The CardBoard
Pac-12 Says Goodman Hit on Owusu was LEGAL - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Pac-12 Says Goodman Hit on Owusu was LEGAL (/thread-12767.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Pac-12 Says Goodman Hit on Owusu was LEGAL - RJ_82 - 09-28-2016

In response to an email I sent to the Pac-12's head of officiating, David Coleman, (thank you, Cardboarders, for the content I repurposed and the email address), I received the email below from Dave Hirsch, the Pac-12's VP of Communications.  While I was pleasantly surprised to receive a response at all, I was astounded/infuriated by Hirsch's judgment that the Goodman hit on Owusu was not targeting.  The crux of Hirsch's explanation is that it was legal because (i) Owusu was not defenseless, and (ii) Goodman used the "front" (or forehead part) rather than the "crown" (or "top", as clarified by the rule itself).  Considering that the front part of the helmet seems equally dangerous (at least to the other player), this seems like a somewhat arbitrary distinction (a few degrees of head angle?) and completely illogical, if the intention of the rule is to prevent injuries.

RJ. (my first post)
--------------------------------------------------
From: Dave Hirsch [mailto:dhirsch@pac-12.org]
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 6:11 PM
To: RJ
Subject: Re: UCLA targeting
Importance: High

RJ,

Thank you for your email. Per your question/comments, please know that the Conference office reviews all targeting plays and targeting reviews for each football game all season long. The play you reference was included in our review this week. Following our review, our determination is that there was no violation of the playing rules. This matches the call on the field. The Stanford student-athlete was no longer a defenseless player once he caught the ball and became a ball carrier prior to the tackle, which nullifies NCAA Playing Rule 9-1-4 (hits to the head and neck area of a defenseless player).  While the game officials on the field did not call targeting on the play, the Instant Replay Official had the ability to stop the game to review the play for targeting and did so in this situation. While there was helmet to helmet contact, the Replay Official determined that the contact was made with the front and not the crown of the helmet as indicated in playing rule 9-1-3 ("No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet").

Thanks again for your comments. Please know that the Pac-12 Conference holds student-athlete health and safety to the highest regard and has been active in adopting player safety rules in games and practices, and has been actively involved in promoting and funding research that supports student athlete well being and safety.  Going forward, we will continue to be a part of the discussions around the rules for targeting that are happening with the playing rules committee, coaches and administrators in order to improve the game and protect the student-athletes.

David Hirsch
Vice President, Communications
Pac-12 Conference
360 3rd St., 3rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94107
direct. 415.549.2842 // cell. 415.370.7112
dhirsch@pac-12.org
pac-12.com/media-center
@pac12
---------------------------------------------
From: RJ 
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 11:04 AM
To: dcoleman@pac-12.org
Subject: UCLA targeting
Importance: High

David,

Please take action against the officials for not properly calling the targeting by UCLA defenders (especially Tahaan Goodman) in the Stanford-UCLA football game on Saturday, September 24.

An analysis on the Stanford sports blog Rule of Tree at http://www.ruleoftree.com/2016/9/25/13048182/egregious-targeting-committed-by-ucla-against-stanford-last-night
shows a pattern of targeting that the officiating crew repeatedly failed to call. As Rule of Tree points out, UCLA defensive back Tahaan Goodman left his feet to deliver a hit from the top of his helmet to the head of Dalton Shultz, which was not called.

Later in the game, Francis Owusu was blatantly targeted by the same UCLA defender, Tahaan Goodman, which resulted in a “fumble,” which ESPN rated a “worst play of the day.”  http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=17629772.  During the broadcast, Kirk Herbsteit, Chris Fowler and ESPN’s replay official all thought it was definitely targeting.
A sports photographer in Los Angeles also took the following photo that shows how dangerous and damaging that blow was. https://www.instagram.com/p/BKyUOc-BUlH/  After that blow to the head, Francis Owusu had to leave the game and did not return.

Later in the game, quarterback Ryan Burns was hit/targeted in the head while running with the ball.  The fact that the tackler appeared more shaken up than Burns is a reminder that targeting is extremely dangerous for both the defender and the player being struck.

If the conference and officiating crews do not enforce the targeting rule, how can parents feel that their children will be safe when they are recruited by Pac-12 football teams? If a UCLA player (or an opponent) is permanently injured this season or suffers later in life, is it possible that better enforcement of the targeting rule might have prevented it?

Other info:

Goodman was headhunting all day long, using his helmet as a weapon.  At 1:55 left in the 2nd (after the Owusu hit), Bryce Love is being spun down in a tackle, and he comes flying through the screen, helmet again in a spearing position.  This guy is out to inflict injury and knock people out of the game.  Fortunately, Love's head gets down just in time to avoid the collision.  At 6:32 left in the 4th, he again at full speed lowers his helmet and launches directly at Cam Scarlett's head and throws in a forearm as well.  This is only what can be seen on the TV broadcast; I wouldn't be surprised if there were more off screen.  Perhaps action against Goodman is also warranted?

The refs did a terrible job of protecting players.  Not a single call was made for hits to the helmet all day.  Burns took a forearm to the helmet from Judge as he was going down on a tackle on Stanford's first drive (a penalty was instead called on Caspers for holding).  Burns took the helmet to helmet from Pickett at 5:50 in the 3rd.  Pickett was clearly slow to get up and staggering, although the refs did nothing to help him get off the field and the coaches sent in a substitution.  AT Hall was slapped/struck right in the helmet by McKinley at 0:55 left in the 2nd in plain view of the refs, no penalty except Dave Bright is called for a false start.  This was obvious as well because the rest of the play had stopped because of the false start.

Thank you for your consideration and potential action.

RJ.


Pac-12 Says Goodman Hit on Owusu was LEGAL - RJ_82 - 09-28-2016

In response to an email I sent to the Pac-12's head of officiating, David Coleman, (thank you, Cardboarders, for the content I repurposed and the email address), I received the email below from Dave Hirsch, the Pac-12's VP of Communications.  While I was pleasantly surprised to receive a response at all, I was astounded/infuriated by Hirsch's judgment that the Goodman hit on Owusu was not targeting.  The crux of Hirsch's explanation is that it was legal because (i) Owusu was not defenseless, and (ii) Goodman used the "front" (or forehead part) rather than the "crown" (or "top", as clarified by the rule itself).  Considering that the front part of the helmet seems equally dangerous (at least to the other player), this seems like a somewhat arbitrary distinction (a few degrees of head angle?) and completely illogical, if the intention of the rule is to prevent injuries.

RJ. (my first post)
--------------------------------------------------
From: Dave Hirsch [mailto:dhirsch@pac-12.org]
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 6:11 PM
To: RJ
Subject: Re: UCLA targeting
Importance: High

RJ,

Thank you for your email. Per your question/comments, please know that the Conference office reviews all targeting plays and targeting reviews for each football game all season long. The play you reference was included in our review this week. Following our review, our determination is that there was no violation of the playing rules. This matches the call on the field. The Stanford student-athlete was no longer a defenseless player once he caught the ball and became a ball carrier prior to the tackle, which nullifies NCAA Playing Rule 9-1-4 (hits to the head and neck area of a defenseless player).  While the game officials on the field did not call targeting on the play, the Instant Replay Official had the ability to stop the game to review the play for targeting and did so in this situation. While there was helmet to helmet contact, the Replay Official determined that the contact was made with the front and not the crown of the helmet as indicated in playing rule 9-1-3 ("No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet").

Thanks again for your comments. Please know that the Pac-12 Conference holds student-athlete health and safety to the highest regard and has been active in adopting player safety rules in games and practices, and has been actively involved in promoting and funding research that supports student athlete well being and safety.  Going forward, we will continue to be a part of the discussions around the rules for targeting that are happening with the playing rules committee, coaches and administrators in order to improve the game and protect the student-athletes.

David Hirsch
Vice President, Communications
Pac-12 Conference
360 3rd St., 3rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94107
direct. 415.549.2842 // cell. 415.370.7112
dhirsch@pac-12.org
pac-12.com/media-center
@pac12
---------------------------------------------
From: RJ 
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 11:04 AM
To: dcoleman@pac-12.org
Subject: UCLA targeting
Importance: High

David,

Please take action against the officials for not properly calling the targeting by UCLA defenders (especially Tahaan Goodman) in the Stanford-UCLA football game on Saturday, September 24.

An analysis on the Stanford sports blog Rule of Tree at http://www.ruleoftree.com/2016/9/25/13048182/egregious-targeting-committed-by-ucla-against-stanford-last-night
shows a pattern of targeting that the officiating crew repeatedly failed to call. As Rule of Tree points out, UCLA defensive back Tahaan Goodman left his feet to deliver a hit from the top of his helmet to the head of Dalton Shultz, which was not called.

Later in the game, Francis Owusu was blatantly targeted by the same UCLA defender, Tahaan Goodman, which resulted in a “fumble,” which ESPN rated a “worst play of the day.”  http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=17629772.  During the broadcast, Kirk Herbsteit, Chris Fowler and ESPN’s replay official all thought it was definitely targeting.
A sports photographer in Los Angeles also took the following photo that shows how dangerous and damaging that blow was. https://www.instagram.com/p/BKyUOc-BUlH/  After that blow to the head, Francis Owusu had to leave the game and did not return.

Later in the game, quarterback Ryan Burns was hit/targeted in the head while running with the ball.  The fact that the tackler appeared more shaken up than Burns is a reminder that targeting is extremely dangerous for both the defender and the player being struck.

If the conference and officiating crews do not enforce the targeting rule, how can parents feel that their children will be safe when they are recruited by Pac-12 football teams? If a UCLA player (or an opponent) is permanently injured this season or suffers later in life, is it possible that better enforcement of the targeting rule might have prevented it?

Other info:

Goodman was headhunting all day long, using his helmet as a weapon.  At 1:55 left in the 2nd (after the Owusu hit), Bryce Love is being spun down in a tackle, and he comes flying through the screen, helmet again in a spearing position.  This guy is out to inflict injury and knock people out of the game.  Fortunately, Love's head gets down just in time to avoid the collision.  At 6:32 left in the 4th, he again at full speed lowers his helmet and launches directly at Cam Scarlett's head and throws in a forearm as well.  This is only what can be seen on the TV broadcast; I wouldn't be surprised if there were more off screen.  Perhaps action against Goodman is also warranted?

The refs did a terrible job of protecting players.  Not a single call was made for hits to the helmet all day.  Burns took a forearm to the helmet from Judge as he was going down on a tackle on Stanford's first drive (a penalty was instead called on Caspers for holding).  Burns took the helmet to helmet from Pickett at 5:50 in the 3rd.  Pickett was clearly slow to get up and staggering, although the refs did nothing to help him get off the field and the coaches sent in a substitution.  AT Hall was slapped/struck right in the helmet by McKinley at 0:55 left in the 2nd in plain view of the refs, no penalty except Dave Bright is called for a false start.  This was obvious as well because the rest of the play had stopped because of the false start.

Thank you for your consideration and potential action.

RJ.


Pac-12 Says Goodman Hit on Owusu was LEGAL - RJ_82 - 09-28-2016

In response to an email I sent to the Pac-12's head of officiating, David Coleman, (thank you, Cardboarders, for the content I repurposed and the email address), I received the email below from Dave Hirsch, the Pac-12's VP of Communications.  While I was pleasantly surprised to receive a response at all, I was astounded/infuriated by Hirsch's judgment that the Goodman hit on Owusu was not targeting.  The crux of Hirsch's explanation is that it was legal because (i) Owusu was not defenseless, and (ii) Goodman used the "front" (or forehead part) rather than the "crown" (or "top", as clarified by the rule itself).  Considering that the front part of the helmet seems equally dangerous (at least to the other player), this seems like a somewhat arbitrary distinction (a few degrees of head angle?) and completely illogical, if the intention of the rule is to prevent injuries.

RJ. (my first post)
--------------------------------------------------
From: Dave Hirsch [mailto:dhirsch@pac-12.org]
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 6:11 PM
To: RJ
Subject: Re: UCLA targeting
Importance: High

RJ,

Thank you for your email. Per your question/comments, please know that the Conference office reviews all targeting plays and targeting reviews for each football game all season long. The play you reference was included in our review this week. Following our review, our determination is that there was no violation of the playing rules. This matches the call on the field. The Stanford student-athlete was no longer a defenseless player once he caught the ball and became a ball carrier prior to the tackle, which nullifies NCAA Playing Rule 9-1-4 (hits to the head and neck area of a defenseless player).  While the game officials on the field did not call targeting on the play, the Instant Replay Official had the ability to stop the game to review the play for targeting and did so in this situation. While there was helmet to helmet contact, the Replay Official determined that the contact was made with the front and not the crown of the helmet as indicated in playing rule 9-1-3 ("No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet").

Thanks again for your comments. Please know that the Pac-12 Conference holds student-athlete health and safety to the highest regard and has been active in adopting player safety rules in games and practices, and has been actively involved in promoting and funding research that supports student athlete well being and safety.  Going forward, we will continue to be a part of the discussions around the rules for targeting that are happening with the playing rules committee, coaches and administrators in order to improve the game and protect the student-athletes.

David Hirsch
Vice President, Communications
Pac-12 Conference
360 3rd St., 3rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94107
direct. 415.549.2842 // cell. 415.370.7112
dhirsch@pac-12.org
pac-12.com/media-center
@pac12
---------------------------------------------
From: RJ 
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 11:04 AM
To: dcoleman@pac-12.org
Subject: UCLA targeting
Importance: High

David,

Please take action against the officials for not properly calling the targeting by UCLA defenders (especially Tahaan Goodman) in the Stanford-UCLA football game on Saturday, September 24.

An analysis on the Stanford sports blog Rule of Tree at http://www.ruleoftree.com/2016/9/25/13048182/egregious-targeting-committed-by-ucla-against-stanford-last-night
shows a pattern of targeting that the officiating crew repeatedly failed to call. As Rule of Tree points out, UCLA defensive back Tahaan Goodman left his feet to deliver a hit from the top of his helmet to the head of Dalton Shultz, which was not called.

Later in the game, Francis Owusu was blatantly targeted by the same UCLA defender, Tahaan Goodman, which resulted in a “fumble,” which ESPN rated a “worst play of the day.”  http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=17629772.  During the broadcast, Kirk Herbsteit, Chris Fowler and ESPN’s replay official all thought it was definitely targeting.
A sports photographer in Los Angeles also took the following photo that shows how dangerous and damaging that blow was. https://www.instagram.com/p/BKyUOc-BUlH/  After that blow to the head, Francis Owusu had to leave the game and did not return.

Later in the game, quarterback Ryan Burns was hit/targeted in the head while running with the ball.  The fact that the tackler appeared more shaken up than Burns is a reminder that targeting is extremely dangerous for both the defender and the player being struck.

If the conference and officiating crews do not enforce the targeting rule, how can parents feel that their children will be safe when they are recruited by Pac-12 football teams? If a UCLA player (or an opponent) is permanently injured this season or suffers later in life, is it possible that better enforcement of the targeting rule might have prevented it?

Other info:

Goodman was headhunting all day long, using his helmet as a weapon.  At 1:55 left in the 2nd (after the Owusu hit), Bryce Love is being spun down in a tackle, and he comes flying through the screen, helmet again in a spearing position.  This guy is out to inflict injury and knock people out of the game.  Fortunately, Love's head gets down just in time to avoid the collision.  At 6:32 left in the 4th, he again at full speed lowers his helmet and launches directly at Cam Scarlett's head and throws in a forearm as well.  This is only what can be seen on the TV broadcast; I wouldn't be surprised if there were more off screen.  Perhaps action against Goodman is also warranted?

The refs did a terrible job of protecting players.  Not a single call was made for hits to the helmet all day.  Burns took a forearm to the helmet from Judge as he was going down on a tackle on Stanford's first drive (a penalty was instead called on Caspers for holding).  Burns took the helmet to helmet from Pickett at 5:50 in the 3rd.  Pickett was clearly slow to get up and staggering, although the refs did nothing to help him get off the field and the coaches sent in a substitution.  AT Hall was slapped/struck right in the helmet by McKinley at 0:55 left in the 2nd in plain view of the refs, no penalty except Dave Bright is called for a false start.  This was obvious as well because the rest of the play had stopped because of the false start.

Thank you for your consideration and potential action.

RJ.


Re: Pac-12 Says Goodman Hit was LEGAL - 81alum - 09-28-2016

Absolutely appalling.  It hinges on what they define the crown of the helmet, I guess.

By the way, nearly all helmets in the pros and most in college (but not Stanford's, it seems) have a hexagonal shape on the forward facing portion of the top of the helmet.  What is this?  Is this a safety feature of some kind?  I have wondered if it was a shape that had something to do with detecting targeting. 

Edit:  I found out this is the Riddell Speedflex helmet, which has a cantilevered cutout that allows the helmet to flex and absorb more impact.  I presume the location of this cutout is placed to combat the most dangerous impacts on the helmet.  And it is the location of this cutout that is exactly planted in Owusu's face.

Re: Pac-12 Says Goodman Hit was LEGAL - 81alum - 09-28-2016

Absolutely appalling.  It hinges on what they define the crown of the helmet, I guess.

By the way, nearly all helmets in the pros and most in college (but not Stanford's, it seems) have a hexagonal shape on the forward facing portion of the top of the helmet.  What is this?  Is this a safety feature of some kind?  I have wondered if it was a shape that had something to do with detecting targeting. 

Edit:  I found out this is the Riddell Speedflex helmet, which has a cantilevered cutout that allows the helmet to flex and absorb more impact.  I presume the location of this cutout is placed to combat the most dangerous impacts on the helmet.  And it is the location of this cutout that is exactly planted in Owusu's face.

Re: Pac-12 Says Goodman Hit was LEGAL - 81alum - 09-28-2016

Absolutely appalling.  It hinges on what they define the crown of the helmet, I guess.

By the way, nearly all helmets in the pros and most in college (but not Stanford's, it seems) have a hexagonal shape on the forward facing portion of the top of the helmet.  What is this?  Is this a safety feature of some kind?  I have wondered if it was a shape that had something to do with detecting targeting. 

Edit:  I found out this is the Riddell Speedflex helmet, which has a cantilevered cutout that allows the helmet to flex and absorb more impact.  I presume the location of this cutout is placed to combat the most dangerous impacts on the helmet.  And it is the location of this cutout that is exactly planted in Owusu's face.

Re: Pac-12 Says Goodman Hit was LEGAL - OutsiderFan - 09-29-2016

Everyone should email the Pac-12.  I'm not on social media, but this issue should be going viral with a lot more attention.  Maybe contact the guy who heads up the concussion awareness project too?  http://chrisnowinski.com

Anyway, here's my email to Hirsch:

Dear sir,

This morning I saw an email exchange posted on a Stanford message board about the Tahaan Goodman hit on Francis Owusus last Saturday night in the Rose Bowl, and had to let my feelings be known, because the conference’s stance is unacceptable.

First, study this image: https://www.instagram.com/p/BKyUOc-BUlH/

How is Goodman not hitting Owusu with the “crown” of his helmet, in the face?  He’s lucky there were no facial fractures.

Even if it technically wasn’t the crown - though I certainly am curious to hear an argument as to how this wasn’t the crown, because I can see - the entire point of calling targeting is to eliminate deliberate head hits, is not?  How can anyone claim this wasn’t a deliberate shot to the head?  Please explain how being a defenseless receiver is any worse than being a defenseless runner in the open field.  What is the point of even having a targeting rule - ostensibly designed to prevent traumatic head injuries - if there is a giant loophole to allow them in some form?  This is like outlawing murder by gun, but allowing it by knife.  It’s  absolutely absurd.  If the Owusu hit isn’t illegal, why have the targeting rule at all? 

The Pac-12 is essentially saying it is perfectly acceptable for defenders to deliberately hit ball carriers in the helmet in an effort to knock them unconscious so they drop the football and create a turnover.  Think about this.  Every defensive player has just had it made clear, in an official statement by the Pac-12 Conference, that they can head hunt without penalty.  Is that what we want?  In an age when more lawsuits are being filed against institutions that allow head injuries to happen, the conference is opening itself up to significant legal liability by not immediately making clear the kinds of hit Goodman leveled are prohibited.

Now, I understand all helmet-to-helmet hits can’t be eliminated, particularly in and around the line of scrimmage, so here is a suggestions to consider:

1. No ball carrier beyond three yards of the LOS can be targeted with a helmet to helmet hit
2. Any defender who lowers his head to deliver a blow with his helmet outside this area is considered guilty*

*If the image above showed Goodman hitting Owusu facemark to facemark, it would be legal, but he clearly lowered his head to protect himself and hurt Owusu with his helmet - unacceptable.

Hitting within the LOS is expected, and all players in that area are ready to be hit, and see hits coming, so they protect themselves.  By definition, Francis Owusu was not expecting to be hit in the head, because if he was, he would have ducked or turned himself to be ready for such a collision.  I have an idea. Go interview Francis Owusu.  Ask him if he thought it would be legal to be hit the way Goodman hit him, and if he would have been more aware of what might happen if he thought such a hit could be leveled on him.

As much as I hate to see these college kids being put at risk by the Pac-12 conference, part of me hopes more of these kinds of hits happen, and the conference is forced into action because it has a crisis.  The idea of “we’ll review in the offseason” when there is a serious loophole in the rules that puts young men at risk right now, is the embodiment of abdicating responsibility and failing to lead. 

Disgusting.

Re: Pac-12 Says Goodman Hit was LEGAL - OutsiderFan - 09-29-2016

Everyone should email the Pac-12.  I'm not on social media, but this issue should be going viral with a lot more attention.  Maybe contact the guy who heads up the concussion awareness project too?  http://chrisnowinski.com

Anyway, here's my email to Hirsch:

Dear sir,

This morning I saw an email exchange posted on a Stanford message board about the Tahaan Goodman hit on Francis Owusus last Saturday night in the Rose Bowl, and had to let my feelings be known, because the conference’s stance is unacceptable.

First, study this image: https://www.instagram.com/p/BKyUOc-BUlH/

How is Goodman not hitting Owusu with the “crown” of his helmet, in the face?  He’s lucky there were no facial fractures.

Even if it technically wasn’t the crown - though I certainly am curious to hear an argument as to how this wasn’t the crown, because I can see - the entire point of calling targeting is to eliminate deliberate head hits, is not?  How can anyone claim this wasn’t a deliberate shot to the head?  Please explain how being a defenseless receiver is any worse than being a defenseless runner in the open field.  What is the point of even having a targeting rule - ostensibly designed to prevent traumatic head injuries - if there is a giant loophole to allow them in some form?  This is like outlawing murder by gun, but allowing it by knife.  It’s  absolutely absurd.  If the Owusu hit isn’t illegal, why have the targeting rule at all? 

The Pac-12 is essentially saying it is perfectly acceptable for defenders to deliberately hit ball carriers in the helmet in an effort to knock them unconscious so they drop the football and create a turnover.  Think about this.  Every defensive player has just had it made clear, in an official statement by the Pac-12 Conference, that they can head hunt without penalty.  Is that what we want?  In an age when more lawsuits are being filed against institutions that allow head injuries to happen, the conference is opening itself up to significant legal liability by not immediately making clear the kinds of hit Goodman leveled are prohibited.

Now, I understand all helmet-to-helmet hits can’t be eliminated, particularly in and around the line of scrimmage, so here is a suggestions to consider:

1. No ball carrier beyond three yards of the LOS can be targeted with a helmet to helmet hit
2. Any defender who lowers his head to deliver a blow with his helmet outside this area is considered guilty*

*If the image above showed Goodman hitting Owusu facemark to facemark, it would be legal, but he clearly lowered his head to protect himself and hurt Owusu with his helmet - unacceptable.

Hitting within the LOS is expected, and all players in that area are ready to be hit, and see hits coming, so they protect themselves.  By definition, Francis Owusu was not expecting to be hit in the head, because if he was, he would have ducked or turned himself to be ready for such a collision.  I have an idea. Go interview Francis Owusu.  Ask him if he thought it would be legal to be hit the way Goodman hit him, and if he would have been more aware of what might happen if he thought such a hit could be leveled on him.

As much as I hate to see these college kids being put at risk by the Pac-12 conference, part of me hopes more of these kinds of hits happen, and the conference is forced into action because it has a crisis.  The idea of “we’ll review in the offseason” when there is a serious loophole in the rules that puts young men at risk right now, is the embodiment of abdicating responsibility and failing to lead. 

Disgusting.

Re: Pac-12 Says Goodman Hit was LEGAL - OutsiderFan - 09-29-2016

Everyone should email the Pac-12.  I'm not on social media, but this issue should be going viral with a lot more attention.  Maybe contact the guy who heads up the concussion awareness project too?  http://chrisnowinski.com

Anyway, here's my email to Hirsch:

Dear sir,

This morning I saw an email exchange posted on a Stanford message board about the Tahaan Goodman hit on Francis Owusus last Saturday night in the Rose Bowl, and had to let my feelings be known, because the conference’s stance is unacceptable.

First, study this image: https://www.instagram.com/p/BKyUOc-BUlH/

How is Goodman not hitting Owusu with the “crown” of his helmet, in the face?  He’s lucky there were no facial fractures.

Even if it technically wasn’t the crown - though I certainly am curious to hear an argument as to how this wasn’t the crown, because I can see - the entire point of calling targeting is to eliminate deliberate head hits, is not?  How can anyone claim this wasn’t a deliberate shot to the head?  Please explain how being a defenseless receiver is any worse than being a defenseless runner in the open field.  What is the point of even having a targeting rule - ostensibly designed to prevent traumatic head injuries - if there is a giant loophole to allow them in some form?  This is like outlawing murder by gun, but allowing it by knife.  It’s  absolutely absurd.  If the Owusu hit isn’t illegal, why have the targeting rule at all? 

The Pac-12 is essentially saying it is perfectly acceptable for defenders to deliberately hit ball carriers in the helmet in an effort to knock them unconscious so they drop the football and create a turnover.  Think about this.  Every defensive player has just had it made clear, in an official statement by the Pac-12 Conference, that they can head hunt without penalty.  Is that what we want?  In an age when more lawsuits are being filed against institutions that allow head injuries to happen, the conference is opening itself up to significant legal liability by not immediately making clear the kinds of hit Goodman leveled are prohibited.

Now, I understand all helmet-to-helmet hits can’t be eliminated, particularly in and around the line of scrimmage, so here is a suggestions to consider:

1. No ball carrier beyond three yards of the LOS can be targeted with a helmet to helmet hit
2. Any defender who lowers his head to deliver a blow with his helmet outside this area is considered guilty*

*If the image above showed Goodman hitting Owusu facemark to facemark, it would be legal, but he clearly lowered his head to protect himself and hurt Owusu with his helmet - unacceptable.

Hitting within the LOS is expected, and all players in that area are ready to be hit, and see hits coming, so they protect themselves.  By definition, Francis Owusu was not expecting to be hit in the head, because if he was, he would have ducked or turned himself to be ready for such a collision.  I have an idea. Go interview Francis Owusu.  Ask him if he thought it would be legal to be hit the way Goodman hit him, and if he would have been more aware of what might happen if he thought such a hit could be leveled on him.

As much as I hate to see these college kids being put at risk by the Pac-12 conference, part of me hopes more of these kinds of hits happen, and the conference is forced into action because it has a crisis.  The idea of “we’ll review in the offseason” when there is a serious loophole in the rules that puts young men at risk right now, is the embodiment of abdicating responsibility and failing to lead. 

Disgusting.

Re: Pac-12 Says Goodman Hit was LEGAL - winflop - 09-29-2016

This is a ridiculous response.  My first thought was "how many more players are going to be concussed by helmet to helmet hits?"  This "ruling" opens the floodgates, and my second thought was it's only a matter of time before the conference is sued.

I don't care what part of the helmet is used.  If you LAUNCH yourself at a player - defenseless or otherwise - and ANY part of your helmet hits their helmet before any other contact, that is a 15-yard penalty at a minimum.  Goodman did this at least THREE TIMES in that game and was never even flagged much less tossed.

The part that really irks me is the conference's statement about how important player safety is.  What a complete load of BS.  How anyone can say that with a straight face is beyond me.  Here's my email to Coleman & Hirsch:


Dear Mr. Coleman & Mr. Hirsch,

I can’t tell you how disappointed and, frankly disgusted, I am with the Pac-12’s decision regarding the multiple helmet-to-helmet hits that Stanford football players Francis Owusu, Dalton Schultz, and Ryan Burns took from UCLA football player Tahaan Goodman in Saturday’s game.  In all three cases, not only was there helmet-to-helmet contact above Goodman’s facemask, but in all three cases Goodman LAUNCHED himself at the player.  Goodman also attempted to make similar hits on Bryce Love and Cameron Scarlett.  Fortunately he was not as successful in those attempts.

What bothers me more than anything else is your statement “The Pac-12 Conference holds student-athlete health and safety in the highest regard.”  I have trouble understanding how you can say that with a straight face.  You have just opened up a Pandora’s Box of defensive players who are going to look at what Goodman did and determine that this is legal in the Pac-12.  How many more players will be concussed because of that?  How many more will be knocked unconscious?

The Pac-12 already has a horrible reputation in college football for poor officiating.  You did yourselves no favors by stating that your training emphasis prior to this season was on uniform violations.  Your abject failure to not only properly enforce the rules against a player who was CLEARLY out to hurt his opponents, but also to punish the officials who failed to gain control of the situation, shows me that the problem not only persists but is getting worse not better.  I strongly suggest you get your officials re-trained first and foremost on protecting player health and safety – clearly this is sorely lacking.

I hope you can fix the rules before next season, but there are still two months of games this year where player health and safety risks are now elevated as a result of your inexplicable decision.  This required IMMEDIATE action to protect the safety of players on both sides of the ball, and the Pac-12 punted.

Re: Pac-12 Says Goodman Hit was LEGAL - winflop - 09-29-2016

This is a ridiculous response.  My first thought was "how many more players are going to be concussed by helmet to helmet hits?"  This "ruling" opens the floodgates, and my second thought was it's only a matter of time before the conference is sued.

I don't care what part of the helmet is used.  If you LAUNCH yourself at a player - defenseless or otherwise - and ANY part of your helmet hits their helmet before any other contact, that is a 15-yard penalty at a minimum.  Goodman did this at least THREE TIMES in that game and was never even flagged much less tossed.

The part that really irks me is the conference's statement about how important player safety is.  What a complete load of BS.  How anyone can say that with a straight face is beyond me.  Here's my email to Coleman & Hirsch:


Dear Mr. Coleman & Mr. Hirsch,

I can’t tell you how disappointed and, frankly disgusted, I am with the Pac-12’s decision regarding the multiple helmet-to-helmet hits that Stanford football players Francis Owusu, Dalton Schultz, and Ryan Burns took from UCLA football player Tahaan Goodman in Saturday’s game.  In all three cases, not only was there helmet-to-helmet contact above Goodman’s facemask, but in all three cases Goodman LAUNCHED himself at the player.  Goodman also attempted to make similar hits on Bryce Love and Cameron Scarlett.  Fortunately he was not as successful in those attempts.

What bothers me more than anything else is your statement “The Pac-12 Conference holds student-athlete health and safety in the highest regard.”  I have trouble understanding how you can say that with a straight face.  You have just opened up a Pandora’s Box of defensive players who are going to look at what Goodman did and determine that this is legal in the Pac-12.  How many more players will be concussed because of that?  How many more will be knocked unconscious?

The Pac-12 already has a horrible reputation in college football for poor officiating.  You did yourselves no favors by stating that your training emphasis prior to this season was on uniform violations.  Your abject failure to not only properly enforce the rules against a player who was CLEARLY out to hurt his opponents, but also to punish the officials who failed to gain control of the situation, shows me that the problem not only persists but is getting worse not better.  I strongly suggest you get your officials re-trained first and foremost on protecting player health and safety – clearly this is sorely lacking.

I hope you can fix the rules before next season, but there are still two months of games this year where player health and safety risks are now elevated as a result of your inexplicable decision.  This required IMMEDIATE action to protect the safety of players on both sides of the ball, and the Pac-12 punted.

Re: Pac-12 Says Goodman Hit was LEGAL - winflop - 09-29-2016

This is a ridiculous response.  My first thought was "how many more players are going to be concussed by helmet to helmet hits?"  This "ruling" opens the floodgates, and my second thought was it's only a matter of time before the conference is sued.

I don't care what part of the helmet is used.  If you LAUNCH yourself at a player - defenseless or otherwise - and ANY part of your helmet hits their helmet before any other contact, that is a 15-yard penalty at a minimum.  Goodman did this at least THREE TIMES in that game and was never even flagged much less tossed.

The part that really irks me is the conference's statement about how important player safety is.  What a complete load of BS.  How anyone can say that with a straight face is beyond me.  Here's my email to Coleman & Hirsch:


Dear Mr. Coleman & Mr. Hirsch,

I can’t tell you how disappointed and, frankly disgusted, I am with the Pac-12’s decision regarding the multiple helmet-to-helmet hits that Stanford football players Francis Owusu, Dalton Schultz, and Ryan Burns took from UCLA football player Tahaan Goodman in Saturday’s game.  In all three cases, not only was there helmet-to-helmet contact above Goodman’s facemask, but in all three cases Goodman LAUNCHED himself at the player.  Goodman also attempted to make similar hits on Bryce Love and Cameron Scarlett.  Fortunately he was not as successful in those attempts.

What bothers me more than anything else is your statement “The Pac-12 Conference holds student-athlete health and safety in the highest regard.”  I have trouble understanding how you can say that with a straight face.  You have just opened up a Pandora’s Box of defensive players who are going to look at what Goodman did and determine that this is legal in the Pac-12.  How many more players will be concussed because of that?  How many more will be knocked unconscious?

The Pac-12 already has a horrible reputation in college football for poor officiating.  You did yourselves no favors by stating that your training emphasis prior to this season was on uniform violations.  Your abject failure to not only properly enforce the rules against a player who was CLEARLY out to hurt his opponents, but also to punish the officials who failed to gain control of the situation, shows me that the problem not only persists but is getting worse not better.  I strongly suggest you get your officials re-trained first and foremost on protecting player health and safety – clearly this is sorely lacking.

I hope you can fix the rules before next season, but there are still two months of games this year where player health and safety risks are now elevated as a result of your inexplicable decision.  This required IMMEDIATE action to protect the safety of players on both sides of the ball, and the Pac-12 punted.

Re: Pac-12 Says Goodman Hit was LEGAL - 2006alum - 09-29-2016

Thanks for organizing around this. I'll send a similar email later today. Player safety should be paramount and that instagram photo says it all. When it's the same culprit multiple times, it's not an accident, and it's clear he was out to take people out of the game. Truly despicable.

Re: Pac-12 Says Goodman Hit was LEGAL - 2006alum - 09-29-2016

Thanks for organizing around this. I'll send a similar email later today. Player safety should be paramount and that instagram photo says it all. When it's the same culprit multiple times, it's not an accident, and it's clear he was out to take people out of the game. Truly despicable.

Re: Pac-12 Says Goodman Hit was LEGAL - 2006alum - 09-29-2016

Thanks for organizing around this. I'll send a similar email later today. Player safety should be paramount and that instagram photo says it all. When it's the same culprit multiple times, it's not an accident, and it's clear he was out to take people out of the game. Truly despicable.

Re: Pac-12 Says Goodman Hit was LEGAL - fullmetal - 09-29-2016

The rules are there to prevent the league from getting sued.  The rules are there to mitigate injury while allowing for the excitement of big hits.  The rules are there to allow leeway in official interpretation on the field, in the moment.  They're there to be whatever the refs need them to be.

The entire concept of a defenseless player seems to subvert any intent on the part of the rules committee to protect player health.  Any defensive player that hits with the helmet or offensive player that lowers his helmet should have to sit out a play or few on top of whatever appropriate penalties are levied.

Oh, and remember, the Pac-12 determined that the hit was legal.  Not that it was safe.  Just...legal.

Re: Pac-12 Says Goodman Hit was LEGAL - fullmetal - 09-29-2016

The rules are there to prevent the league from getting sued.  The rules are there to mitigate injury while allowing for the excitement of big hits.  The rules are there to allow leeway in official interpretation on the field, in the moment.  They're there to be whatever the refs need them to be.

The entire concept of a defenseless player seems to subvert any intent on the part of the rules committee to protect player health.  Any defensive player that hits with the helmet or offensive player that lowers his helmet should have to sit out a play or few on top of whatever appropriate penalties are levied.

Oh, and remember, the Pac-12 determined that the hit was legal.  Not that it was safe.  Just...legal.

Re: Pac-12 Says Goodman Hit was LEGAL - fullmetal - 09-29-2016

The rules are there to prevent the league from getting sued.  The rules are there to mitigate injury while allowing for the excitement of big hits.  The rules are there to allow leeway in official interpretation on the field, in the moment.  They're there to be whatever the refs need them to be.

The entire concept of a defenseless player seems to subvert any intent on the part of the rules committee to protect player health.  Any defensive player that hits with the helmet or offensive player that lowers his helmet should have to sit out a play or few on top of whatever appropriate penalties are levied.

Oh, and remember, the Pac-12 determined that the hit was legal.  Not that it was safe.  Just...legal.

Re: Pac-12 Says Goodman Hit was LEGAL - CowboyIndian - 09-29-2016

(09-29-2016, 07:45 AM)fullmetal link Wrote:The rules are there to prevent the league from getting sued.  The rules are there to mitigate injury while allowing for the excitement of big hits.  The rules are there to allow leeway in official interpretation on the field, in the moment.  They're there to be whatever the refs need them to be.

And civil suits are there for when the rules are misinterpreted.

Re: Pac-12 Says Goodman Hit was LEGAL - CowboyIndian - 09-29-2016

(09-29-2016, 07:45 AM)fullmetal link Wrote:The rules are there to prevent the league from getting sued.  The rules are there to mitigate injury while allowing for the excitement of big hits.  The rules are there to allow leeway in official interpretation on the field, in the moment.  They're there to be whatever the refs need them to be.

And civil suits are there for when the rules are misinterpreted.