Rohan Gaines Ejection

[rude1]

No man not at all but being I have (1AA not close to SEC, but higher than HS) I can relate to Gaines a bit.

Sometimes you miscalculate, sometimes your just moving too fast or the player moves at the last minute. It just happens.

On the field you're not in a vacuum and things aren't controlled, it's fluid and moving fast, in the SEC crazy fast.

You don't eject a player for an honest mistake and you don't just assume he could have pulled up because slow motion makes it look like he could have.

If you must, flag him, but don't eject him and make him sit next game too that's freaking criminal.

I can understand your point but the problem is how do you judge "intent"? How do you know the guy who just honestly judged it wrong from the guy who's intent was to come up and knock that star receiver out and take the 15 yd. penalty? Or should both be allowed to stay in the game?

[regi]

It was a good call, the ball was clearly by him and Gaines had full view of it. He wanted to deliver a blow because the LSU QB ran over his ass in the 1st quarter when it was man on man, head up. This was a defenseless receiver and Gaines ego was hurt, so like so many of the weak people here who thought it was a bad call, he took a shot at a defenseless player. Gaines had his chance in the 1st half to show his toughness, but a QB ran his ass over. It is what it is. Good call.

[jesterzzn]

I hope he takes someone's head clean off.  Wait, no, nevermind...

Remember when that was a compliment?  Progress...

[arkfan81]

I can understand your point but the problem is how do you judge "intent"? How do you know the guy who just honestly judged it wrong from the guy who's intent was to come up and knock that star receiver out and take the 15 yd. penalty? Or should both be allowed to stay in the game?

your definition.

[TNRazorbacker]

I like the rule, and I think its completely appropriate given the data showing the long term implications of repeated head trauma in football collisions. The rule has had the desired impact as players clearly pull up from contact now where they'd taken the opportinity to decapitate someone before.  If a few innocent players wind up missing a half here or there because of the rule so be it (although this is extremely rare from what I've seen given the way the rule is enforced).

[DeltaBoy]

Hate that damn rule!!!

Abused and overused way too much.

Dang gum Steve Atwater, Ronnie Lott would never stay in a game with this BS rule.

[jesterzzn]

I can understand your point but the problem is how do you judge "intent"?

The same way you judge personal fouls.  Some are just penalties.  Others come with ejections.   Why is that suddenly impossible in this one specific instance?

[jesterzzn]

I like the rule, and I think its completely appropriate given the data showing the long term implications of repeated head trauma in football collisions.

I've gone over this ad nausum in the past and don't want to derail the thread, but that is total bullshirt.

The data supports repeated low to medium impact head collisions lead to brain damage.  Linemen.  Linebackers.  Fullbacks.  These players are at the highest risk because they smack heads every play.  Receivers and DBs are more at risk for nerve and bone injuries, which are still statistically very rare occurrences.

The targeting rule gets was made to get rid of a PR problem, not a real problem.  The only way to prevent the kind of damage those studies confirmed would be to eliminate collisions at the line of scrimmage.

By the way, the same study showed that soccer players are at a higher risk of long term damage than Football players.

[Hogsmo Kramer]

It was a good call, the ball was clearly by him and Gaines had full view of it. He wanted to deliver a blow because the LSU QB ran over his ass in the 1st quarter when it was man on man, head up. This was a defenseless receiver and Gaines ego was hurt, so like so many of the weak people here who thought it was a bad call, he took a shot at a defenseless player. Gaines had his chance in the 1st half to show his toughness, but a QB ran his ass over. It is what it is. Good call.

Tough guy behind a keyboard calling our starting safety and people he's not face to face with weak.

Lol that's classic right there.

[jfred59]

i think that the biggest problem people had with the call was the ejection.  I watched the ASU/App State earlier in the day and for the second week in a row an ASU player got ejected for the same thing.  Neither one, in my opinion, deserved ejections.  Penalty ok.  My issue is with gunghoe officials, SEC ones lead the pack, think they are gods on the field and they are the worst in the country.

[PonderinHog]

I doubt if it happens, but hasn't the SEC overturned some of these ejections in the past?

[rude1]

The same way you judge personal fouls.  Some are just penalties.  Others come with ejections.   Why is that suddenly impossible in this one specific instance?

Because this play illustrates it to me. You believe RG made a mistake when he came up, victim of circumstances. What I saw was a guy who made his mind up he was head hunting, complete with loading the elbow and attempting to deliver the knockout even though the receiver had clearly missed the ball. That's what it's hard to judge "intent", and why you must make one rule and take judgement out of it.

[jfred59]

I doubt if it happens, but hasn't the SEC overturned some of these ejections in the past?

If it was Bama, Auburn,  or UGA they sure would, us no

[Hogsmo Kramer]

Because this play illustrates it to me. You believe RG made a mistake when he came up, victim of circumstances. What I saw was a guy who made his mind up he was head hunting, complete with loading the elbow and attempting to deliver the knockout even though the receiver had clearly missed the ball. That's what it's hard to judge "intent", and why you must make one rule and take judgement out of it.

But by ejecting him aren't you by default judging his "intent" to be bad.

If not why else eject him?

Also for the record I want my defensive players coming with "bad intentions".

It's football not checkers!

[rude1]

But by ejecting him aren't you by default judging his "intent" to be bad.

If not why else eject him?

Also for the record I want my defensive players coming with "bad intentions".

It's football not checkers!

No you aren't judging "intent" the rule says did you lead with your head, or make contact to the head. He made contact to the head, he is out the game.

[jesterzzn]

Because this play illustrates it to me. You believe RG made a mistake when he came up, victim of circumstances. What I saw was a guy who made his mind up he was head hunting, complete with loading the elbow and attempting to deliver the knockout even though the receiver had clearly missed the ball. That's what it's hard to judge "intent", and why you must make one rule and take judgement out of it.

Well if a ref honestly felt that hit deserved an ejection, I could live with that.  I would still bitch about it, but I could live with it.

This auto ejection nonsense is what I find stupid.  Let the refs call the game.

[Hogsmo Kramer]

No you aren't judging "intent" the rule says did you lead with your head, or make contact to the head. He made contact to the head, he is out the game.

That's semantics.

The rule is there to protect players from helmet to helmet contact or blows to the head especially when deemed defenseless.

By ejecting a player for it you ARE saying his actions and whereby his intentions were to harm a defenseless player by means of a blow to the head so yes you are judging intentions regardless  whether it's directly or indirectly.

[wildhogman]

Ya know, defense is always looking for that big hit. Big hit on a WR coming across the middle, and so on.  I'd be teaching my DB's old school. If the WR leaves his feet, take them out from under him. Flip him and make his world spin. Most WR's when they feel the flip and know they gonna land upside down drop the balls to protect themselves.  Or did they make that illegal too?

[rude1]

That's semantics.

The rule is there to protect players from helmet to helmet contact or blows to the head especially when deemed defenseless.

By ejecting a player for it you ARE saying his actions and whereby his intentions were to harm a defenseless player by means of a blow to the head so yes you are judging intentions regardless  whether it's directly or indirectly.

By ejecting players you are saying there is a clear danger in contact to the head with concussions and players being paralyzed. So rather than trying to judge intent, they are saying it's dangerous enough that there will be a stiff penalty if you do it.

[PorkSoda]

The bottom line is Rohan is a smart player and the Coaches have coached all season to play smart. Rohan could have pulled up but chose not too and it cost him a half on the next game.

it was a bang bang play. I understand the call, but it was tictac.

the receiver changed directions and coincidentally ended up causing helmet to helmet contact.  rohan was already in mid tackle.

[Hogsmo Kramer]

By ejecting players you are saying there is a clear danger in contact to the head with concussions and players being paralyzed. So rather than trying to judge intent, they are saying it's dangerous enough that there will be a stiff penalty if you do it.

Problem is they're never gonna stop it. Ever.

Watch a game front to back and pay attention to all the contact going on. There's dozens of helmet to helmet going on all over the field.

When a LB and FB meet in a hole is that less contact? How about getting blindsided on punt or KO or how bout a crack back or getting caught by a pulling guard?

No there's contact like that going on all over the place but doesn't get called.

They're cherry picking incidents and giving refs way to much rope to effect games and IMO that's the last thing that's needed.

Like I've said flag em, DO NOT eject them unless it's out and out blatant and that's not all that hard to pick out if we're being honest.

[TNRazorbacker]

I can understand your point but the problem is how do you judge "intent"?

The point of these rules isn't to convict players. Intent is completely irrelevant here. All that matters is what did or didn't happen. The same goes for every other penalty concerning player safety (block in the back, hit out of bounds, tripping, etc. etc.)  The objective is to promote conscious awareness of safety by both players and coaching staff and thereby change behavior. Unfortunately if there aren't tangible consequences when you fail to do so then the rules won't be of much benefit.

[Smokehouse]

By ejecting players you are saying there is a clear danger in contact to the head with concussions and players being paralyzed. So rather than trying to judge intent, they are saying it's dangerous enough that there will be a stiff penalty if you do it.

The auto-ejection does imply that there's always intent, though. Otherwise it would be like fragrant fouls in basketball. An elbow breaking a nose hurts the same whether its intentional or incidental while clearing for a rebound, but the refs go to the booth to check for intent before there's an ejection.

You can say an act is bad enough that it should be punished every time while acknowledging that fast athletes moving at top speed will sometimes hit the helmet without intending to.

[Hogsmo Kramer]

The point of these rules isn't to convict players. Intent is completely irrelevant here. All that matters is what did or didn't happen. The same goes for every other penalty concerning player safety (block in the back, hit out of bounds, tripping, etc. etc.)  The objective is to promote conscious awareness of safety by both players and coaching staff and thereby change behavior. Unfortunately if there aren't tangible consequences when you fail to do so then the rules won't be of much benefit.

Intent does matter that's why some are overturned and the player isn't ejected.

I've seen some where there was some helmet to helmet but because the receiver moved at the last minute and caused it the player was not ejected but the 15 yards still stood (old rule I know with the 15 yards).

There's more wiggle room and interpretation going on with this particular foul than a holding or block in the back.

That's why it's been such a controversial rule ever since it came out. Too much interpretation and thus too much room for error.

Difference is the player can't just play on since he's ejected which makes this such an issue.

[rude1]

The point of these rules isn't to convict players. Intent is completely irrelevant here. All that matters is what did or didn't happen. The same goes for every other penalty concerning player safety (block in the back, hit out of bounds, tripping, etc. etc.)  The objective is to promote conscious awareness of safety by both players and coaching staff and thereby change behavior. Unfortunately if there aren't tangible consequences when you fail to do so then the rules won't be of much benefit.

I agree with this. I was responding to someone who said ejection should be only to the worse cases. That would lead to trying to judge "intent" and not a good idea, you make the rule, as they have, and you enforce it by the penalty that has been applied to it. I like the adjustment where the ejection comes from upstairs to review and see if actual contact was made.

[jesterzzn]

The point of these rules isn't to convict players. Intent is completely irrelevant here. All that matters is what did or didn't happen. The same goes for every other penalty concerning player safety (block in the back, hit out of bounds, tripping, etc. etc.)  The objective is to promote conscious awareness of safety by both players and coaching staff and thereby change behavior. Unfortunately if there aren't tangible consequences when you fail to do so then the rules won't be of much benefit.

Should they eject players for horse collar?  Chop Blocking?

A standard of enforcement has been set that cannot be maintained.  There are several penalties whose risk of injury is higher than that of what is now defined as targeting.

Again, the penalty is fine.  Call it.  Enforce it.  But the punishment is in no way consistent with the game at large.  Penalties happen.  Guys make mistakes with their bodies at full speed.  Lets the refs walk it off and play on.

Just apply the personal foul rule to targeting and I would be fine with it.  Two and you're done.

[snoblind]

Not arguing with the call. I just want to know if the other conferences call this penalty as often as the SEC.

Saw a replay while watching the GT/Clemson game yesterday.  Called a Clemson player the week before and he had to sit out.  Looked like he turned just to make sure he hit the other player with his shoulder pads rather than helmet first.  But after the initial contact with pads there was helmet to helmet contact so they called it. 

[buldozer]

Sure looked like a marginal call at best to me. Yea he might have been able to mitigate the hit if he had made every effort possible..... but there did not look to be any way to avoid the collision to me and he did not use his helment. When you don't lead with your hat and the collision is unavoidable, to get ejected seems to be over the top. Calling a penalty, sure, but not the ejection IMO.

[Hogfaniam]

Sure looked like a marginal call at best to me. Yea he might have been able to mitigate the hit if he had made every effort possible..... but there did not look to be any way to avoid the collision to me and he did not use his helment. When you don't lead with your hat and the collision is unavoidable, to get ejected seems to be over the top. Calling a penalty, sure, but not the ejection IMO.

If there is a penalty, there is an ejection.

[JoeyCapital]

The way I saw the play was like this- Gaines was going for a chest-high hit leading with his forearm. The receiver was in the process of falling down, which caused Gaines chest-high hit to be a head-high hit. I'm not a ref, and I only replayed it once, so I very well may be wrong.

That play just got me to thinking that the defenders intent should be a substantial part of the penalty. To me, he shouldn't have been flagged because it looked like he wasn't attempting to go for the head. Things move so fast on the field that sometimes stuff happens.

I like the rule, but I think more weight should be given to where the defenders blow was originally aimed instead of where it actually landed.

[Hogsmo Kramer]

The way I saw the play was like this- Gaines was going for a chest-high hit leading with his forearm. The receiver was in the process of falling down, which caused Gaines chest-high hit to be a head-high hit. I'm not a ref, and I only replayed it once, so I very well may be wrong.

That play just got me to thinking that the defenders intent should be a substantial part of the penalty. To me, he shouldn't have been flagged because it looked like he wasn't attempting to go for the head. Things move so fast on the field that sometimes stuff happens.

I like the rule, but I think more weight should be given to where the defenders blow was originally aimed instead of where it actually landed.

I agree which is why I said an ejection should be reserved for blatant fouls only.

IMO it's not hard to tell when someone is actually "targeting" and not just trying to make a play and ends up hitting a player high accidentally.

To me that's akin to throwing a guy out for accidentally rolling up on a guys knee vs. actually blatantly targeting a players knee.

In replay that's not really that hard to distinguish from one another and neither is real targeting from this made up crap for this BS rule.

[arlhog]

if he doesn't throw his shoulder into him,  he probably doesn't get kicked out.    jmo

[Piggfoot]

The way I saw the play was like this- Gaines was going for a chest-high hit leading with his forearm. The receiver was in the process of falling down, which caused Gaines chest-high hit to be a head-high hit. I'm not a ref, and I only replayed it once, so I very well may be wrong.


That play just got me to thinking that the defenders intent should be a substantial part of the penalty. To me, he shouldn't have been flagged because it looked like he wasn't attempting to go for the head. Things move so fast on the field that sometimes stuff happens.

I like the rule, but I think more weight should be given to where the defenders blow was originally aimed instead of where it actually landed.

The proper point of attack should be the offensive players center of gravity, a point roughly corresponding to the abdomen. Runners may try to juke a would be tackler but the abdomen remains basically stable compared to the upper body and hips.  The intent of modern rules is to direct the point of attack away from vulnerable areas like the head and neck and the knees. Players will avoid these areas or find themselves on the bench. Aiming at the chest is not proper.

[JoeyCapital]

The proper point of attack should be the offensive players center of gravity, a point roughly corresponding to the abdomen. Runners may try to juke a would be tackler but the abdomen remains basically stable compared to the upper body and hips.  The intent of modern rules is to direct the point of attack away from vulnerable areas like the head and neck and the knees. Players will avoid these areas or find themselves on the bench. Aiming at the chest is not proper.

Granted, I didn't take pre-med anatomy. However, since when is the chest not part of the abdomen?

Were you trying to say we should hit em in the stomach?

[JoeyCapital]

The proper point of attack should be the offensive players center of gravity, a point roughly corresponding to the abdomen. Runners may try to juke a would be tackler but the abdomen remains basically stable compared to the upper body and hips.  The intent of modern rules is to direct the point of attack away from vulnerable areas like the head and neck and the knees. Players will avoid these areas or find themselves on the bench. Aiming at the chest is not proper.

Simply from a physics standpoint, if we teach our tacklers to make perfect contact on the ball carriers absolute center of gravity what's gonna happen? They'll freakin bounce off. That's what center of gravity means, the absolute mid point of their "tipping point". To bring a ball carrier down you should be either above or below their center of gravity with the initial hit.

[regi]

Tough guy behind a keyboard calling our starting safety and people he's not face to face with weak.

Lol that's classic right there.

The weak guys show up again, truth hurts don't it bro. Gaines is probably a good kid, but made a stupid selfish play, that could have hurt his team.

Chris Reginelli is my name, I don't hide behind darn

[Hoggish1]

This isn't freaking madden it's real american FB and shite happens sometimes when you're flying around at 100 mph!

Aren't you sick and tired of the flying around being called by everyone other than Bama.

I saw a fierce and obvious hit on a MISTAKE receiver that was not called.  IT was played in slomo for the world to see but the SEC Zebras didn't catch it.

That continues to bother me every time I see it, but SEC officials sometimes don't see things they are looking at...

[Hoggish1]

I think the "opportunity" to pull up is being vastly over exaggerated personally.

Also when your intentions are to place a clean hit but you miscalculate the rate at which the player is falling or a last minute body position change causes the hit to land wrong I just don't see ejecting a player for that.

Flag him ok whatever, but ejection is total crap.

I think that at least it should be for the game he's playing in and not any part of the next week.  That's where the punishment doesn't fit the "crime."

[Hogsmo Kramer]

The weak guys show up again, truth hurts don't it bro. Gaines is probably a good kid, but made a stupid selfish play, that could have hurt his team.

Chris Reginelli is my name, I don't hide behind darn

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.

[KennyForAD]

When did hitting in the head become such a cool thing to do.  I remember Atwater being a ferocious hitter but I don't remember him leading with the crown of his helmet or hitting guys deliberately in the head.  There is a right way to deliver a blow and these players need to learn that.

Cowboys, 1970's.  Cliff Harris (Captain Crash) made a career out of spearing.  Took it to an art form.  The game was WAY rougher then.

[eusebius]

Steve Atwater WPS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWtSUgLm_Oo

Kennoy Kennedy WPS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrecwwIoNj8

[GolfNut57]

Not arguing with the call. I just want to know if the other conferences call this penalty as often as the SEC.

ASU had a player ejected yesterday and the week before both for targeting when replays clearly showed the contact made was shoulder to shoulder in both cases.In yesterdays game the players helmet never made contact with the opposing players helmet at all. Shoulder to shoulder was blatantly clear on the replay. But the call and ejection stood.

[phadedhawg]

I hated to see that flag but you have to anticipate that call. If he would've tried harder to pull up they would have let it slide but that was too much.

I don't think he meant to hurt him. He just didn't react quick enough when he saw the receiver without the ball.

By the nature of play in the secondary accidents happen sometimes. Have to keep your head on a swivel to prevent getting that flag

[eusebius]

But by ejecting him aren't you by default judging his "intent" to be bad.

If not why else eject him?

Also for the record I want my defensive players coming with "bad intentions".

It's football not checkers!

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.     

[Piggfoot]

Granted, I didn't take pre-med anatomy. However, since when is the chest not part of the abdomen?

Were you trying to say we should hit em in the stomach?

The stomach, intestines = abdomen.  The chest is thorax.

[demonHOG1013]

I dont think it would have been flagged at all if the guy would have caught the ball.  The fact that the ball had already gone by the reciever by the time he launched made it a clear flag.  Then the ejection came after the review of the hit. If the guy caught the ball I dont think it would have looked as bad at full speed.

That being said, I hate the rule.  I played free safety in college and grew up watching razorbacks like Steve Atwater, Kennoy Kennedy, and Ken Hamlin. All you want to do is punish recievers. If you dont want to get stroked tell your QB not to leave you wide open to such hits when he throws the ball.

[Shorttimer]

Whether or not you like the rule, if the NCAA were making a video on what would be considered targeting, that play could be the one they used.

My concern is that the NCAA will soon take away leg shots on defenseless players.  Because of the rules against hitting high, I've seen more grotesque broken twigs the last few years than I did in the first few decades of my life.  I remember the Super Bowl where Tim Krumrie broke his leg and I thought that was the ugliest thing I would ever see.  Now I see that every week.

[Kevin]

just a matter of time.

bye bye true american football, hello soccer.

football is a contact sport, they are trying to turn into a non contact sport.

plus side, liddell gets to prepare for the game as a starter

[HatfieldHog]

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

[Piggfoot]

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

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.