Rohan Gaines Ejection

[Hogsmo Kramer]

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.

Naw I'm just not a [CENSORED].

I've given and taken licks much harder than that and lived to tell the tale.

I doubt you have.

[Hogsmo Kramer]

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.

I thought so as well.

Very business like and professional indeed which is a reflection of good coaching.

[BorderPatrol]

Naw I'm just not a [CENSORED].

I've given and taken licks much harder than that and lived to tell the tale.

I doubt you have.

Honest question: Why even post that? Especially with all the whining you are doing in this thread about something that you have NO control over?

Bottom line: RG knew the rule, and knew the consequences of breaking that rule.

bp

[Hogsmo Kramer]

Honest question: Why even post that? Especially with all the whining you are doing in this thread about something that you have NO control over?

Bottom line: RG knew the rule, and knew the consequences of breaking that rule.

bp

Hang on a second he calls me out alluding that I'm some kind of Neanderthal and I respond in kind and I'm the bad guy?!

Makes sense.

Also I'm not whining I'm discussing I thought that's what message boards were for?

[hogsanity]

Hang on a second he calls me out alluding that I'm some kind of Neanderthal and I respond in kind and I'm the bad guy?!

Makes sense.

Do you or do you not think that ALL HITS, before the whistle blows, should be legal? 

[Hogsmo Kramer]

Do you or do you not think that ALL HITS, before the whistle blows, should be legal?

Nope and I never stated as such you just assumed, and you know what assuming does.

[hogsanity]

Nope and I never stated as such you just assumed, and you know what assuming does.

So which hits do you think should be illegal? 

[Russ22]

I wouldn't say expert, but I did play safety at the small college level.  I think your insistence that Gaines had time to judge the situation and pull up is simplistic and not reflective of reality.  Fact is the hit was clean in almost every single other instance of football that it might be applied, including a crackback block on a player facing the other direction.

In other words, Gaines can be legally hit on a crackback just exactly like he hit that receiver.  The rules are not in balance with the reality of the sport.  They need to reword things, or change a lot of other legal plays into targeting.  I hope they decided on the former.

A point of emphasis is this year is also to account for crack blocks under the targeting rule. The same rule applies to both offense and defense.

A point being missed is, that just because you are still "walking around fine" now after multiple concussions, you are not guaranteed not to have CTE in your mid 50's. The intent is to reduce concussions and head trauma. Hitting a receiver after the ball has been dropped or missed is just one attempt at reducing the risk of head trauma. Here is a review of good book on this issue:

http://7on7football.blogspot.com/2011/04/head-games-footballs-concussion-crisis.html

[Hogsmo Kramer]

So which hits do you think should be illegal?

Ok you wanna know my stance here's my stance.

Football is a tough game, an aggressive game, and contact is a part of that and I think certain aspects should be preserved at all costs. If not we'll end up with some glorified version of flag football.

That said player safety and head trauma is a real issue and I realize that and I'm all for well thought out reasonable rules that will help in that regard.

What I AM NOT for is ejecting a player for a first offense, non malicious, mistake in which he was just trying to make a play for his team.

A player who has spent countless hours in the film room, the weight room, the practice field, etc., etc. to be in a huge game, one he's dreamed of only to be ejected for a franking honest mistake and have to sit the first half the next week of a huge game.

As a former player and coach I can't support that. Blatant unsportsmanship sure, continual offenses ok, but the first time where the circumstances are sketchy no way.

I'll give you an example. The Skipper trip I'm all for a flag there and if it happens again ejection. Can't have that in any sport. Period. The RG's thing I'm cool with a flag but ejection absolutely not.

Anyway there have to be rules and I'll support those rules so long as they don't punish a kid in an overly severe manner unjustly.

If that makes me old school, a Neanderthal, or whatever so be it pass me a club and show me to my cave.

[KennyForAD]

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

It wasn't a helmet to helmet collision.

He isn't allowed to hit him in the head with EITHER his helmet or his forearms.  It could not have been a more obvious penalty.

[Hogsmo Kramer]

He isn't allowed to hit him in the head with EITHER his helmet or his forearms.  It could not have been a more obvious penalty.

Thanks Johnny come lately read my other posts after that one I KNOW the rule.

[KennyForAD]

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.

What you fail to grasp is the it is the defender's burden to NOT hit the other player in the head.  THERE IS NO "I didn't mean to."   If he hits him in the head, its a flag and an ejection.

Your argument is irrelevant.

[BorderPatrol]

What you fail to grasp is the it is the defender's burden to NOT hit the other player in the head.  THERE IS NO "I didn't mean to."   If he hits him in the head, its a flag and an ejection.

Your argument is irrelevant.

Dude, it was an honest mistake. RG has spent countless hours in the film room.

bp

[Hogsmo Kramer]

What you fail to grasp is the it is the defender's burden to NOT hit the other player in the head.  THERE IS NO "I didn't mean to."   If he hits him in the head, its a flag and an ejection.

Your argument is irrelevant.

Well because you say so........

[Großer Kriegschwein]

Well because you say so........

Well no. the NCAA says so.

[KennyForAD]

Dude, it was an honest mistake. RG has spent countless hours in the film room.

bp

What the Hell are you talking about?   I'm not griping about the play.  He made a mistake.  Its understandable.  Just trying to explain to that guy that it doesn't matter if he intended it or not.  He hit him in the head.  Its a penalty. Period

[BorderPatrol]

What the Hell are you talking about?   I'm not griping about the play.  He made a mistake.  Its understandable.  Just trying to explain to that guy that it doesn't matter if he intended it or not.  He hit him in the head.  Its a penalty. Period

Easy there, killer. We are on the same side.

bp

[Hogsmo Kramer]

Well no. the NCAA says so.

Good God y'all are a dense bunch!

We're talking opinions here man, you have yours, I have have mine. That's cool we're discussing but for the last franking time I know what the rule says and I don't agree with it as it sits now.

Me nor any of you guys are going to change it or even tweak it and I know that so should we not discuss it?

I'm not against being flagged, I'm not even against ejection but only in certain circumstances.

Yo comprendo or do I need to use a different language?

[Hogsmo Kramer]

Easy there, killer. We are on the same side.

bp

Hahahaha your own team is turning on you.

Why so much hostility in here?

It's okay to disagree y'all know that right?

[Piggfoot]

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.

For your information I have buckled on a chin strap, just in High school though.. All-district in my conference back in the day when face guards were just being used. I'm sure you played at a higher level but that and a dime in my day would have bought you a cup of coffee. Playing at any level doesn't make you an expert on the rules and the rules are up to the officials and they ruled targeting. Now if you tell me you are an SEC official or college official, I may respect your opinion more,  but I suspect you are not. I suspect you are just opinionated and want to argue just for arguing's sake.
Y tambien amigo yo comprendo, pero tu no comprendes Mendez.

[KennyForAD]

Good God y'all are a dense bunch!

We're talking opinions here man, you have yours, I have have mine. That's cool we're discussing but for the last franking time I know what the rule says and I don't agree with it as it sits now.

Me nor any of you guys are going to change it or even tweak it and I know that so should we not discuss it?

I'm not against being flagged, I'm not even against ejection but only in certain circumstances.

Yo comprendo or do I need to use a different language?

lol.  Please use Spanglish

[pigture perfect]

I'm agreeing with Hogsmo. It's not the penalty. It's the ejection and suspension. I have no problem if he is ejected or suspended if he gets his 2nd PF. As a personal opinion, Targeting is a stupid rule. You want the wr's to have alligator arms. Just don't lead with your head.

[Hogsmo Kramer]

For your information I have buckled on a chin strap, just in High school though.. All-district in my conference back in the day when face guards were just being used. I'm sure you played at a higher level but that and a dime in my day would have bought you a cup of coffee. Playing at any level doesn't make you an expert on the rules and the rules are up to the officials and they ruled targeting. Now if you tell me you are an SEC official or college official, I may respect your opinion more,  but I suspect you are not. I suspect you are just opinionated and want to argue just for arguing's sake.
Y tambien amigo yo comprendo, pero tu no comprendes Mendez.

You're right I do like to argue. 

And you're right being a former HS/College player makes me...well nothing more than a former player. I was just saying if you've played, even at a HS level, I think you can empathize with Gaines a little more than if you hadn't.

Also being that I did play a little in college I know how much hard work it was for us above the HS level and I was nowhere near the SEC, so I can only imagine and that's why I hate the ejection part of the foul. These kids work their tails off all week only to be ejected for one lone honest mistake.

Used to be in sports ejection was reserved for the most egregious of fouls but with RG's ejection and others it just seems a little much IMO but again opinions are like......well y'all know.

[Hogsmo Kramer]

lol.  Please use Spanglish

Sweet Spanglish is my second language so maybe now we can get somewhere. 

[GolfNut57]

Isn't it about time someone posted a video sequence clip of the hit?

[Hogsmo Kramer]

Isn't it about time someone posted a video sequence clip of the hit?

Don't know how to embed vids but here's a link to the hit.

http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/arkansas-football/video-arkansas-player-ejected-targeting-lsu/

[regi]

Well aren't you precious!

You sure do deduce a lot from a message board unfortunately I've got bad news for you.

Stating your name on a message board in a pitiful attempt at garnering some type of machismo doesn't make you tough it makes you pitiful.

But hey don't let me stop you, you keep on keeping on there buddy and I'll keep getting a good chuckle.

Oh and from my experience the dogs that bark the loudest are the ones that are most afraid.

Your weak arse has responded like 70 times in this thread, so seems like you are the one barking the most. I don't have to defend myself or who I am, but you said I was hiding behind a key board. So I let people know who I am, some on here already know my name, now you do.

[GolfNut57]

Don't know how to embed vids but here's a link to the hit.

http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/arkansas-football/video-arkansas-player-ejected-targeting-lsu/

Well going by that video there was clearly helmet to helmet contact as you can see Gaines head also snap backwards on the hit. But if I understand your argument correctly you aren't disputing the PF in itself. You are just arguing about the player being ejected for such a hit. You think that is too strict a punishment. Do I have it right?

[Hogsmo Kramer]

Well going by that video there was clearly helmet to helmet contact as you can see Gaines head also snap backwards on the hit. But if I understand your argument correctly you aren't disputing the PF in itself. You are just arguing about the player being ejected for such a hit. You think that is too strict a punishment. Do I have it right?

Yeah that's bout the gist of my beef.

I still don't think he was 100% going for the head and think its harder to pull up mid stride than some are making out but I can see their argument at the same time.

I just don't like the automatic ejection and continued suspension next game on a first offense.

[Hogsmo Kramer]

Your weak arse has responded like 70 times in this thread, so seems like you are the one barking the most. I don't have to defend myself or who I am, but you said I was hiding behind a key board. So I let people know who I am, some on here already know my name, now you do.

Well I feel special now.

Telling me your name doesn't mean you're not still hiding behind a keyboard, you're calling people weak you've never met before nor know anything about, including our starting safety, from the comfort and safety of your computer.

I sincerely doubt you'd be so bold face to face but I really could give a crap regardless.

Oh and I'm not barking I'm discussing a play and a call I don't agree with. I respect others opinions and try to get mine across in a respectful manner when I'm not attacked for them.

Your first post in this thread was calling people with differing views weak which tells me all I need to know bout you buddy.

[GolfNut57]

Yeah that's bout the gist of my beef.

I still don't think he was 100% going for the head and think its harder to pull up mid stride than some are making out but I can see their argument at the same time.

I just don't like the automatic ejection and continued suspension next game on a first offense.

Personally I like the ejection for a first offense. There have been too many kids getting paralyzed by a tackler on that kind of hit. A strong message that says this type of hit will not be tolerated needs to be sent. The kids know the rule when they signed up to play the game.

What I would like to see taken out of the on-field refs hands are the ejection call in itself though. Let them throw the flag for the PF targeting only. Then when the play goes to the replay booth let THOSE officials there decide if the hit warranted an ejection. As in the two cases the last two weeks with an ASU player being ejected, in both cases replays clearly showed the contact was shoulder to shoulder with no helmet contact involved at all and yet the players ejection stood because the "on-field" ref had already ejected him and the replay guy wasn't about to overturn the initial call. Despite the clear video evidence that showed no above shoulder contact.

[Hogsmo Kramer]

Personally I like the ejection for a first offense. There have been too many kids getting paralyzed by a tackler on that kind of hit. A strong message that says this type of hit will not be tolerated needs to be sent. The kids know the rule when they signed up to play the game.

What I would like to see taken out of the on-field refs hands are the ejection call in itself though. Let them throw the flag for the PF targeting only. Then when the play goes to the replay booth let THOSE officials there decide if the hit warranted an ejection. As in the two cases the last two weeks with an ASU player being ejected, in both cases replays clearly showed the contact was shoulder to shoulder with no helmet contact involved at all and yet the players ejection stood because the "on-field" ref had already ejected him and the replay guy wasn't about to overturn the initial call. Despite the clear video evidence that showed no above shoulder contact.

We'll have to disagree on the first offense but I do agree with that second part.

Seems like sometimes these refs egos can get in the way of some calls, it's human nature to want to be right, so I agree they shouldn't be making the ejection because of that possibility.

[KennyForAD]

Yeah that's bout the gist of my beef.

I still don't think he was 100% going for the head and think its harder to pull up mid stride than some are making out but I can see their argument at the same time.

I just don't like the automatic ejection and continued suspension next game on a first offense.

That isn't the question.  Did he hit his head?  Like it or not, its his obligation to not hit him in the head.   Gaines hit him with forearm and helmet in the head.  Did he mean too?  No.  Does that matter?  No.

[Hogsmo Kramer]

That isn't the question.  Did he hit his head?  Like it or not, its his obligation to not hit him in the head.   Gaines hit him with forearm and helmet in the head.  Did he mean too?  No.  Does that matter?  No.

Not saying that's not the rule saying I don't agree with the rule in its entirety for the 1000th time.

I know what the rule says but I think it's flawed to a degree. A player can't always ensure where a hit is going to land when the receiver is in motion and the placement may be as a result of the receivers actions.

Because of that I don't think it should be an automatic ejectable offense except in obviously blatant cases or unless it's happened before in the same game.

I know that's not what the rule is but I think the rule should be tweaked. Again that's just my opinion though.

[KennyForAD]

Not saying that's not the rule saying I don't agree with the rule in its entirety for the 1000th time.

I know what the rule says but I think it's flawed to a degree. A player can't always ensure where a hit is going to land when the receiver is in motion and the placement may be as a result of the receivers actions.

Because of that I don't think it should be an automatic ejectable offense except in obviously blatant cases or unless it's happened before in the same game.

I know that's not what the rule is but I think the rule should be tweaked. Again that's just my opinion though.

Well... the rule is having an effect, on everyone but Saban.  If it keeps one kid out of a wheelchair, then its worth it. 

[Hogsmo Kramer]

Well... the rule is having an effect, on everyone but Saban.  If it keeps one kid out of a wheelchair, then its worth it.

I don't disagree with that but if it can be tweaked to be better wouldn't that be a win win?