🏈 Picture: The questioned call on Mack Wilson and helmet to helmet allegations.

[rick4bama]

Is it on you tube now? That could be doctor up.

 

[UAgrad93]

This hit is being debated all over the Tenn Vile boards and on Tigerdroppings!! I have never seen fanbases obsess over another team!! What is really and truly sad is......their number one argument is "the refs are all paid for by BAMA and the REC. The SEC office should be moved out of Birmingham since they cheat for UA!"

 

[rick4bama]

This hit is being debated all over the Tenn Vile boards and on Tigerdroppings!! I have never seen fanbases obsess over another team!! What is really and truly sad is......their number one argument is "the refs are all paid for by BAMA and the REC. The SEC office should be moved out of Birmingham since they cheat for UA!"

Yes, Yes, That is all I have been reading too. I laugh about Bama getting favor on the flag. I saw a lot of non call that wasn't call for Bama.

 

[Tidestalker]

This was on the follow through... From what I saw on the replay the crown of his helmet clearly hit his facemask on the original impact.

It should have been targeting. That being said, that was one of the best damn hits I think I've ever seen. Absolutely demolished him.

I hate the targeting rules and dislike where the game is going, but I do think it's making the game safer. I was shocked they didn't at least look at that on replay but happy as hell too. I don't think I'll see a hit like that for a long time. Mack M-fing Wilson. RTR

 

[BamaFan334]

The aggies said it was the only thing he's contributed on the field since he got there.

Watch the replay and I thought he lost a tooth, but nothing was reported, so I assumed it was spit after that.

 

[TerryP]

I have never seen fanbases obsess over another team!!

I doubt that's true. Perhaps, forgot a word, or two?

What is really and truly sad is......their number one argument is "the refs are all paid for by BAMA and the REC. The SEC office should be moved out of Birmingham since they cheat for UA!"

What else do you expect them to say? "When all is equal Bama is a better program?" :eyeroll:

It all starts at the top. That's the expression, right? If you have Joe Alleva talking about their expansion and how high Bama fans will be sitting ... and then a year later we see him saying "we won't play if Bama's not playing" you might get the impression he's a bit obsessed with Bama. If that assumption is correct, shouldn't we expect their fans to act the same? :headscratch:

 

[TerryP]

BTW, this is changing the subject a little bit ... but, you guys might find this interesting.

Recruiting - Coach Boom Says 5* LB Wilson Isn't a Good Fit

This came out along the same time Jay Tate was saying ... get this!

"Wilson isn't physical enough for Muschamp's defense." {sic}

 

[TerryP]

The SEC office should be moved out of Birmingham since they cheat for UA!"

BTW, this notion that the SEC orchestrates games in favor of Bama ...

How is it that LSU manages to get the schedule set for night games at Death Valley when they play Bama, but when it was all about Florida vs LSU those were afternoon games? When you look at the Tigers record at home against good teams—specifically those played in the afternoon—that winning percentage they brag about isn't as lofty as they proclaim.

So, if the SEC offices and the TV networks (which also hate LSU from what we're lead to believe) how is it they continually get Bama at night?

 

[TUSKtimes]

This hit is being debated all over the Tenn Vile boards and on Tigerdroppings!! I have never seen fanbases obsess over another team!! What is really and truly sad is......their number one argument is "the refs are all paid for by BAMA and the REC. The SEC office should be moved out of Birmingham since they cheat for UA!"

Claiming outside forces as legitimate reasons for losing, maybe it's easier to accept where they are in the pecking order. TAMU is staring at the Mack Wilson non-call like it was the difference maker. OJ Howard was another helmet shot that didn't get called on his TD and the way he laid there it could have cost us.

 

[sean]

This was on the follow through... From what I saw on the replay the crown of his helmet clearly hit his facemask on the original impact.

It should have been targeting. That being said, that was one of the best damn hits I think I've ever seen. Absolutely demolished him.

I hate the targeting rules and dislike where the game is going, but I do think it's making the game safer. I was shocked they didn't at least look at that on replay but happy as hell too. I don't think I'll see a hit like that for a long time. Mack M-fing Wilson. RTR

disagree on that. it's targeting if it's a hit like that on a defenseless player. the kick returner was NOT a defenseless player. he was not engaged with another player, he was not waiting on the ball to get to him. he was not a quarterback in the throwing motion nor just after the throw. and he certainly wasn't away from the play. he WAS the play as he had the ball and was running full speed toward the oncoming tackler.

 

[Bamabww]

What would be the point of the returning team trying to field a punt then?

To keep it from rolling on down the field maybe?

 

[rammerjammer]

disagree on that. it's targeting if it's a hit like that on a defenseless player. the kick returner was NOT a defenseless player.

This, this, this, this.......exactly. Noil had already ran 10 yards with the ball when he got nailed. There is still some subjectivity left for the officials. Agreed the tackle on Wilson's part was "targeting" almost any other time, however since there was no true head to head contact, they let it slide.

 

[psychojoe]

I can tell already that there will be further rule changes and 'clarifications' coming in the off season. And more confusion next year.

 

[Tidestalker]

This, this, this, this.......exactly. Noil had already ran 10 yards with the ball when he got nailed. There is still some subjectivity left for the officials. Agreed the tackle on Wilson's part was "targeting" almost any other time, however since there was no true head to head contact, they let it slide.

The replay I saw had the crown of his helmet caving in the kids face mask. The OP's picture is after that original contact if I saw that correctly

 

[OldPlayer]

The replay I saw had the crown of his helmet caving in the kids face mask. The OP's picture is after that original contact if I saw that correctly

Some people are not counting the facemask as part of the head. If it was the same, they wouldn't call them different things.:sarcasm:

 

[c5vetman]

The replay I saw had the crown of his helmet caving in the kids face mask. The OP's picture is after that original contact if I saw that correctly

Not to sound rude at all, but what part of this aren't you getting? it wasn't targeting according to the targeting rule! it doesn't matter where he was hit at, he was fully in control of his body and able to defend himself, therefore it was NOT targeting...

 

[ComeOnSon]

Not to sound rude at all, but what part of this aren't you getting? it wasn't targeting according to the targeting rule! it doesn't matter where he was hit at, he was fully in control of his body and able to defend himself, therefore it was NOT targeting...

I think his point was that there was head to head contact. That is indisputable but I agree that by rule it wasn't targeting.

 

[94 Grad]

Not to sound rude at all, but what part of this aren't you getting? it wasn't targeting according to the targeting rule! it doesn't matter where he was hit at, he was fully in control of his body and able to defend himself, therefore it was NOT targeting...

I think you may be confused... there are TWO different rules. 1) NCAA Rule 9-1-3, Targeting and Making Forcable Contact with the crown of the Helment. 2) NCAA Rule 9-1-4 Targeting and Making Forcible contact to head or neck area of a defenseless player.

Rule 9-1-3 has nothing to do with a defenseless player.

I would say he was in violation of rule 9-1-3, but not 9-1-4; however, there are notes applied to 9-1-3 and 9-1-4 that state the the meaning of targeting as a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcable contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or block or playing the ball.

One could conclude that the crown of the helmet hit the facemask in the course of a normal tackle and even though it was "forcable" it was not intentional beyond the normal bounds of making the tackle. This is what I think the Replay ref based his call lack no-call on (IMO). Basically, using the same note applied that give a no-call to the hit on Hurts in the Ole Miss game. The only difference being the Hurts hit would fall under 9-1-4, not 9-1.3, but the note applies to both rules.

 

[Tidestalker]

I think you may be confused... there are TWO different rules. 1) NCAA Rule 9-1-3, Targeting and Making Forcable Contact with the crown of the Helment. 2) NCAA Rule 9-1-4 Targeting and Making Forcible contact to head or neck area of a defenseless player.

Rule 9-1-3 has nothing to do with a defenseless player.

I would say he was in violation of rule 9-1-3, but not 9-1-4; however, there are notes applied to 9-1-3 and 9-1-4 that state the the meaning of targeting as a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcable contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or block or playing the ball.

One could conclude that the crown of the helmet hit the facemask in the course of a normal tackle and even though it was "forcable" it was not intentional beyond the normal bounds of making the tackle. This is what I think the Replay ref based his call lack no-call on (IMO). Basically, using the same note applied that give a no-call to the hit on Hurts in the Ole Miss game. The only difference being the Hurts hit would fall under 9-1-4, not 9-1.3, but the note applies to both rules.

Thank you 94 grad. Very well said.

 

[bama alum]

Coach Saban said today it was a great hit. Good enough.