The video of the play can be viewed by clicking here... Interfering with the catch? NO doubt. Targeting? There's no leading with the helmet so that's out. There is the question of whether the contact was at the neck/head. To me, it looks like he's leading with his forearms and the contact begins roughly where the SEC logo is attached to jerseys—just below the collarbone, at the top, right of the numbers. It's close...but can't say I'd call it an offense that warrants ejection.
Looks like helmet to helmet to me, only thing is it didn't look as if he went in with the crown of the helmet. BTN has really shitty camera angles so it is difficult to see and they don't do a very good job of slowing it down enough to get a good look. This rule still sucks.
Absolutely, and they called it that. What gave you that idea? The ref called it a flagrant foul and issued an ejection. The SSS (Stupid Safety Sadies) in the booth assumed it was targeting. That's the way I saw it too. I also see the official standing on the 11 yard line is unable to see it the same way we do. Once again, it was called as a flagrant kick catch interference and nobody can dispute either. Whether the officiating crew over-penalized #29 by disqualifying him, should be the question. [/quote]
I think this rule is going to unjustly cost more than a few teams some games. Look for LSU's entire defensive backfield to be ejected when we play the Gumps.
I have no problem with an ejection in that case. Seems pretty cut and dry to me. It's totally unnecessary on an unprotected player. The real question will come when the hit is more within the "run of play".
I know Loston brings the wood. I remember when he was younger he would injure himself laying the wood. I bet we have a player ejected tomorrow. It is so subjective.
But yea, that is clearly uncalled for as the ball wasn't even there. I hope refs are smart enough to know that if it is iffy, they leave the player in the game.
