How about the final play in the Badgers/Buckeyes game?

[Palindrome]

Five seconds left with OSU ahead by 2 TDs. Coan scrambles, then finds a seam allowing him to angle toward the end zone via the sideline. 4 or 5 Buckeyes are in position to either bring him down or usher/push/nudge him out of bounds. At which point the clock would say 0:00 and the score is 37-24. Sportsmanship would be: Shake Coan’s hand and tell him "good luck in the bowl game”.

At the end of the play, and end of the game, #39 is indeed pushing Coan near the sideline where he is sure to go out of bounds well short of the goal line.

But watch #41 come crashing in helmet first to Coan's head. Watch Coan’s head snap backward violently as he goes to the ground out of bounds. Classless and dangerous. And I’m supposed to hope the Buckeyes do well? Screw that.

 

[FanatiCat]

Can they actually review that after the game? Looked like potential targeting to me and completely unnecessary.

 

[pds1515]

Coan cut it upfield and was trying to score...watch it closely, it wasn’t targeting or classless...unless keeping the opponent out of the end zone is classless.

 

[RhabdoWildcat]

Five seconds left with OSU ahead by 2 TDs. Coan scrambles, then finds a seam allowing him to angle toward the end zone via the sideline. 4 or 5 Buckeyes are in position to either bring him down or usher/push/nudge him out of bounds. At which point the clock would say 0:00 and the score is 37-24. Sportsmanship would be: Shake Coan’s hand and tell him "good luck in the bowl game”.

At the end of the play, and end of the game, #39 is indeed pushing Coan near the sideline where he is sure to go out of bounds well short of the goal line.

But watch #41 come crashing in helmet first to Coan's head. Watch Coan’s head snap backward violently as he goes to the ground out of bounds. Classless and dangerous. And I’m supposed to hope the Buckeyes do well? Screw that.

It looked like Coan was fighting forward not running out of bounds. You try to score a meaningless touchdown with no time left, prepare to be hit!

 

[LeftyLarry]

Don’t think Badger fans are complaining about that hit but they are a bit chippie and twice were called for taunting and sportsmanship issues.
Not Wisconsin or Northwestern type student athletes.

 

[NUCat320]

It felt like a flag at anything other than 0:00 to me.

 

[Hungry Jack]

Dumb play by Coan

 

[phatcat]

It felt like a flag at anything other than 0:00 to me.

Agreed, and it feels like a suspension if it doesn't involve one of the sacred cows.

 

[techtim72]

Did not watch the replay but I got the feeling before the play that Wisconsin really, really wanted to score and OSU really, really did not want them to. Was not surprised by the collision. Neither team was giving an inch.

 

[corbi296]

Coan cut it upfield and was trying to score...watch it closely, it wasn’t targeting or classless...unless keeping the opponent out of the end zone is classless.

That was targeting. He led with his helmet and it looked to me like he hit Coan in the head area. Considering that was the last play of the game with the contest already settled, it was completely unnecessary.

 

[pds1515]

That was targeting. He led with his helmet and it looked to me like he hit Coan in the head area. Considering that was the last play of the game with the contest already settled, it was completely unnecessary.

Disagree on the targeting...and unnecessary? So now we should teach players that if you’re winning the game, stop playing defense and just let them score? Coan was DEFINITELY trying to score, he clearly cut it up to avoid going OOB. Once he did that, it is the Ohio State player’s job to stop him...which he did. Nothing dirty, classless or unnecessary about it.

 

[corbi296]

Disagree on the targeting...and unnecessary? So now we should teach players that if you’re winning the game, stop playing defense and just let them score? Coan was DEFINITELY trying to score, he clearly cut it up to avoid going OOB. Once he did that, it is the Ohio State player’s job to stop him...which he did. Nothing dirty, classless or unnecessary about it.

There were four OSU players around him. Coan wasn't going anywhere. Rally up and wrap up or push him out of bounds, don't try to take his head off. Take a look at the video. That's exactly what the OSU player did and it was unnecessary and should have been penalized because he led with his helmet and contacted Coan in the helmet. That is the definition of targeting.

 

[epicbret]

Close but not targeting

 

[techtim72]

Trying to wrap my head around how that play can be seen as close. I won't opine on the rules of targeting but that player lead with his head and hit the other player in the head. Not close in that regard.

 

[HawkCat]

Disagree on the targeting...and unnecessary? So now we should teach players that if you’re winning the game, stop playing defense and just let them score? Coan was DEFINITELY trying to score, he clearly cut it up to avoid going OOB. Once he did that, it is the Ohio State player’s job to stop him...which he did. Nothing dirty, classless or unnecessary about it.

You are delusional. No one is begrudging the fact of the tackle. What was unnecessary was the nature of the tackle. It was textbook targeting. Explain how it was not. It has nothing to do with whether Coan was trying to score.

 

[klemman]

Coan was not necessarily going out of bounds. Harrison had a shot of pushing him out of bounds but the Wisconsin QB had the momentum of his run which still might have allowed him to reach out with the ball and hit the pylon. Procter #41 was making a hard and correct play to stop him.

It looks like Coan as he was being pushed out by OSU was preparing to make for the end zone and Procter dived at him and Coan instinctively lowered his body. I wondered about it in real time too as it looked like helmet to helmet contact.

It was a close call and if it was helmet to helmet than it would be technically targeting and subject to the rules, but it didn't seem like an intentional dirty play the way you describe it. It was two players playing all out until the final gun. (They don't do a final gun anymore despite the cliche)

 

[gocatsgo2003]

Coan was not necessarily going out of bounds. Harrison had a shot of pushing him out of bounds but the Wisconsin QB had the momentum of his run which still might have allowed him to reach out with the ball and hit the pylon. Procter #41 was making a hard and correct play to stop him.

It looks like Coan as he was being pushed out by OSU was preparing to make for the end zone and Procter dived at him and Coan instinctively lowered his body. I wondered about it in real time too as it looked like helmet to helmet contact.

It was a close call and if it was helmet to helmet than it would be technically targeting and subject to the rules, but it didn't seem like an intentional dirty play the way you describe it. It was two players playing all out until the final gun. (They don't do a final gun anymore despite the cliche)

Intention doesn’t matter in the targeting rule. That one was pretty clearly targeting.

 

[Deeringfish]

You are delusional. No one is begrudging the fact of the tackle. What was unnecessary was the nature of the tackle. It was textbook targeting. Explain how it was not. It has nothing to do with whether Coan was trying to score.

I agree. The idea is to coach players not to do that exact kind of hit. It was crown of the head and head to head and lowering of the head. I suppose they didn't call it because the game was over but that goes against any true attempt to reduce head injuries in college football.

 

[Titanium999]

There were four OSU players around him. Coan wasn't going anywhere. Rally up and wrap up or push him out of bounds, don't try to take his head off. Take a look at the video. That's exactly what the OSU player did and it was unnecessary and should have been penalized because he led with his helmet and contacted Coan in the helmet. That is the definition of targeting.

View embedded media

Clean hit! Coan got clocked

 

[torque-cat]

Five seconds left with OSU ahead by 2 TDs. Coan scrambles, then finds a seam allowing him to angle toward the end zone via the sideline. 4 or 5 Buckeyes are in position to either bring him down or usher/push/nudge him out of bounds. At which point the clock would say 0:00 and the score is 37-24. Sportsmanship would be: Shake Coan’s hand and tell him "good luck in the bowl game”.

At the end of the play, and end of the game, #39 is indeed pushing Coan near the sideline where he is sure to go out of bounds well short of the goal line.

But watch #41 come crashing in helmet first to Coan's head. Watch Coan’s head snap backward violently as he goes to the ground out of bounds. Classless and dangerous. And I’m supposed to hope the Buckeyes do well? Screw that.

Coan was going full head of steam for end zone. Looked fine to me.

 

[DaCat]

Helmet to helmet.

 

[willycat]

Helmet to helmet.

Exactly. Targeting by definition. Maybe they can suspend him for the playoff game.

 

[benoitdenizetl]

That’s targeting.

 

[klemman]

Intention doesn’t matter in the targeting rule. That one was pretty clearly targeting.

Read my reply again. I didn’t say lack of intention made it a legal hit. I said it was close, but if it was head to head, then it is technically targeting. Palindrome was saying that he couldn’t root for OSU because in the originL post he implied that it was an intentionally dirty play, creating a scenario that Procter didn’t even really need to make the tackle at all. That was my point. Take the bias out.

 

[NCPurplecat]

Ohio state needed to be up 2 scores and finish out strong to have a chance at the one seed. A second half shout was huge for them. They still got 2 seed nut that play mattered. Winning by one score after LSUs big win would not have been enough. The Wisconsin guy was trying to score OSU stopped him.. the play happened fast in motion.. doubt the OSU guy was thinking about a penalty.. penalties can be called on any play.. I like other teams better but GO OSU. It is bowl season now

 

[Alaskawildkat]

Ohio state needed to be up 2 scores and finish out strong to have a chance at the one seed. A second half shout was huge for them. They still got 2 seed nut that play mattered. Winning by one score after LSUs big win would not have been enough. The Wisconsin guy was trying to score OSU stopped him.. the play happened fast in motion.. doubt the OSU guy was thinking about a penalty.. penalties can be called on any play.. I like other teams better but GO OSU. It is bowl season now

Which I guess adds back that it was intentional. An end justifies the means play?

 

[pds1515]

Intention doesn’t matter in the targeting rule. That one was pretty clearly targeting.

Show me ONE picture that shows it as ‘clearly targeting’. The video sure doesn’t.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

Show me ONE picture that shows it as ‘clearly targeting’. The video sure doesn’t.

And we are the one who are supposed to remove bias? What motivation do we have around to defend Wisconsin, one of our rivals?

 

[corbi296]

Show me ONE picture that shows it as ‘clearly targeting’. The video sure doesn’t.

Did you look at the video clip above? That’s the text book definition of targeting.

 

[willycat]

Show me ONE picture that shows it as ‘clearly targeting’. The video sure doesn’t.

Helmet to HELMET!

 

[klemman]

Which I guess adds back that it was intentional. An end justifies the means play?

where does NCPurplecat say the end justifies the mean? He didn’t even say it wasn’t targeting. He’s saying the player was just trying to make the play.

There are two discussions here. One is whether there was head to head contact which is defined as targeting, it may have been, and I’m not arguing that it wasn’t.

The other is that it was an intentional dirty play with intent to harm. That I’m not buying.

 

[willycat]

where does NCPurplecat say the end justifies the mean? He didn’t even say it wasn’t targeting. He’s saying the player was just trying to make the play.

There are two discussions here. One is whether there was head to head contact which is defined as targeting, it may have been, and I’m not arguing that it wasn’t.

The other is that it was an intentional dirty play with intent to harm. That I’m not buying.

So you are saying that "targeting" is not dirty?

 

[GOUNUII]

So you are saying that "targeting" is not dirty?

Sometimes it is. And sometimes it’s not. But by rule and it’s application to the game, intent is irrelevant. Another example of a misleading title since the term universally connotes intent.

GOUNUII

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

Show me ONE picture that shows it as ‘clearly targeting’. The video sure doesn’t.

DB saw him running, had an angle, lined him up and deciding to drill him with a head first tackle. QB couldn’t see him until last minute so he took advantage. Last play of game and he wasn’t getting in the end zone as there were multiple players that were escorting him to the sideline. Guess it made him feel better. Whatever.

 

[Hungry Jack]

Targeting is not always intentional. Trying to read intent into actions can be a slippery slope to stupidity. Thankfully the rules do not attempt to adjudicate intent.

 

[willycat]

Targeting is not always intentional. Trying to read intent into actions can be a slippery slope to stupidity. Thankfully the rules do not attempt to adjudicate intent.

I think ejecting a player, certainly implies intent.

 

[corbi296]

where does NCPurplecat say the end justifies the mean? He didn’t even say it wasn’t targeting. He’s saying the player was just trying to make the play.

There are two discussions here. One is whether there was head to head contact which is defined as targeting, it may have been, and I’m not arguing that it wasn’t.

The other is that it was an intentional dirty play with intent to harm. That I’m not buying.

May have been? Sure sounds like you are arguing that it may have not been targeting when the evidence to the contrary is staring you straight in the face. Who knows whether it was intentional. It certainly was unnecessary.

 

[klemman]

May have been? Sure sounds like you are arguing that it may have not been targeting when the evidence to the contrary is staring you straight in the face. Who knows whether it was intentional. It certainly was unnecessary.

Are you just looking to put up a fight for the hell of it, because Im game. You’re once again making your presumptions regarding my statements because of your bias. Which in itself degraded the validity of your argument.
I’m not implying that targeting didn’t exist. From the one angle I’ve seen at the speeds I’ve seen it, I actually said it very well could have been targeting. It wouldn’t be the first time however that one angle showed one thing, but another angle and slower speed showed something else. In the absence of those views, then yes, I say targeting “may have occurred.” When you say unnecessary, what do you mean? That #41 shouldn’t have played with intensity on the final play against an opponent who was also playing intensely on the final play?

 

[GI Cat]

Totally targeting, no doubt about it.

 

[Hungry Jack]

I think ejecting a player, certainly implies intent.

No it does not.