the ejection, as others have stated, is overboard. Can the ends justify the means if a player is required to be pulled for the remainder of a series versus having to sit out a half? Or if the targeting occurred on 3rd down, then the offender is required to sit out the next defensive series. This sends the same message without hamstringing teams that may lack depth at a position.

Hell, last year the Hogs were lucky to be in the same zip code as a receiver so even though I hate RG put him in the position to have the call made, I'll accept it because these DB's are now playing as SEC type DB's and are arriving at the ball in a nasty frame of mind. I'll take that and the consequences of making an ill advised hit.

[Southern Hogspitality]

Here is my take:

From my television set it was clear he wasn't going to catch the ball about the same time RG was preparing to make his launch.  From Rohan's perspective I don't know if he had eyes on the ball at that time.  Also if the receiver hadn't fallen down, which RG couldn't know and shouldn't assume RG would have hit the WR in the chest or shoulders.  That would have most likely broken up the pass that RG most likely thought he was defending.  I agree a can live with a flag but not the ejection.

I don't think the refs consider the players view or take on the situation.  It is clear that Rohan didn't launch at head level when the WR was standing up and he had to slip and fall for Rohan to make contact with his helmet. 

[Hogsmo Kramer]

So now we want the refs trying to judge malicious intent? How about just not dropping your head? If these db's kept their eyes up, most of these plays would never happen.

It's not that hard to determine to a pretty good degree when someone is being blatant.

Regardless though the ejection is the problem. Like another suggested why not flag the first time no ejection, second time flag and ejection?

That I could live with.

[demonHOG1013]

One thing that I did when the play happened was to replay it full speed rather than looking at it in the replay slo-mo.  Slo-mo looks targeted, but, at full speed, it looks incidental! 

In realtime, from the time the ball was off of the recievers hands, till the hit took place was 1 second at the most.  The ability to pull up at that speed just isn't possible. 

I think it's a bad call!  I go back to the Alabama game 2 years ago when the Tide hammered Tyler Wilson with head to head contact over and over again.  No calls! 

I think that there is gross inconsistency in officiating in the SEC!

See ya

This is why I've said I dont think there would have been a flag if the ball was caught.  At full speed it only looks bad because the ball was clearly incomplete when the hit was made.

[Hogsmo Kramer]

Common sense would be players, knowing the rule, tackling with eyes up so they can avoid getting flagged and ejected.  In another year or two these type plays will have been eliminated because the players will have been playing under these rules for their whole college careers.

I do not think there was anything malicious in Gaines intent, but it was a needless play and completely avoidable.

Again I have to question whether some of you actually played beyond pee wee.

Gaines was watching the receiver and the ball, at the point he sees the pass coming he knows he can't make a play on the ball so his focus shifts to dislodging the ball and securing the tackle.

At the time the ball goes by he is focusing on the receiver and not the ball and going in to make the hit. It happens bang, bang so not enough time to pull up but I'd argue he wasn't sure at that moment the ball had sailed by either.

So he's already in motion to make the contact on what he feels is going to be a complete pass and he wants to dislodge the ball, but then the receiver falls down and he inadvertently hits him high even though that was not his intent.

I just don't see how you eject a kid for that, for playing the game and trying to make a play that because of the circumstances becomes a high hit.

Like I said it's not a vacuum and these aren't tackling drills, it's full live, full speed, and shite happens.

[Piggfoot]

It ended up being high but you guys are making it out like Gaines was head hunting and in his own mind said "hmm here's my opportunity, I'm gonna take this dudes head off and put him out of the game" and that's BS.

It's football stuff happens. Players accidentally get hit high, they get rolled up on, they get stepped on, you gonna start flagging and ejecting players for all of it?

That's just stupid use some freaking common sense.

Yes everyone should use common sense. The stupid part is being obtuse about the rule . I am not accusing Gaines of dirty play. All of those plays are reviewed in the booth and after the review it was determined that Gaines targeted the upper body to the extent he made contact with the head and neck of a defenseless player. This is not the old days. You can not use what used to be allowed as justification for what is allowed today.
Defensive players are taught and trained to use their body and hands in tackling and in pass defense... a process that requires precise timing and direction to perform correctly. If not performed correctly, if not timed correctly, if not directed properly then often the defensive player is flagged.
The training process is done live against moving players. The defensive player must adjust to the offensive player. Why is so hard to understand?
This happened to Gaines. I understand you have an opinion but the opinion that counts is that of the replay official.

[hogsanity]

I'm in favor of calling the targeting rule but the ejection, as others have stated, is overboard.

Problem is they tried it for several seasons with it just being a 15 yard PF, and it was not stopping those type of hits. In just the 13/4 seasons the ejection has been part of the rule, those type of hits are way way down.

[Hogsmo Kramer]

Yes everyone should use common sense. The stupid part is being obtuse about the rule . I am not accusing Gaines of dirty play. All of those plays are reviewed in the booth and after the review it was determined that Gaines targeted the upper body to the extent he made contact with the head and neck of a defenseless player. This is not the old days. You can not use what used to be allowed as justification for what is allowed today.
Defensive players are taught and trained to use their body and hands in tackling and in pass defense... a process that requires precise timing and direction to perform correctly. If not performed correctly, if not timed correctly, if not directed properly then often the defensive player is flagged.
The training process is done live against moving players. The defensive player must adjust to the offensive player. Why is so hard to understand?
This happened to Gaines. I understand you have an opinion but the opinion that counts is that of the replay official.

I'm not the only one that disagrees with the ejection.

This is and continues to be one of the most controversial rules to come out in years.

Also last time I checked it's still football, still a contact sport that hasn't changed.

Regardless let's go at it this way.

As demonhog suggested let's say the pass was caught and everything else the exact same and Gaines was ejected are you still cool with that?

How about if the pass was on target and everything the same and Gaines hit actually dislodged the ball and caused an incomplete pass and he was flagged and ejected, you still cool with that too?

[hogsanity]

I'm not the only one that disagrees with the ejection.

This is and continues to be one of the most controversial rules to come out in years.

Also last time I checked it's still football, still a contact sport that hasn't changed.

Regardless let's go at it this way.

As demonhog suggested let's say the pass was caught and everything else the exact same and Gaines was ejected are you still cool with that?

How about if the pass was on target and everything the same and Gaines hit actually dislodged the ball and caused an incomplete pass and he was flagged and ejected, you still cool with that too?

Does he still hit him in the head in all of the scenarios?

[Hogsmo Kramer]

Does he still hit him in all of the scenarios?

Yes.

Only difference is in one he hits him but doesn't dislodge the ball so complete pass, the other he hits him and does dislodge the ball so incomplete pass.

Both flagged, both ejected.

[GolfnHog]

Yes.

Only difference is in one he hits him but doesn't dislodge the ball so complete pass, the other he hits him and does dislodge the ball so incomplete pass.

Both flagged, both ejected.

If incomplete the penalty is assessed from the previous line to gain.

Completed, the penalty is added to the result of the play.

If the penalty is to occur, I hope the ball is dislodged for the field position that is netted.

[Hogsmo Kramer]

If incomplete the penalty is assessed from the previous line to gain.

Completed, the penalty is added to the result of the play.

If the penalty is to occur, I hope the ball is dislodged for the field position that is netted.

Yeah but what I'm asking is if the ball was hypothetically caught despite the hit or caught and dislodged by Gaines hit do they still think he should've been flagged and ejected?

[hogsanity]

Yeah but what I'm asking is if the ball was caught or caught and dislodged by Gaines hit do they still think he should've been flagged and ejected?

If he hits him in the head with his helmet he is going to be flagged and ejected.

[Hogsmo Kramer]

If he hits him in the head with his helmet he is going to be flagged and ejected.

He hit him in the head with his forearms not his helmet primarily.

It wasn't a helmet to helmet collision.

[Piggfoot]

I'm not the only one that disagrees with the ejection.

This is and continues to be one of the most controversial rules to come out in years.

Also last time I checked it's still football, still a contact sport that hasn't changed.

Regardless let's go at it this way.

As demonhog suggested let's say the pass was caught and everything else the exact same and Gaines was ejected are you still cool with that?

How about if the pass was on target and everything the same and Gaines hit actually dislodged the ball and caused an incomplete pass and he was flagged and ejected, you still cool with that too?

The targeting penalty has nothing to do with whether or not a receiver catches the ball or doesn't catch the ball. It has to do with making contact above the shoulder pad usually with either your shoulder pad or your helmet but I suspect the rule is now being interpreted as using your forearm as well. You may recall the "clothes line penalty".

I am cool with the ejection penalty if the rule in spite of its imperfections results in less head and neck trauma. The latest I heard on that matter is the rule is working.

[BorderPatrol]

I'm not the only one that disagrees with the ejection.

This is and continues to be one of the most controversial rules to come out in years.

Also last time I checked it's still football, still a contact sport that hasn't changed.

Regardless let's go at it this way.

As demonhog suggested let's say the pass was caught and everything else the exact same and Gaines was ejected are you still cool with that?

How about if the pass was on target and everything the same and Gaines hit actually dislodged the ball and caused an incomplete pass and he was flagged and ejected, you still cool with that too?

I am ok with it because the players know the rules. They also know the outcome if they break said rules.

It isn't like they just made the rule up on the fly.

bp

[BorderPatrol]

He hit him in the head with his forearms not his helmet primarily.

It wasn't a helmet to helmet collision.

Wait, what?

bp

[Hogsmo Kramer]

Ok what if it's clear that the defender was not targeting high but a last minute slip or whatever by the receiver causes the hit to land high?

Still ejection?

[Hogsmo Kramer]

Wait, what?

bp

Go back and watch it he hit him primarily in the head using his forearms not his helmet.

[Großer Kriegschwein]

He hit him in the head with his forearms not his helmet primarily.

It wasn't a helmet to helmet collision.

Targeting and Initiating Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player  (Rule 9-1-4)

No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul.  (Rule 2-27-14)

As long as its enforced the same across the board I'm as good with it as I'll ever be.

[GolfnHog]

Ok what if it's clear that the defender was not targeting high but a last minute slip or whatever by the receiver causes the hit to land high?

Still ejection?

The "ifs and buts" are not a factor in the rule as it is currently being enforced. It's what is "seen" by the official at the time of impact, so to answer your question HK, yes ejection if called and review shows that targeting was the correct call.

As stated in an earlier post, the rule for safety is a good one. The ejection part could be a bit less severe.

Instead of a 1/2 game depending on when the penalty occurs why not for a series or even for the remainder of the quarter in which the penalty was called? If the player is called for a 2nd targeting penalty within a 2 game period then a full game suspension could be implemented. I think this helps enforce yet maintains the integrity of the game and the safety of the players.

[GolfnHog]

Go back and watch it he hit him primarily in the head using his forearms not his helmet.

HK, I think the rule of targeting addresses the use of forearms etc... if to the head or shoulder area. Therefore, it's not just head to head type contact. The forearms are considered illegal if used to the head and neck area.

[Piggfoot]

Go back and watch it he hit him primarily in the head using his forearms not his helmet.

Hogsmo the more you post the more I'm thinking you should have stayed at the pee wee level.

[Großer Kriegschwein]

Ok what if it's clear that the defender was not targeting high but a last minute slip or whatever by the receiver causes the hit to land high?

Still ejection?

These indicate less risk of a foul:
•Heads-up tackle in which the crown of the helmet does not strike above the shoulders
•Wrap-up tackle
•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

[hogsanity]

Hogsmo the more you post the more I'm thinking you should have stayed at the pee wee level.

There are a few on here, and Hogsmo is one of them, that thinks players ought to be able to carry brass knuckles, chains, etc onto the field. They think that somehow, by not letting guys lead with their head, and launch into offensive players the game is being diminished.

[Großer Kriegschwein]

There are a few on here, and Hogsmo is one of them, that thinks players ought to be able to carry brass knuckles, chains, etc onto the field. They think that somehow, by not letting guys lead with their head, and launch into offensive players the game is being diminished.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Hogsmo Kramer]

HK, I think the rule of targeting addresses the use of forearms etc... if to the head or shoulder area. Therefore, it's not just head to head type contact. The forearms are considered illegal if used to the head and neck area.

No I know that man but BP was alluding that that's not what happened.

I was simply saying he didn't lead with the crown of his head and it wasn't primarily helmet to helmet.

His helmet did glance but he got him with his upper body more which I know any contact above the head is an offense.

My point is and has been you don't eject a kid for an honest mistake especially if where the hit landed could be a direct result of a last minute change in the receivers body during the play.

[hogsanity]

good ole hacksaw, those were the days of pro wrestling. hacksaw, a young Hulk Hogan, iron shiek, macho man, bobby henan and many more.

[Großer Kriegschwein]

No I know that man but BP was alluding that that's not what happened.

I was simply saying he didn't lead with the crown of his head and it wasn't primarily helmet to helmet.

His helmet did glance but he got him with his upper body more which I know any contact above the head is an offense.

My point is and has been you don't eject a kid for an honest mistake especially if where the hit landed could be a direct result of a last minute change in the receivers body during the play.

I'm with you, but if the DB lowers his head and launches, then any incidental contact will be considered targeting during the official review (from what I've seen). His intent will be read as targeting.

[Hogsmo Kramer]

Hogsmo the more you post the more I'm thinking you should have stayed at the pee wee level.

Says the guy who likely never buckled a chin strap.

Not sure what brand of football you guys played but in the kind I did there's no way to 100% guarantee where a hit is going to land there's just too many moving parts and things are moving too fast.

Also I just rewatched it like 5 times and still stand behind my point.

[hogsanity]

No I know that man but BP was alluding that that's not what happened.

I was simply saying he didn't lead with the crown of his head and it wasn't primarily helmet to helmet.

His helmet did glance but he got him with his upper body more which I know any contact above the head is an offense.

My point is and has been you don't eject a kid for an honest mistake especially if where the hit landed could be a direct result of a last minute change in the receivers body during the play.

That is why they have allowed for the ejection to be reviewed. The thing on this call was that at least two refs, with different vantage points, both threw flags.  Without the fear of ejection, there is no real deterrent.

[Hogsmo Kramer]

I'm with you, but if the DB lowers his head and launches, then any incidental contact will be considered targeting during the official review (from what I've seen). His intent will be read as targeting.

I know.

The rule is what it is I just hate the ejection on first offense. Seems a bit much.

Also on that particular play Gaines didn't lower his head his head is up but he did launch.

[Großer Kriegschwein]

Says the guy who likely never buckled a chin strap.

Not sure what brand of football you guys played but in the kind I did there's no way to 100% guarantee where a hit is going to land there's just too many moving parts and things are moving too fast.

Also I just rewatched it like 5 times and still stand behind my point.

The rule was written fairly well. You have to read the whole rule to understand what constitutes Targeting.

[Hogsmo Kramer]

That is why they have allowed for the ejection to be reviewed. The thing on this call was that at least two refs, with different vantage points, both threw flags.  Without the fear of ejection, there is no real deterrent.

Eject on second offense, eject a half, etc.

I don't disagree with the rule entirely just the severity on the first offense on what could be an honest mistake and not malicious in any way.

[Großer Kriegschwein]

I know.

The rule is what it is I just hate the ejection on first offense. Seems a bit much.

Also on that particular play Gaines didn't lower his head his head is up but he did launch.

He launched and made contact on a defenseless player with his hands/forearms between the shoulder and the top of the head.

He could have pulled off (not completed the hit WITH the hands and forearms), but didn't. Bad judgement and it cost us a starter next week for the first half.

But I'll take a hustle penalty from time to time as long as noone ends up on a stretcher.

[Hogsmo Kramer]

The rule was written fairly well. You have to read the whole rule to understand what constitutes Targeting.

I know dude I understand the rule it's the automatic ejection that irks me.

[hogsanity]

I know dude I understand the rule it's the automatic ejection that irks me.

what irks me, and likely his coaches, is RG knows the rule and still put himself in a place where the refs could call it.

[Großer Kriegschwein]

I know dude I understand the rule it's the automatic ejection that irks me.

It might be hard to imagine for us right now, but what if an opponent was allowed to do that to Amari Cooper a couple times without the penalty of losing immediate playing time.

That would completely change the landscape of Alabama's offense.

I think that's why they have the ejection clause. I'd be really pissed if someone did that to HH.

[Fort Dweller]

The thing that stood out most to me about this play was what happened after the ejection.  Gaines took his helmet off and you could see it on his face he knew he made a mistake.  CBB calmly spoke to him before he left the field.  No one yelled or acted demonstratively.  Gaines calmly walked off the field.

It was extremely professional how everyone handled it.  To me, that spoke volumes.

[Hogsmo Kramer]

He launched and made contact on a defenseless player with his hands/forearms between the shoulder and the top of the head.

He could have pulled off (not completed the hit WITH the hands and forearms), but didn't. Bad judgement and it cost us a starter next week for the first half.

But I'll take a hustle penalty from time to time as long as noone ends up on a stretcher.

I personally disagree with the pulling off but I've stated that add nauseam.