…we are all are just going to move on from the miracle up in Clemson this weekend. Take our win, keep our mouths shut, and move on?
Surprised no jabbing from the Gamecock faithful, esp. after slipping in the polls a spot. Moving from 3 to 4 has to be Defcon 3 or 4 in their eyes.
I am…
I still don’t know how we didn’t lose that game.
'06 Mckee Craft
184 Marathon
DF140 Suzuki
This just proves Jesus wears orange.
a W is a W but Clemson has reason for concern. Clemson got beat…well except where it matters, the scoreboard.
Defense won the game. Our offense almost allowed more points to State than the D. 378 yds passing and 75% completion and 3rd/4th down efficiency sure didn’t do it. Blocked FG, 2 int., and the final coming to end the game in OT.
I sure hope Gallman is ok. That was a dirty hit. Targeting all day long.
“Wailord”
1979 17’ Montauk
90 Johnson
Wilderness Ride 115
i hope he is ok also, but not targeting. A running back is not a defenseless player. plus Gallman turned his head and ducked right before the hit. Brutal hit, yes. dirty or targeting, no.
No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul.
Note 1: “Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:
Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area
A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground
Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet</font id=“orange”>
“Wailord”
1979 17’ Montauk
90 Johnson
Wilderness Ride 115
Just posting so you can be up to speed for future calls. Not an argument, as it doesn’t matter. It looks like Gallman is tough and should be rested up for FSU.
Still not sure how Michigan can have such a pie schedule, and move up on a bye week. Oh well, they still have to get by MSU and OSU, so nothing to worry about there. I could see Louisville man handling a beat up NC State next week and passing us on a bye. It’s the only love Clemson knows.
“Wailord”
1979 17’ Montauk
90 Johnson
Wilderness Ride 115
1st. there was no upward and forward thrust. the defender was diving.
2nd. Gallman ducked into the defender.
3rd. it was the back of the helmet not crown.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-93RuXmmimM
somewhere in the 12-15 second mark. Gallman turns his head and ducks to put his shoulder into defender (but misses). the back of the defenders helmet catches gallmans helmet as he was diving by.
BTW: your post above shows that last week the clemson defensive back should have been called for targeting. for leading with the forearm in a upward and forward thrust above the shoulders
Wrong. Crown, meet Gallman. How anyone could look at #8s stance, motion, and obvious intent to hit a player with the top of his helmet from that picture and come up with what you have is boggling.
“Wailord”
1979 17’ Montauk
90 Johnson
Wilderness Ride 115
because you refuse to look at he RB before the hit.
The hit you are talking about was shoulder to shoulder. Confirmed in the IR and booth.
“Wailord”
1979 17’ Montauk
90 Johnson
Wilderness Ride 115
It doesn’t matter what the RB was doing. A defender CAN NOT lead with the crown of the helmet. Plane and simple. Have you been under a rock for the past few years with these targeting rules?
“Wailord”
1979 17’ Montauk
90 Johnson
Wilderness Ride 115
what did the IR say. NOT TARGETING
" the replay official is directed to examine all elements of the ruling made by the official on the field, not only the location of the forcible contact."
“No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet.”
Nothing else matters. It was targeting. The refs got it wrong. The IR booth got it wrong. You are wrong. It’s not as complicated as you’re trying to make it.
Was it intentional? Probably not. Hard to take Gallman down, but that was a dangerous hit.
B8 is never wrong, don’t you know that?
“Wailord”
1979 17’ Montauk
90 Johnson
Wilderness Ride 115
quote:
Originally posted by Fishb8what did the IR say. NOT TARGETING
The officials didn’t say anything because they did not review the gallman fumble. Are you thinking of a different play?
Yes, Gallman lowered his head but the defender is not allowed to lead with this helmet which is was doing. His arms were down by his side and he was not trying to make a tackle.
That said, we also got away with a big time facemask that would have extended NC States 2nd to last drive. they had to punt. That made it even on the bad calls.
If gallman lowered his head into the defender, who is making forcible contact with whom.
quote:
Originally posted by Edistodaniel“No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet.”
Nothing else matters. It was targeting. The refs got it wrong. The IR booth got it wrong. You are wrong. It’s not as complicated as you’re trying to make it.
Was it intentional? Probably not. Hard to take Gallman down, but that was a dangerous hit.
Read the whole thing.
“No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting”
There is more to the rule than just hitting with the crown. AT LEAST ONE INDICATOR. You are wrong.
I am not making it complicated, I am reading the rule… ALL OF IT.