ALABAMA
Nick Saban explains why Mack Wilson's massive hit on Speedy Noil wasn't targeting
When Alabama LB Mack Wilson delivered this devastating hit on Texas A&M WR Speedy Noil, many fans posted on social media wondering why it wasn’t targeting.
On Monday, Crimson Tide coach Nick Saban explained why Wilson wasn’t penalized.
“It was a great hit,” Saban told media members, per AL.com. “I know some people made something about the fact that it was targeting. But it was not an unprotected player. The guy is running with the ball.”
FREE DOWNLOAD FROM SDS
Enter your email below and we will send you the Alabama records graphic to be used for your phone background.
By adding your email address, you agree to receive emails with Alabama football related news. You can unsubscribe at any time.
I believe this is incorrect. There are two rules on the books.
No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 9-1-3). Period. The player receiving the hit does NOT have to be deemed defenseless.
There has to be a targeting intent but one definition in the rules is
* Lowering the head before attacking by initiating contact with the crown of the helmet
It doesn’t even have to be a strike to the head / neck area. Basically, you cannot use the crown of the helmet as a striking force.
Clearly this is the case here.
There is another rule that seems to confuse people, but it is not relevant here. It is the rule protecting the defenseless player.
No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 9-1-4)
The rule again has to have elements of targeting, but expands the concept to when a player is a defenseless you can’t hit him in the head / neck with any part of the helmet, forearm, fist or shoulder.
So basically it is this
1. NEVER hit with the crown of your helmet.
2. IF the player is defenseless, don’t hit him in the head.
It is that simple and needs to be instructed that way at all levels of football.
These rules are not as clear as they need to be. They are the future of the sport we love. We have to protect the players. Saban is not different in his thinking as many coaches are confused by the rule addressing defenseless player, but it also protects all players from receiving a hit (delivering the hit with the crown can be just, if not more dangerous) from the crown of a helmet anywhere and at any time.
I hope this helps and I hope we can communicate this to a large audience to protect our players and the future of football.
I submit respectfully.
Absolutely correct sir. It’s amazing to me that a HC doesn’t even understand this rule, it’s really not that complicated.
The responsibility is on the SEC to get this targeting issue under control…. Either enforce the aforementioned rule or modify it… Come on SANKEY…grow a pair!!
Well, yeah, it’d be nice if the coaches understood the rule, but wouldn’t it be GREAT if the SEC refs could get a handle on it? These clowns can’t get sh*t right even with unlimited replays.
Yes it is was targeting. You are mistaken if you think Saban does not have a clear understanding of the rule. He is defending his player for making a hit that he has been taught to make his whole life.
So you defend your player by sounding like a Doofus???….Moronic comment of the day!! Well… Besides Sabans.
Actually, only half correct. Per the expanded authority of SEC replay officials this year, they’re allowed to review the circumstances surrounding the hit itself, including whether or not it’s considered incidental.
so the SEC has given their replay officials in B’Ham expanded authority to, as they see fit, re write the NCAA rule on the fly to include whether a foul is incidental?
Bo, spot on. This is by far the best description yet I’ve seen. SDS writers should copy and paste it for future reference and it should be sent to all misinformed coach’s in CFB…………starting with the head-ball coach in T-Town.
First off, I am a Bama fan, so I am admittedly biased. The tackling player did not lower his head. He probably should not have hit with his head, but in this case it almost seems incidental in slow motion. He did not aim his head at the runner, it was just there in the way as he came straight in. The runner was moving sideways, so if he had been attempting a shoulder tackle, it may have ended up with a helmet to helmet in spite of his efforts. Nice citation for your opinion, btw.
This is wrong as well, watch the replay, as he goes in to make the hit his head lowers and he hits the guy in the facemask with the crown of his helmet. Biased or not this was clear as day to see on the replay, go rewatch the play
Good explanation Bo, same thing I have been arguing since the hit. The player does not have to be defenseless, if you lead with the crown if the helmet it is targeting, end of discussion. Replays showed he clearly did and on top of that made forceable contact to the head/neck area of the ball carrier. The refs and replay booth whiffed on this one
A quote of the rule book and a decent explanation of the rule still doesn’t make it targeting. That was unintentional as evidenced the change of direction by both Noil and Wilson. Did head to head contact occur? Yes. Did the crown make contact? Was it intentional? No. So, is it a foul? No, it’s a football play.
Doesn’t have to be “intentional”. Refs don’t have to judge intent, only acts. Don’t hear people debating “intent” on face mask calls do you? Either you grabbed it or not. It’s 15yds even if your fingers get caught in the face mask. No matter what, if the crown of your helmet makes contact with another player’s head or neck, it’s targeting.
Then targeting would be called on every play.. RBs lower their shoulders, their head goes with them, and it just happens.
Also, pretty sure the rule book says “intent”. Thie targeting rule has made players aware of the dangers, but is in the process of changing the game tremendously if plays like that are called.
Hey Peckerhead….A majority of the penalties called for targeting are not INTENTIONAL….most all penealties are not intentional….If your ludicrous comments were put into play ….we could excuse most penalties because…”I didn’t mean to” Geeez you are getting very tired!
Let Hurts get hit like this and leave with a concussion ….you…bama nation and saban would lose your mind! Please for once in ur miserable life… take off ur crimson glasses and see the truth!
Hey idiot, read my posts and actually think about what they say… I’m glad you out so much effort in trying to spam these boards if the commentor happens to be a Bama fan.
Again, I’m not saying that intentional means ‘he meant to him with the crown of his head’. It simply means that the path of making the type of contact was avoidable yet the defensive player still inititated that type of contact. In this play, that wasn’t the case.
I posted the comment with the rule before I read your disclaimer of thinking a player intends to hit with the helmet… But the target was absolutely avoidable. He “launched” his body head first into Noil…
You are full of it. Hurts was targeted during the Ole Miss game. Helmet to helmet contact and knocked the ball out for an Ole Miss score. Where was the call then. Blatant targeting.
the rule does mention intent, but not in the way you’re thinking… You’re thinking it means to prove a p;layer intended to hit a player in the head with his helmet… Here’s the actual rule…
(Rule 9-1-3)
Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet
No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting. (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 9-6) (A.R. 9-1-3-I)
Note 1:
Target—to take aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with an apparent intent that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball.
Crown of the Helmet—the top portion of the helmet.
Contact to the head or neck area—not only with the helmet, but also with the forearm, fist, elbow, or shoulder—these can all lead to a foul.
TARGETING INDICATORS
Risk of a targeting foul is high with one or more of these:
– Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make contact in the head or neck area
– A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with contact at the head or neck area—even though one or both feet are still on the ground
==========================
These two apply to this play….
Target—to take aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with an apparent intent that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball.
– Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make contact in the head or neck area
See, this is where I disagree. It is not targeting. Wilson did not initiate contact with the crown of his helmet. He initiated contact when he assumed the tackling profile. The ball carrier’s head was not going to be hit. However, the ball carrier drops to a lower profile, after Wilson had begun the tackle, and the two made contact. I think this is part of determining whether or not it is targeting. Was the tackler aiming for the head? Or did the two unfortunately make contact? This should and I think does go into consideration. Tacklers are taught to aim for the chest. They all are. It’s the most sure was to tackle. However, ball carriers often brace for impact and sort of hunker down, and thus helmets his. It was not the tackler’s intent to his him with his helmet. It just happened. Now sit down and stop trying to discredit a dominant bama win.
This. I don’t care if it had been Ann ohio State player with the hit, it still was not targeting. The head contact occurred as a result of the play. Wilson did not lead with the helmet, watch the video.
Uh no. He initiated with the crown of his helmet. Sports anaylasts from around the country agree with me here. Take off your crimson glasses and face reality. Speedy did not brace for impact. We are not taking away from the win, which was not really so dominant like you claim.
go to sports boards for tikes….then graduate to sports boards for adolescents………then, never come back to adult sports boards
I agree that Saban has given an oversimplified, prevails even blatantly incorrect, explanation of the rule. However, the hit if not delivered with the crow and the player did not leave his feet and launch into the player. It was a significant, but legal hit.
He didn’t lead with the crown, and the ball carrier wasn’t defenseless.
See this screenshot from the hit(remove the extra spaces): https:// flic.kr/p/NvdF77
He’s leading with his left shoulder, and trying to get low on a receiver that is three inches shorter and has lowered his own head as well.
No crown, no defenseless player, no Alabama privilege. It’s just not targeting.
Well you would be correct, except the fact he obviously didn’t lead with the crown of his head. I already enlightened you all on this twice Nike, but ignorance is bliss I suppose…
Duh….that’s right Duh….u play futball Duh….u even have a jersey Duh….u told us twice before Duh….ignorance is bliss Duh…bamaEatsEverybody is the most comical contributer to this sight….and the most insignificant when it comes to knowledge of the game of football.
The crown of his helmet goes squarely into the guys face mask, which is a blow to the head or neck area. It’s textbook targeting. It happens. Doesn’t make the player dirty. Playing at the speeds these guys play at its bound to happen. However the onus is on the hitter to not lower his head for safety reasons.
Every non Bama fan clearly sees that Wilson did indeed initiate contact with the crown of the helmet. End of story.
Every fan with a computer can pause the video and get this exact screenshot that shows that he’s very much not doing any such thing:
(remove the spaces)
https:// flic.kr/p/NvdF77
That screenshot shows exactly why that IS targeting. Are you totally biased or totally ignorant? Let me guess – both.
So, according to Saban, every returner is fair game for head-hunters.
Yeah, that’s the intent of the rule. Gotcha buddy.
Nope, just the one with the ball. It’s called football, and sometimes a helmet makes contact with another helmet. It’s usually pretty easy to tell if it’s intentional or not.
As has already been stated above it DOES NOT matter if it’s intentional or not.
What does “targeting intent” mean hoss?
It means never hit with the crown of the helmet
Its pretty sad that you can’t recognize a clear penalty. There’d be a lot of athletes having careers ended if you were a ref. Oh you hit him in the head with the crown of your helmet?? Well did you mean to?- No. No penalty. Keep on putting yourself and others at serious risk of permanent injury.
I’m not saying that intentional means ‘he meant to him with the crown of his head’. It simply means that the path of making the type of contact was avoidable yet the defensive player still inititated that type of contact. In this play, that wasn’t the case.
And if I were a ref, targeting would be called for the intent the rule was put in place for, not this nonsense like people are saying that was targeting.
Can you still pump fake in basketball and send a defender over your back to land on the back of his head? Yes, it happens, often leading to concussions. Same thing. Intentional? No. Accidents happen. It’s sports.
Saban is clearly wrong. I assume he knows he’s wrong.
You wanna call out football jesus?
Be my guest.
You just exposed the biggest truth to most of the bama fan base…. Thinking a mortal man is a god….Pitiful
Hey bammers….serious question…. Was the hit on your running back by A&M targeting?
Relax, it’s a figure of speech, if your that particular about it, then I feel bad for you.
That was an obvious call. First it was late, so that should have been a superset penaltyz But the player was clearly defenseless and it was not incidental.
Just wait till this exact play happens to a Bama player. Then some people will change their minds
Tell me about the missed targeting by TAMU against UT….What did you think of it?
Hahahaha exactly what I have been thinking. They were both targeting imo
Exactly and now i see it as targeting why do you think i said it
It has already happened against bama…..You said the exact same thing on multiple articles and asked why bama fans didn’t see it as targeting. Why did TAMU fans not see the hit against UT as targeting? …..Lets not pretend that fans of all teams dont see things differently when it involves theor team.
Who cares about all that. Is the kid okay? That is my main concern.
Why don’t we go ahead and have people stand out there with pillows and throw them down before someone hits the ground. Hits like that make the game worth watching.
This used to be called “spearing.” Making yourself into a human torpedo launched at, and hitting, a guy’s face is unnecessary roughness whether or not it fits the possibly narrower category of “targeting.”
How the officials didn’t at least look at it blows my mind.
Well we know you have no idea what you’re talking about…..this is not and never has been considered spearing. Maybe you should look up spearing. …
According to the 2016-17 rule book, Saban is correct in saying this is not targeting. However, if the rule change from Sept is already in effect, then it IS “targeting”. It’s actually very clear and leaves little room for debate, though they may aught to change the term to something else. Btw, the change means ANY contact initiated with area of the helmet above the facemask is “targeting”.
i’m a bama fan and pretty much an every team in the sec fan. that was targeting and bama got away with it.bama gets away with more than other teams in the sec but not when they play out of conference. i’m more focused on the sec, not just bama, winning another championship. we need to stick together and pull for the south. jim harbaugh is lurking in the north
Hey yall. I hope yall all have a great day.
Thanks, you too
Of course it was targeting, but what do you expect Saban to say. Hey I hear that hurry up no huddle offense is dangerous too…woops, I guess it’s not anymore. Please, does anyone think these calls are going to get made by the replay official on Bama? Gee…I wonder where Tom Ritter is these days?
It doesn’t feel so great when you don’t get the targeting call you expected, right A&M?
#solid
The video showing a few seconds before the moment of impact but, if it is looked at a few frames before that the tackling player is standing straight up and then lowers his head towards the helmet of the other player. If that is not the definition of targeting I do not know what is. I do not know if the call would have changed the game and Bama played a great game.
There are two parts of the rule, one when it’s a hit on a defenseless player and one when not. When not a hit on a defenseless player, it is targeting when the player initiates contact with the crown of the helmet. I don’t know why coaches, officials, and review officials seem not to know this. Announcers and a ton of fans recognize this…
Good hit, wish he wouldn’t have gotten up
Dumba$$……Go play in traffic.
Wow….just Wow!
So I guess Fournette should be flagged for targeting the Ole Miss DB. It meets the definition. My point is that coaches have been told how the rule will be administered and it was never intended to apply to two players running toward each other. Be careful what you ask for or 3rd and 1 will be nothing but a targeting trap. Stop crying and let them play big boy football! For what it’s worth I wish they hadn’t called the A&M guy for targeting. I agree that under current rules he was defenseless. But it was still a beautiful block and I hate to see a player removed for a beautiful play.
It absolutely was targeting. He led with the crown of the helmet directly into the facemask of the runner. Nick Saban doesn’t know the rules?
“The SEC Refs are wrong, the coach is wrong, the SEC office is wrong. I can cut and paste a rule without understanding it’s application and I’m right.” You people crack me up.
It wasn’t targeting, he was not defenseless, he braced for the impact of the tackle which was in the open field.
oh, for the love of pete. let these kids play the game and lose the soccer mom targeting rules. we have 100 pt. games with 1200 yrds of offense, because we’ve made it improbable to stop an passing offense. give the defense back their swagger, make it difficult to run a 5’8 170 lb receiver across the middle. targeting. seriously. of course the guy with the ball or the receiver about to catch the ball is targeted. he’s supposed to be. part of the defender’s job is to make the offensive player not want to carry the ball, not want to catch the ball…. we haven’t seen a receiver with alligator arms in years.
So what if a running back lowers his head? Uses his head as a battering ram…?
Or what if the guy ducks his head trying to protect himself and then contact is made?