Jalen Green and Caden Sterns healthy

So, I’ll throw two more pennies in...

yes, a penalty, yes an ejection, but mainly because of the result. I don’t think the force applied would normally have created such an unexpected whiplash of the head. (No, the KSU guy didn’t flop, but it was kind of bizarre how completely unprepared he was for contact in a contact sport.)

so, just an ejection, that’s it. Doesn’t say something profound about his character.
 
nashhorn said:
I would like to think I would look at it as critically as I did this one but in truth you may be correct, if it was against CJ I would probably be outraged but then again he is one of my two favs.
Maybe not though cause I have corrected my rage before in some calls that were directed in favor of other team - not often though.
Click to expand...

I did not see a lot of outrage on this board when Cosmi was hit in the WV game, Schields I think, with a classic targeting after Cosmi was in the end zone. That did not even draw a penalty. The WV player launched into Cosmi leading with the crown of his helmet into Cosmi's head. I could not believe he was not hurt. No penalty, no outrage that I saw.

I have watched the hit several times, and I do not see it the way others do. It did not look like he went straight for the head. I am biased thought. I am comfortable leaving it up to TH.
 
Last edited:
Green apologizes for injuring the KSU player, but pretty much explains he was just following his assignment. It is only a GIF in the story, but it looks like he was pulling up as if he was targeting the KSU player in earnest, it would have been a much more vicious hit. I think Green and UT did the correct measure and insisted injury was not the intention but rather good defense was.

Texas CB Jalen Green issues statement on his targeting penalty against Kansas State
 
dukesteer said:
I just don’t understand how anyone could argue that the hit was not only unnecessary, but that it was not a very dirty play.

Does anyone think that Green’s statement was written by him? Really? It’s window dressing, carefully constructed for him by someone else. Not knocking the statement, just telling it like it is.

What we saw was disgusting and to attempt to pass it off as anything other than a cheap, dirty, stupid and unnecessary hit is surprising to me.

If I were TH, I would also come out and make a statement, reiterating what he probably already said, through Green. Herman needs to say something. That’s not how we play the game at Texas.

Should the kid be given a second chance? Of course. But a single half suspension is not enough. Or, for those of you who think that it is, I would assume that if a KSU defender had pulled the same crap on Colin Johnson, snapping his head back with a violent, blind side hit with the ball nowhere in sight, you would also be defending that player, correct? Not a chance...
Click to expand...

it just wasn't that big of a hit as you make it out to be. don't look at the other kid's reaction. it was a hit, but nothing big. i think the kid's head was turned in and his helmet was leaned way forward. it made a bigger impact than the hit normally would have.

i'm cool with the penalty, but it wasn't that "cheap."
 
I originally thought it was a dirty play and that Green needed to be suspended for the rest of the year. That was based on what I saw in the replay during the game. After looking at the hit several times, I was wrong. It was a dumb play by Green as he should have been more aware of what was going on, but it looks like he realized at the last split second that he should and did try to pull up, but it was too late. The impact was worse because the receiver who was looking back at the qb, I think relaxed seeing that the pass had gone the other direction and so was completely unprepared for the impact of the hit. Penalty yes, targeting probably in the current climate, serve the suspension and move on. My apologies to Green for my initial take.
 
The hit by the aggie on Colt after the interception was vicious and intended to hurt. In my eyes after looking at it over and over this wasn’t comparable. But that’s just mho.
 
YOU MAKE THE CALL:

The NCAA "Targeting Rule":

Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3)
  • No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting. When in question, it is a foul.
Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player (Rule 9-1-4)
  • No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting. When in question, it is a foul.
It is worth noting that the reason both rules are enacted when a play is in question because the NCAA errs on the side of safety.

Targeting does not solely occur when players initiate helmet-to-helmet contact. It's defined as occurring when 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." Instances 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 his helmet.
Since 2008, the committee has implemented rules to prohibit forcible contact using the helmet and target defenseless opponents. In 2013, it became an ejectionable offense, in addition to incurring a 15-yard penalty.

Defenseless players can be defined as any of the following, but not limited to:
  • a player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
  • a receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
  • a kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return.
  • a kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
  • a player on the ground.
  • a player obviously out of the play.
  • a player who receives a blind-side block.
  • a ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped.
  • a quarterback any time after a change of possession.
  • a ball carrier who has obviously given himself up and is sliding feet-first.
Players can be automatically disqualified (following replay review) for violating two definable rules: Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3) and Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player (Rule 9-1-4).
 
Last edited:
BurntOrangeLH said:
Says the KSU player was not situationally aware, that is for sure.

That is always a mistake in a contact sport.
Click to expand...
Situational awareness when the play is on the other side of the field allows one to have a reasonable expectation that you are NOT going to be decapitated by a player who launches upward towards the head.

Player should be suspended until such time as the one they laid out is healthy enough to return to the field of play.
 
"a player obviously out of the play." ding, ding, ding we have a winner. There was just no justifiable reason for that play. With a ref right on the sideline watching the whole thing it's auto penalty and ejection. If he's being coached to do that it's on the coaches. If he just went off and did it, he's making a dumb *** play and jeopardizing the ball game. All I know when my kids did bone headed things (and all kids will), the punishment they got at school was the least of their worries. What they got from me was always way worse. TH is the parent here and he needs to make sure these guys know jeopardizing the entire game because you're a dumb *** is just not going to be tolerated. My kids are all very close but they knew I was not their friend first. I was their parent and a certain amount of fear is healthy. Applies to me as well. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of understanding". We all answer to someone and having a healthy respect for whoever you answer to is good and keeps one from being a fool. Applies to police, government, all kinds of areas in your life.
 
Last edited:
mb227 said:
Situational awareness when the play is on the other side of the field allows one to have a reasonable expectation that you are NOT going to be decapitated by a player who launches upward towards the head.

Player should be suspended until such time as the one they laid out is healthy enough to return to the field of play.
Click to expand...
So you're saying it's Powderpuff rules on your side of the field if the play is on the other side of the field? :facepalm:
 
wadster said:
"a player obviously out of the play." ding, ding, ding we have a winner. There was just no justifiable reason for that play.
Click to expand...
So exactly how does one determine who is "a player obviously out of the play?" Why are all participants called "players" if they are not on the field to play? So players require invitations now to tackle and block another player who is an opponent? No invitation and it's an automatic ejection?

If you do not want your kids to participate in a contact sport, have them play a non-contact sport. Pretty simple solution.
 
BurntOrangeLH said:
So you're saying it's Powderpuff rules on your side of the field if the play is on the other side of the field? :facepalm:
Click to expand...
As the rules quoted above suggest, it is about common sense. It was CLEAR that the play was NOT on that side of the field. If you watch, he ALSO launches upwards. There was not an effort to pull back. He took a cheap shot and needs to pay a price. And I would guarantee that you will be among the first in line screaming 'cheap shot' if someone did that to a Texas WR...
 
For those of you still on the fence I would encourage you to watch the first 45 seconds of Todd Orlando’s press conference this week.

Hint: He didn’t think it was a “clean” hit.
 
A lot of us agree it wasn’t clean, and merited an ejection, but that it wasn’t anything beyond just that. But especially if the KSU player is hurt, humble apologies are appropriate.
 
BurntOrangeLH said:
So exactly how does one determine who is "a player obviously out of the play?" Why are all participants called "players" if they are not on the field to play? So players require invitations now to tackle and block another player who is an opponent? No invitation and it's an automatic ejection?

If you do not want your kids to participate in a contact sport, have them play a non-contact sport. Pretty simple solution.
Click to expand...

It was ruled targeting and he was thrown out of the game. Quit defending it and lecturing me on contact sports. It was a bone headed play and could have cost us the game. If you don't like the rules, start your own damn league but don't lecture me on whether my kids should participate in a sport based on an illegal hit.
 
wadster said:
It was ruled targeting and he was thrown out of the game. Quit defending it and lecturing me on contact sports. It was a bone headed play and could have cost us the game. If you don't like the rules, start your own damn league but don't lecture me on whether my kids should participate in a sport based on an illegal hit.
Click to expand...

yeah, i'm with this AND with those who don't think it was a "launch" or a "cheap shot." i totally agree with your point here.
 
wadster said:
"a player obviously out of the play." ding, ding, ding we have a winner. There was just no justifiable reason for that play. With a ref right on the sideline watching the whole thing it's auto penalty and ejection. If he's being coached to do that it's on the coaches. If he just went off and did it, he's making a dumb *** play and jeopardizing the ball game. All I know when my kids did bone headed things (and all kids will), the punishment they got at school was the least of their worries. What they got from me was always way worse. TH is the parent here and he needs to make sure these guys know jeopardizing the entire game because you're a dumb *** is just not going to be tolerated. My kids are all very close but they knew I was not their friend first. I was their parent and a certain amount of fear is healthy. Applies to me as well. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of understanding". We all answer to someone and having a healthy respect for whoever you answer to is good and keeps one from being a fool. Applies to police, government, all kinds of areas in your life.
Click to expand...
I love this post. Alot.
I still disagree that it appears Jaylen did this with malicious intent. It was bad timing, bad judgment, poor situational awareness, a penalty, targeting, and rightly a half game suspension.
I just dont see how you can look at all angles of the play and watch closely the body movement and reactions and conclude Jaylen did this with malice. It looks like a freak-weird-timing thing that ended up worse than what the initial act would have normally created.
I am ALL about the type of things you refer to. Live by them every day raising my 5 youngsters. I'm guessing TH knows Jaylen better than we do and is capable of judging this and determining what Jaylen was really doing...regardless of how it appeared at first. I am sure he has a much better grasp of this than we do over here pontificating at hornsfans.
And God does, too.
I, for one, think we should drop this. I am quite certain a lesson has been learned.
 
Last edited:
RainH2burntO said:
I love this post. Alot.
I still disagree that it appears Jaylen did this with malicious intent. It was bad timing, bad judgment, poor situational awareness, a penalty, targeting, and rightly a half game suspension.
I just dont see how you can look at all angles of the play and watch closely the body movement and reactions and conclude Jaylen did this with malice. It looks like a freak-weird-timing thing that ended up worse than what the initial act would have normally created.
I am ALL about the type of things you refer to. Live by them every day raising my 5 youngsters. I'm guessing TH knows Jaylen better than we do and is capable of judging this and determining what Jaylen was really doing...regardless of how it appeared at first. I am sure he has a much better grasp of this than we do over here pontificating at hornsfans.
And God does, too.
I, for one, think we should drop this. I am quite certain a lesson has been learned.
Click to expand...
As to the dropping it, yes... that's the 2nd winner. I'm out.
 
mb227 said:
As the rules quoted above suggest, it is about common sense. It was CLEAR that the play was NOT on that side of the field. If you watch, he ALSO launches upwards. There was not an effort to pull back. He took a cheap shot and needs to pay a price. And I would guarantee that you will be among the first in line screaming 'cheap shot' if someone did that to a Texas WR...
Click to expand...
Green's responsibility on the play did not initially involve spectating on the other side of the field. His responsibility was right in front of him and in no way by any rule was he prohibited from contacting him.

Irrelevant about which teams the players were on, in case you you missed that point.
 
RainH2burntO said:
I am quite certain a lesson has been learned.
Click to expand...
I am not sure what that lesson is, though. One has to make sure the ball is on their side of the field before making any play on the opposition?

If it is an illegal hit, it cannot be so because the hitter did not know the hittee was not paying any attention to the opponents around him.

If a "launch" involves moving towards an opponent, then there is targeting all along the line of scrimmage on every play.

If helmet to helmet contact is illegal, half of each team needs to be thrown out of the game especially along the LoS.

If Powder Puff rules apply to any sided of the field, then it has to be described precisely when and under which conditions.

The intent is good, but the enforcement is inconsistent and flawed. That is what must be corrected to preserve the integrity of the game.
 
If Powder Puff rules apply
Click to expand...

Enough with this ridiculous straw-man tactic.

If it is an illegal hit, it cannot be so because the hitter did not know the hittee was not paying any attention to the opponents around him.
Click to expand...

Correct. Had the hittee been looking in the right direction, he might have been able to dodge the hit or absorb it better, making it less bad, but that would have merely been good fortune for the hitter.

If a "launch" involves moving towards an opponent, then there is targeting all along the line of scrimmage on every play.
Click to expand...

Yeah I actually don't think it was targeting necessarily, but not all cheap shots are targeting.
 
Maybe we can move on now to beating ISU and change this thread to discussing all the great plays Caden and Jaylen are making in the game tomorrow??
I just hope Jaylen doesnt come out timid the second half.. post-incident.
That won't work up there.
 
RainH2burntO said:
I just hope Jaylen doesnt come out timid the second half.. post-incident.
That won't work up there.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I would rather he fairly clock an ISU player instead of not tackling or not blocking him out of fear of being penalized again. His targeting penalty as far as I understand the rules is not a proper interpretation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top