[Snorlax94]

FYI I emailed the Pac-12 using the email addresses earlier in this thread and below is the form letter I got back from a Pac-12 public affairs person.

I understand the desire to refer to the wording of the targeting rule to justify the no call and the desire not to change the rules during a season, but in my opinion, there are two massive holes in the Pac 12's response. 1) First, the Pac-12's interpretation is inconsistent with the rest of the NCAA. Other conferences are playing by the same rules and call hits like this targeting -- even the SEC! The Pac 12's very limited interpretation puts the league in the position of becoming the headhunting conference, which could needlessly injure players, lead to negative press, and impact the Pac-12's national standing and recruiting. 2) The rule has a massive catchall that states, "when in doubt, it is a foul." This wording is very one-sided, and pretty much destroys all the excuse-making by the conference.


---------------form letter response below-------------------
Thank you for your email and I have passed along your feedback. Per your question/comments, please know that the Conference office reviews all targeting plays and targeting reviews for each football game all season long. The play you reference was included in our review this week. Following our review, our determination is that there was no violation of the playing rules. This matches the call on the field.

The Stanford student-athlete was no longer a defenseless player once he caught the ball and became a ball carrier prior to the tackle, which nullifies NCAA Playing Rule 9-1-4 (hits to the head and neck area of a defenseless player).  While the game officials on the field did not call targeting on the play, the Instant Replay Official had the ability to stop the game to review the play for targeting and did so in this situation. While there was helmet to helmet contact, the Replay Official determined that the contact was made with the front and not the crown of the helmet as indicated in playing rule 9-1-3 ("No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet").

Thanks again for your comments. Please know that the Pac-12 Conference holds student-athlete health and safety to the highest regard and has been active in adopting player safety rules in games and practices, and has been actively involved in promoting and funding research that supports student athlete well being and safety.  Going forward, we will continue to be a part of the discussions around the rules for targeting that are happening with the playing rules committee, coaches and administrators in order to improve the game and protect the student-athletes.

-Erik

[Snorlax94]

FYI I emailed the Pac-12 using the email addresses earlier in this thread and below is the form letter I got back from a Pac-12 public affairs person.

I understand the desire to refer to the wording of the targeting rule to justify the no call and the desire not to change the rules during a season, but in my opinion, there are two massive holes in the Pac 12's response. 1) First, the Pac-12's interpretation is inconsistent with the rest of the NCAA. Other conferences are playing by the same rules and call hits like this targeting -- even the SEC! The Pac 12's very limited interpretation puts the league in the position of becoming the headhunting conference, which could needlessly injure players, lead to negative press, and impact the Pac-12's national standing and recruiting. 2) The rule has a massive catchall that states, "when in doubt, it is a foul." This wording is very one-sided, and pretty much destroys all the excuse-making by the conference.


---------------form letter response below-------------------
Thank you for your email and I have passed along your feedback. Per your question/comments, please know that the Conference office reviews all targeting plays and targeting reviews for each football game all season long. The play you reference was included in our review this week. Following our review, our determination is that there was no violation of the playing rules. This matches the call on the field.

The Stanford student-athlete was no longer a defenseless player once he caught the ball and became a ball carrier prior to the tackle, which nullifies NCAA Playing Rule 9-1-4 (hits to the head and neck area of a defenseless player).  While the game officials on the field did not call targeting on the play, the Instant Replay Official had the ability to stop the game to review the play for targeting and did so in this situation. While there was helmet to helmet contact, the Replay Official determined that the contact was made with the front and not the crown of the helmet as indicated in playing rule 9-1-3 ("No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet").

Thanks again for your comments. Please know that the Pac-12 Conference holds student-athlete health and safety to the highest regard and has been active in adopting player safety rules in games and practices, and has been actively involved in promoting and funding research that supports student athlete well being and safety.  Going forward, we will continue to be a part of the discussions around the rules for targeting that are happening with the playing rules committee, coaches and administrators in order to improve the game and protect the student-athletes.

-Erik

[Snorlax94]

FYI I emailed the Pac-12 using the email addresses earlier in this thread and below is the form letter I got back from a Pac-12 public affairs person.

I understand the desire to refer to the wording of the targeting rule to justify the no call and the desire not to change the rules during a season, but in my opinion, there are two massive holes in the Pac 12's response. 1) First, the Pac-12's interpretation is inconsistent with the rest of the NCAA. Other conferences are playing by the same rules and call hits like this targeting -- even the SEC! The Pac 12's very limited interpretation puts the league in the position of becoming the headhunting conference, which could needlessly injure players, lead to negative press, and impact the Pac-12's national standing and recruiting. 2) The rule has a massive catchall that states, "when in doubt, it is a foul." This wording is very one-sided, and pretty much destroys all the excuse-making by the conference.


---------------form letter response below-------------------
Thank you for your email and I have passed along your feedback. Per your question/comments, please know that the Conference office reviews all targeting plays and targeting reviews for each football game all season long. The play you reference was included in our review this week. Following our review, our determination is that there was no violation of the playing rules. This matches the call on the field.

The Stanford student-athlete was no longer a defenseless player once he caught the ball and became a ball carrier prior to the tackle, which nullifies NCAA Playing Rule 9-1-4 (hits to the head and neck area of a defenseless player).  While the game officials on the field did not call targeting on the play, the Instant Replay Official had the ability to stop the game to review the play for targeting and did so in this situation. While there was helmet to helmet contact, the Replay Official determined that the contact was made with the front and not the crown of the helmet as indicated in playing rule 9-1-3 ("No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet").

Thanks again for your comments. Please know that the Pac-12 Conference holds student-athlete health and safety to the highest regard and has been active in adopting player safety rules in games and practices, and has been actively involved in promoting and funding research that supports student athlete well being and safety.  Going forward, we will continue to be a part of the discussions around the rules for targeting that are happening with the playing rules committee, coaches and administrators in order to improve the game and protect the student-athletes.

-Erik

[Snorlax94]

FYI I emailed the Pac-12 using the email addresses earlier in this thread and below is the form letter I got back from a Pac-12 public affairs person.

I understand the desire to refer to the wording of the targeting rule to justify the no call and the desire not to change the rules during a season, but in my opinion, there are two massive holes in the Pac 12's response. 1) First, the Pac-12's interpretation is inconsistent with the rest of the NCAA. Other conferences are playing by the same rules and call hits like this targeting -- even the SEC! The Pac 12's very limited interpretation puts the league in the position of becoming the headhunting conference, which could needlessly injure players, lead to negative press, and impact the Pac-12's national standing and recruiting. 2) The rule has a massive catchall that states, "when in doubt, it is a foul." This wording is very one-sided, and pretty much destroys all the excuse-making by the conference.


---------------form letter response below-------------------
Thank you for your email and I have passed along your feedback. Per your question/comments, please know that the Conference office reviews all targeting plays and targeting reviews for each football game all season long. The play you reference was included in our review this week. Following our review, our determination is that there was no violation of the playing rules. This matches the call on the field.

The Stanford student-athlete was no longer a defenseless player once he caught the ball and became a ball carrier prior to the tackle, which nullifies NCAA Playing Rule 9-1-4 (hits to the head and neck area of a defenseless player).  While the game officials on the field did not call targeting on the play, the Instant Replay Official had the ability to stop the game to review the play for targeting and did so in this situation. While there was helmet to helmet contact, the Replay Official determined that the contact was made with the front and not the crown of the helmet as indicated in playing rule 9-1-3 ("No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet").

Thanks again for your comments. Please know that the Pac-12 Conference holds student-athlete health and safety to the highest regard and has been active in adopting player safety rules in games and practices, and has been actively involved in promoting and funding research that supports student athlete well being and safety.  Going forward, we will continue to be a part of the discussions around the rules for targeting that are happening with the playing rules committee, coaches and administrators in order to improve the game and protect the student-athletes.

-Erik

[Snorlax94]

FYI I emailed the Pac-12 using the email addresses earlier in this thread and below is the form letter I got back from a Pac-12 public affairs person.

I understand the desire to refer to the wording of the targeting rule to justify the no call and the desire not to change the rules during a season, but in my opinion, there are two massive holes in the Pac 12's response. 1) First, the Pac-12's interpretation is inconsistent with the rest of the NCAA. Other conferences are playing by the same rules and call hits like this targeting -- even the SEC! The Pac 12's very limited interpretation puts the league in the position of becoming the headhunting conference, which could needlessly injure players, lead to negative press, and impact the Pac-12's national standing and recruiting. 2) The rule has a massive catchall that states, "when in doubt, it is a foul." This wording is very one-sided, and pretty much destroys all the excuse-making by the conference.


---------------form letter response below-------------------
Thank you for your email and I have passed along your feedback. Per your question/comments, please know that the Conference office reviews all targeting plays and targeting reviews for each football game all season long. The play you reference was included in our review this week. Following our review, our determination is that there was no violation of the playing rules. This matches the call on the field.

The Stanford student-athlete was no longer a defenseless player once he caught the ball and became a ball carrier prior to the tackle, which nullifies NCAA Playing Rule 9-1-4 (hits to the head and neck area of a defenseless player).  While the game officials on the field did not call targeting on the play, the Instant Replay Official had the ability to stop the game to review the play for targeting and did so in this situation. While there was helmet to helmet contact, the Replay Official determined that the contact was made with the front and not the crown of the helmet as indicated in playing rule 9-1-3 ("No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet").

Thanks again for your comments. Please know that the Pac-12 Conference holds student-athlete health and safety to the highest regard and has been active in adopting player safety rules in games and practices, and has been actively involved in promoting and funding research that supports student athlete well being and safety.  Going forward, we will continue to be a part of the discussions around the rules for targeting that are happening with the playing rules committee, coaches and administrators in order to improve the game and protect the student-athletes.

-Erik

[Snorlax94]

FYI I emailed the Pac-12 using the email addresses earlier in this thread and below is the form letter I got back from a Pac-12 public affairs person.

I understand the desire to refer to the wording of the targeting rule to justify the no call and the desire not to change the rules during a season, but in my opinion, there are two massive holes in the Pac 12's response. 1) First, the Pac-12's interpretation is inconsistent with the rest of the NCAA. Other conferences are playing by the same rules and call hits like this targeting -- even the SEC! The Pac 12's very limited interpretation puts the league in the position of becoming the headhunting conference, which could needlessly injure players, lead to negative press, and impact the Pac-12's national standing and recruiting. 2) The rule has a massive catchall that states, "when in doubt, it is a foul." This wording is very one-sided, and pretty much destroys all the excuse-making by the conference.


---------------form letter response below-------------------
Thank you for your email and I have passed along your feedback. Per your question/comments, please know that the Conference office reviews all targeting plays and targeting reviews for each football game all season long. The play you reference was included in our review this week. Following our review, our determination is that there was no violation of the playing rules. This matches the call on the field.

The Stanford student-athlete was no longer a defenseless player once he caught the ball and became a ball carrier prior to the tackle, which nullifies NCAA Playing Rule 9-1-4 (hits to the head and neck area of a defenseless player).  While the game officials on the field did not call targeting on the play, the Instant Replay Official had the ability to stop the game to review the play for targeting and did so in this situation. While there was helmet to helmet contact, the Replay Official determined that the contact was made with the front and not the crown of the helmet as indicated in playing rule 9-1-3 ("No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet").

Thanks again for your comments. Please know that the Pac-12 Conference holds student-athlete health and safety to the highest regard and has been active in adopting player safety rules in games and practices, and has been actively involved in promoting and funding research that supports student athlete well being and safety.  Going forward, we will continue to be a part of the discussions around the rules for targeting that are happening with the playing rules committee, coaches and administrators in order to improve the game and protect the student-athletes.

-Erik

[fullmetal]

No. The rules are the rules and Stanford never plays outside of the NCAA's sanction.

But the Pac12 can certainly discuss how rules are to be interpreted by their crews (on-field and in the replay booth), points of emphasis, and so forth.

I think jacketree meant playing under more restrictive rules than the NCAA sanctions.  Since Stanford is most likely not coaching defensive players to go helmet-to-helmet with not-defenseless ball carriers, I think we are already doing this.  I don't think you can convince the Pac-12 refs to enforce safety stricter than the NCAA rules allow because other Pac-12 institutions are probably coaching at the limit of NCAA safety and thus would cry foul.  Foul, here, seems relative.

[fullmetal]

No. The rules are the rules and Stanford never plays outside of the NCAA's sanction.

But the Pac12 can certainly discuss how rules are to be interpreted by their crews (on-field and in the replay booth), points of emphasis, and so forth.

I think jacketree meant playing under more restrictive rules than the NCAA sanctions.  Since Stanford is most likely not coaching defensive players to go helmet-to-helmet with not-defenseless ball carriers, I think we are already doing this.  I don't think you can convince the Pac-12 refs to enforce safety stricter than the NCAA rules allow because other Pac-12 institutions are probably coaching at the limit of NCAA safety and thus would cry foul.  Foul, here, seems relative.

[fullmetal]

No. The rules are the rules and Stanford never plays outside of the NCAA's sanction.

But the Pac12 can certainly discuss how rules are to be interpreted by their crews (on-field and in the replay booth), points of emphasis, and so forth.

I think jacketree meant playing under more restrictive rules than the NCAA sanctions.  Since Stanford is most likely not coaching defensive players to go helmet-to-helmet with not-defenseless ball carriers, I think we are already doing this.  I don't think you can convince the Pac-12 refs to enforce safety stricter than the NCAA rules allow because other Pac-12 institutions are probably coaching at the limit of NCAA safety and thus would cry foul.  Foul, here, seems relative.

[fullmetal]

No. The rules are the rules and Stanford never plays outside of the NCAA's sanction.

But the Pac12 can certainly discuss how rules are to be interpreted by their crews (on-field and in the replay booth), points of emphasis, and so forth.

I think jacketree meant playing under more restrictive rules than the NCAA sanctions.  Since Stanford is most likely not coaching defensive players to go helmet-to-helmet with not-defenseless ball carriers, I think we are already doing this.  I don't think you can convince the Pac-12 refs to enforce safety stricter than the NCAA rules allow because other Pac-12 institutions are probably coaching at the limit of NCAA safety and thus would cry foul.  Foul, here, seems relative.

[fullmetal]

No. The rules are the rules and Stanford never plays outside of the NCAA's sanction.

But the Pac12 can certainly discuss how rules are to be interpreted by their crews (on-field and in the replay booth), points of emphasis, and so forth.

I think jacketree meant playing under more restrictive rules than the NCAA sanctions.  Since Stanford is most likely not coaching defensive players to go helmet-to-helmet with not-defenseless ball carriers, I think we are already doing this.  I don't think you can convince the Pac-12 refs to enforce safety stricter than the NCAA rules allow because other Pac-12 institutions are probably coaching at the limit of NCAA safety and thus would cry foul.  Foul, here, seems relative.

[fullmetal]

No. The rules are the rules and Stanford never plays outside of the NCAA's sanction.

But the Pac12 can certainly discuss how rules are to be interpreted by their crews (on-field and in the replay booth), points of emphasis, and so forth.

I think jacketree meant playing under more restrictive rules than the NCAA sanctions.  Since Stanford is most likely not coaching defensive players to go helmet-to-helmet with not-defenseless ball carriers, I think we are already doing this.  I don't think you can convince the Pac-12 refs to enforce safety stricter than the NCAA rules allow because other Pac-12 institutions are probably coaching at the limit of NCAA safety and thus would cry foul.  Foul, here, seems relative.

[martyup]

This Goodman thug regularly comes flying in head first, aiming his head at the opponent's head.  He usually turns his body so that impact is made with the top side of his helmet.  He doesn't even try to use his arms to make a tackle.  He is a headhunter, pure and simple.  If the officials don't stop him, he is going to seriously hurt himself or another player.

[martyup]

This Goodman thug regularly comes flying in head first, aiming his head at the opponent's head.  He usually turns his body so that impact is made with the top side of his helmet.  He doesn't even try to use his arms to make a tackle.  He is a headhunter, pure and simple.  If the officials don't stop him, he is going to seriously hurt himself or another player.

[martyup]

This Goodman thug regularly comes flying in head first, aiming his head at the opponent's head.  He usually turns his body so that impact is made with the top side of his helmet.  He doesn't even try to use his arms to make a tackle.  He is a headhunter, pure and simple.  If the officials don't stop him, he is going to seriously hurt himself or another player.

[martyup]

This Goodman thug regularly comes flying in head first, aiming his head at the opponent's head.  He usually turns his body so that impact is made with the top side of his helmet.  He doesn't even try to use his arms to make a tackle.  He is a headhunter, pure and simple.  If the officials don't stop him, he is going to seriously hurt himself or another player.

[martyup]

This Goodman thug regularly comes flying in head first, aiming his head at the opponent's head.  He usually turns his body so that impact is made with the top side of his helmet.  He doesn't even try to use his arms to make a tackle.  He is a headhunter, pure and simple.  If the officials don't stop him, he is going to seriously hurt himself or another player.

[martyup]

This Goodman thug regularly comes flying in head first, aiming his head at the opponent's head.  He usually turns his body so that impact is made with the top side of his helmet.  He doesn't even try to use his arms to make a tackle.  He is a headhunter, pure and simple.  If the officials don't stop him, he is going to seriously hurt himself or another player.

[winflop]

The Pac-12 can no longer say it is interested in player safety with a straight face after this debacle.  I shudder to think how many more players will be knocked unconscious from helmet to helmet hits where a defender leads with his facemask or forehead instead of the "top" of the helmet.  They have set themselves up for a lawsuit from the first player whose season (or career) ends from a hit like what Owusu took.

[winflop]

The Pac-12 can no longer say it is interested in player safety with a straight face after this debacle.  I shudder to think how many more players will be knocked unconscious from helmet to helmet hits where a defender leads with his facemask or forehead instead of the "top" of the helmet.  They have set themselves up for a lawsuit from the first player whose season (or career) ends from a hit like what Owusu took.

[winflop]

The Pac-12 can no longer say it is interested in player safety with a straight face after this debacle.  I shudder to think how many more players will be knocked unconscious from helmet to helmet hits where a defender leads with his facemask or forehead instead of the "top" of the helmet.  They have set themselves up for a lawsuit from the first player whose season (or career) ends from a hit like what Owusu took.

[winflop]

The Pac-12 can no longer say it is interested in player safety with a straight face after this debacle.  I shudder to think how many more players will be knocked unconscious from helmet to helmet hits where a defender leads with his facemask or forehead instead of the "top" of the helmet.  They have set themselves up for a lawsuit from the first player whose season (or career) ends from a hit like what Owusu took.

[winflop]

The Pac-12 can no longer say it is interested in player safety with a straight face after this debacle.  I shudder to think how many more players will be knocked unconscious from helmet to helmet hits where a defender leads with his facemask or forehead instead of the "top" of the helmet.  They have set themselves up for a lawsuit from the first player whose season (or career) ends from a hit like what Owusu took.

[winflop]

The Pac-12 can no longer say it is interested in player safety with a straight face after this debacle.  I shudder to think how many more players will be knocked unconscious from helmet to helmet hits where a defender leads with his facemask or forehead instead of the "top" of the helmet.  They have set themselves up for a lawsuit from the first player whose season (or career) ends from a hit like what Owusu took.

[larkinforever]

I keep cringing at the thought of this finally getting addressed only after a defender paralyzes himself...

[larkinforever]

I keep cringing at the thought of this finally getting addressed only after a defender paralyzes himself...

[larkinforever]

I keep cringing at the thought of this finally getting addressed only after a defender paralyzes himself...

[larkinforever]

I keep cringing at the thought of this finally getting addressed only after a defender paralyzes himself...

[larkinforever]

I keep cringing at the thought of this finally getting addressed only after a defender paralyzes himself...

[larkinforever]

I keep cringing at the thought of this finally getting addressed only after a defender paralyzes himself...

[82 Card]

Most people consider the front of the helmet to be synonymous with the face mask. I seem to recall the TV announcers at one point saying that the officials had ruled that the hit was made with the face mask. They probably heard "front of helmet" and instinctively used what they believed was the more commonly used term for the same thing. Need to review tape to confirm that. The league apparently refuses to address their non-standard interpretation of "crown."

[82 Card]

Most people consider the front of the helmet to be synonymous with the face mask. I seem to recall the TV announcers at one point saying that the officials had ruled that the hit was made with the face mask. They probably heard "front of helmet" and instinctively used what they believed was the more commonly used term for the same thing. Need to review tape to confirm that. The league apparently refuses to address their non-standard interpretation of "crown."

[82 Card]

Most people consider the front of the helmet to be synonymous with the face mask. I seem to recall the TV announcers at one point saying that the officials had ruled that the hit was made with the face mask. They probably heard "front of helmet" and instinctively used what they believed was the more commonly used term for the same thing. Need to review tape to confirm that. The league apparently refuses to address their non-standard interpretation of "crown."

[82 Card]

Most people consider the front of the helmet to be synonymous with the face mask. I seem to recall the TV announcers at one point saying that the officials had ruled that the hit was made with the face mask. They probably heard "front of helmet" and instinctively used what they believed was the more commonly used term for the same thing. Need to review tape to confirm that. The league apparently refuses to address their non-standard interpretation of "crown."

[82 Card]

Most people consider the front of the helmet to be synonymous with the face mask. I seem to recall the TV announcers at one point saying that the officials had ruled that the hit was made with the face mask. They probably heard "front of helmet" and instinctively used what they believed was the more commonly used term for the same thing. Need to review tape to confirm that. The league apparently refuses to address their non-standard interpretation of "crown."

[82 Card]

Most people consider the front of the helmet to be synonymous with the face mask. I seem to recall the TV announcers at one point saying that the officials had ruled that the hit was made with the face mask. They probably heard "front of helmet" and instinctively used what they believed was the more commonly used term for the same thing. Need to review tape to confirm that. The league apparently refuses to address their non-standard interpretation of "crown."

[82 Card]

I wonder if these fools are confused by the fact that "crown" is used in the rule to mean something different from what it means in anatomy. In anatomy, the "crown" is not the top of the head, it is further back. The rule clearly is not using the term in the same sense.

[82 Card]

I wonder if these fools are confused by the fact that "crown" is used in the rule to mean something different from what it means in anatomy. In anatomy, the "crown" is not the top of the head, it is further back. The rule clearly is not using the term in the same sense.

[82 Card]

I wonder if these fools are confused by the fact that "crown" is used in the rule to mean something different from what it means in anatomy. In anatomy, the "crown" is not the top of the head, it is further back. The rule clearly is not using the term in the same sense.

[82 Card]

I wonder if these fools are confused by the fact that "crown" is used in the rule to mean something different from what it means in anatomy. In anatomy, the "crown" is not the top of the head, it is further back. The rule clearly is not using the term in the same sense.