Ejection?

[Casey T]

On the bright side, unless the refs really do have it out for us (which I don't think they do), then this will even out over the course of the season and we theoretically shouldn't see nearly as many of these dumb calls go against us in our next 5 games. If anything, according to probability and chance, they should go against our opponents more than us from here on out. But we'll see what happens, might be wishful thinking on my part

 

[Zubaz]

Here's the hit:

He might have intended to go for the ball, but his hands never get close to it. More likely he was trying to tackle low in case he did catch it and wasn't expecting the receiver's head to be so low.

Still, it's a very clear targeting, that's always going to be called. As it should.

 

[PO Frog]

If there is no intent evident, it absolutely should not be part of the rule. The purpose of the rule is to modify behavior. If you start punishing and penalizing for inadvertent behavior, the rule ceases to make sense as a mechanism for modifying what you are supposedly attempting to change. It's just arbitrary punishment because of a bad result. Why not just kick out the team captain since there seems to be no need for a connection between the result and bad intentions? That will really punish. Dumb

 

[crash813]

I saw like 4 players get ejected in 4 games this weekend.  It started to feel like a rule that atleast one player has to be ejected a game now.
 
The Mich State one was bad.  I also thought the one from the UCLA game was bad as well.  WR threw a massive block on a LB and even in replay couldn't see helmet to helmet.  At most his helmet caught his facemask.  Again, just taking aggressive plays out of football.

 

[TooColdU]

Hey NCAA, guess what? You can eject the player, but you can't disqualify the hits. You aren't ever going to help eliminate head injuries unless you remove the use of helmets. Helmets, no matter how "safe" they are, are an incentive to be wreckless. I doubt players would lead with the crown of their head if it were exposed.

 

[toadallytexan]

Played a little rugby in my day, and must reluctantly agree.

 

[NNM]

Why not just kick out the team captain since there seems to be no need for a connection between the result and bad intentions? That will really punish. Dumb

Because the team captain (one of them anyway) already served a multi-game suspension for teaching a lesson on tolerance and humility to our Greek students and having poor choice in beer.

 

[Kejones68]

Hey NCAA, guess what? You can eject the player, but you can't disqualify the hits. You aren't ever going to help eliminate head injuries unless you remove the use of helmets. Helmets, no matter how "safe" they are, are an incentive to be wreckless. I doubt players would lead with the crown of their head if it were exposed.

 
Actually, IMO, the first thing to do to start getting rid of hits like that, or others that were worse this past weekend, is to get ESPN and other sports channels to stop putting the huge hits all over their programming.  It motivates  players to want to be on sportscenter.  They just run at someone as fast as they can and hit them as hard as they can, no wrapping up, no kind of form tackling at all, it's just using their shoulder or helmet.  Pee Wee and high school coaches can teach real tackling all they want, but if a kid knows that running into someone as hard as he can is going to get him on the news, then guess what he's going to do.
 
I played rugby in my day as well, helmets and pads are all just gladiator armor for these guys.  There are far fewer major injuries in rugby than in football.  Rugby players are taught correct form tackling and not attempting to wrap up while tackling in rugby is a penalty.  I'm not saying rugby is great and football isn't for all of you that want to instantly jump on that wagon (even though I think rugby is far better than football lol), but you have to look at the numbers of injuries when form tackling compared to going for the big hit.

 

[Kejones68]

If there is no intent evident, it absolutely should not be part of the rule. The purpose of the rule is to modify behavior. If you start punishing and penalizing for inadvertent behavior, the rule ceases to make sense as a mechanism for modifying what you are supposedly attempting to change. It's just arbitrary punishment because of a bad result. Why not just kick out the team captain since there seems to be no need for a connection between the result and bad intentions? That will really punish. Dumb

 
He led with the crown of his helmet.  Whether there was intent or not, that is a dangerous play for both players, but significantly more dangerous for the player that is doing the hitting.  That is why that rule is in place...for the safety of the player doing the hitting.  There was nothing arbitrary about it, his face was looking down at the ground, he should have been looking at the player he was tackling.