...it's called getting earholed...

[PlayerRep]

That play is on the margin of targeting as the rule is written. I don't think it meets the )

"No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)

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"

It absolutely was targeting and meets the definition. Jeez, look at the very first sentence of the rule:

"No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet"

Buss was not looking at the blocker and didn't see or feel the hit coming. The initial contact was helmet to helmet. The blocker led with his helmet. Buss' head/helmet immediately moves significantly/recoils from the hit and he is knocked flying. It couldn't have been more clear.

It was worse than hitting a "defenseless" receiver, as the receiver almost always knows the hit is coming. And, with receivers, being defenseless means virtually anytime a receiver is hit up high with the defender's helmet.

 

[PlayerRep]

Go play or watch soccer if you think that was a cheap hit.

Man up, bitches. It was a clean and legal block.

Nope. Helmet to helmet. Clearly targeting. A very dirty block. The blocker/receiver should be suspended for a game.

 

[wbtfg]

Close call on this one. Not sure the defender meets definition of "defenseless" in this situation. Also, the blocker didn't launch or lead with crown.

That said, it was violent helmet to helmet contact. Definitely a dangerous play, but may not be illegal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SoldierGriz]

Close call on this one. Not sure the defender meets definition of "defenseless" in this situation. Also, the blocker didn't launch or lead with crown.

That said, it was violent helmet to helmet contact. Definitely a dangerous play, but may not be illegal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is where I am also...I watched it many times. I don't know. Honestly, it looked like a good football play to me, but I have no clue how the rule is applied. If defenseless means - not looking - then yes, he was defenseless. I'm not sure that is what it means however. It's easier to apply to a receiver - hands/eyes on ball, or in the air completing a catch.

Hard to be objective as it was a punishing hit against one of our favorites. Hope like hell he is OK.

 

[helcat]

Close call on this one. Not sure the defender meets definition of "defenseless" in this situation. Also, the blocker didn't launch or lead with crown.

That said, it was violent helmet to helmet contact. Definitely a dangerous play, but may not be illegal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is where I am also...I watched it many times. I don't know. Honestly, it looked like a good football play to me, but I have no clue how the rule is applied. If defenseless means - not looking - then yes, he was defenseless. I'm not sure that is what it means however. It's easier to apply to a receiver - hands/eyes on ball, or in the air completing a catch.

Hard to be objective as it was a punishing hit against one of our favorites. Hope like hell he is OK.

No doubt he's defenseless. Blind side blocks are specifically listed in the rule book. Targeting or intent if you will is the gray area. Its not clear since it doesn't "clearly" meet any of the listed criteria, although it also says when in question it is a foul. In the old days the Viking would have launched and dropped the crown and really taken his head off, so I guess there is some progress

 

[helcat]

Close call on this one. Not sure the defender meets definition of "defenseless" in this situation. Also, the blocker didn't launch or lead with crown.

That said, it was violent helmet to helmet contact. Definitely a dangerous play, but may not be illegal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is where I am also...I watched it many times. I don't know. Honestly, it looked like a good football play to me, but I have no clue how the rule is applied. If defenseless means - not looking - then yes, he was defenseless. I'm not sure that is what it means however. It's easier to apply to a receiver - hands/eyes on ball, or in the air completing a catch.

Hard to be objective as it was a punishing hit against one of our favorites. Hope like hell he is OK.

I also think the rules will continue to evolve to get rid of these plays. Most of the time the defender isn't even in the play. One of the best players in the country gets hurt for basically no reason in this case.

 

[PlayerRep]

Close call on this one. Not sure the defender meets definition of "defenseless" in this situation. Also, the blocker didn't launch or lead with crown.

That said, it was violent helmet to helmet contact. Definitely a dangerous play, but may not be illegal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is where I am also...I watched it many times. I don't know. Honestly, it looked like a good football play to me, but I have no clue how the rule is applied. If defenseless means - not looking - then yes, he was defenseless. I'm not sure that is what it means however. It's easier to apply to a receiver - hands/eyes on ball, or in the air completing a catch.

Hard to be objective as it was a punishing hit against one of our favorites. Hope like hell he is OK.

Yes, not seeing the blocker coming means being defenseless.

 

[PlayerRep]

I still don't know if this play could have been reviewed, as it was not called on the field. Any info on that? However, even if it couldn't be reviewed during the game, it was still targeting and should have been called.

 

[PlayerRep]

"A player who receives a blind-side block." As someone said above, a blind-side block is part of the rule.

"When in question, it is a foul." Again, as someone stated above.

In my view, the initial contact was with the helmet to the helmet (and was certainly above the shoulders). "Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area"

https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/9/7/12829482/targeting-penalty-rulebook-ncaa-football

 

[wbtfg]

"A player who receives a blind-side block." As someone said above, a blind-side block is part of the rule.

"When in question, it is a foul." Again, as someone stated above.

In my view, the initial contact was with the helmet to the helmet (and was certainly above the shoulders). "Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area"

https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/9/7/12829482/targeting-penalty-rulebook-ncaa-football

That's a good read. If I'm understanding the rule, in order to be targeting defender would need to be defenseless. To meet the standard of defenseless, the block would have to be a blindside block.

Looking at the tape again, it's difficult to determine if it was a blindside block.

And yes, I do have a lot of time on my hands as I'm waiting for tires to be installed at Costco.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[helcat]

"A player who receives a blind-side block." As someone said above, a blind-side block is part of the rule.

"When in question, it is a foul." Again, as someone stated above.

In my view, the initial contact was with the helmet to the helmet (and was certainly above the shoulders). "Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area"

https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/9/7/12829482/targeting-penalty-rulebook-ncaa-football

That's a good read. If I'm understanding the rule, in order to be targeting defender would need to be defenseless. To meet the standard of defenseless, the block would have to be a blindside block.

Looking at the tape again, it's difficult to determine if it was a blindside block.

And yes, I do have a lot of time on my hands as I'm waiting for tires to be installed at Costco.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A player that sees the block will brace or avoid contact, which Buss didn't do

 

[reinell30]

So how is Buss doing health wise? Seems to me this is exactly what Portland State has been known for in the past was dirty play. I remember reading and watching it a lot when we played them before.

 

[PlayerRep]

"A player who receives a blind-side block." As someone said above, a blind-side block is part of the rule.

"When in question, it is a foul." Again, as someone stated above.

In my view, the initial contact was with the helmet to the helmet (and was certainly above the shoulders). "Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area"

https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/9/7/12829482/targeting-penalty-rulebook-ncaa-football

That's a good read. If I'm understanding the rule, in order to be targeting defender would need to be defenseless. To meet the standard of defenseless, the block would have to be a blindside block.

Looking at the tape again, it's difficult to determine if it was a blindside block.

And yes, I do have a lot of time on my hands as I'm waiting for tires to be installed at Costco.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A player that sees the block will brace or avoid contact, which Buss didn't do

Exactly. Buss didn't see the block coming, didn't prepare for it, didn't lift up his left forearm to try to protect himself. He is the definition of defenseless.

 

[Sam A. Blitz]

A player should be expecting to get blocked in that situation.

Doesn't make what the PSU player did legal... The Rainey clip showed clear targeting helmet to helmet. This may have been acceptable years ago, but it is something that they are trying to remove from the game. They need to. I expect the PSU player will be suspended for a game.

This macho man up crap is probably made by people that have never played the game. Concussions aren't a joke.

 

[PlayerRep]

That receiver/blocker, no. 3, is listed at 185 pounds.

Look at how Buss' head recoils backwards and then around in an award position, and how as he goes backward and down as his feet come up. It was a horribly dirty hit. That is no place or excuse in this in modern day football.

 

[PlayerRep]

A player should be expecting to get blocked in that situation.

Doesn't make what the PSU player did legal... The Rainey clip showed clear targeting helmet to helmet. This may have been acceptable years ago, but it is something that they are trying to remove from the game. They need to. I expect the PSU player will be suspended for a game.

This macho man up crap is probably made by people that have never played the game. Concussions aren't a joke.

As you know, expecting to be blocked in the situation has nothing to do with the rule. Receivers coming over the middle should be expecting to get hit.

And, while it occurs from time to time, blind side hits like this are a fairly low percentage of plays like this.

 

[Sam A. Blitz]

A player should be expecting to get blocked in that situation.

Doesn't make what the PSU player did legal... The Rainey clip showed clear targeting helmet to helmet. This may have been acceptable years ago, but it is something that they are trying to remove from the game. They need to. I expect the PSU player will be suspended for a game.

This macho man up crap is probably made by people that have never played the game. Concussions aren't a joke.

As you know, expecting to be blocked in the situation has nothing to do with the rule. Receivers coming over the middle should be expecting to get hit.

And, while it occurs from time to time, blind side hits like this are a fairly low percentage of plays like this.

That was the point I was trying to make, PR. Someone mentioned that he should have expected it. That doesn't matter. That rule is meant to protect players from that head to head contact, which has been the culprit of a lot of concussions and some of the health controversies that the game is dealing with. Those hits are unnecessary. The PSU player should have blocked Buss and should have delivered a good hit on him, but he went directly to the head and that is targeting and is unacceptable. If you are a football player, you should expect to be hit, but you should never expect to be targeted to your head/neck. Doesn't matter if you are an offensive or defensive player. You could tell by that player's body language after the play that he knew he screwed up. Just glad to hear Buss is OK, could have been much worse.

 

[NorthEndZoneDan]

Go play or watch soccer if you think that was a cheap hit.

Man up, bitches. It was a clean and legal block.

yeah CTE is fake news. :roll:

 

[helcat]

I looks to me that he tried to hit him shoulder to shoulder which put the side of his helmet directly in Busses path. A little like running in front of a speeding car. Busses left shoulder moves back simultaneously with his head.I certainly don’t see it as dirty, but I know it stings more when it’s one of your own.

 

[NorthEndZoneDan]

So how is Buss doing health wise? Seems to me this is exactly what Portland State has been known for in the past was dirty play. I remember reading and watching it a lot when we played them before.

BW posted elsewhere that the word is he will be fine. sure hope thats the case