Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

it's a retarded rule and needs to be done away with.

Barham got in trouble for the crime of being 6'3"+ and tackling a QB who is a lot smaller than he is.


https://twitter.com/PatrickBattle18/status/1961992336927334911

This is a stupid tweet.  The rule clearly and explicitly does not require launch, or leading with the crown of the helmet.  Those are two potential issues, but not the only two.  As written, and as the rule has been called for years, that was targeting.

I do agree that the rule itself probably should not apply in many instances like this, but not I'm not sure how to legislate that into the game without making it even more subjective and confusing.

"Michigan edge rusher TJ Guy says LB Jaishawn Barham will return in the second half against Oklahoma and “fuck shit up, for real.”

Spoken like a true Student-Athlete attending Ann Arbor Community College


"I'd like to know who the Head of Admissions in that Den of Dimwits so I can put my foot in his ass"

you're above a low brow post. Unless you want to discuss the tone set further down 71 how players aren't there to play school?

He went facemask to facemask which is helmet to helmet.  It's going to get called every time, at least when it comes to a defender attacking a quarterback in drop-back posture.

Buckeye friend of mine said it best yesterday.  According to specifically how the rule is written and in place, it was targeting. That being said, the tackle is a perfect example of why the rule needs to be fixed because that tackle should not be targeting.

Tough to call when bang-bang and depending which way players are twisting/turning,many times not the intent

Tough to call when bang-bang and depending which way players are twisting/turning,many times not the intent

Yeah I totally agree.  And the problem is, intent is so hard to determine.  It's totally subjective.

Sometimes we see a defender launch himself like a missile, leading with the helmet, and the intent is pretty obviously to cause serious destruction.

Sometimes the case is like this, where it seems like the intent is a just a good hard tackle, but he still initiated contact with his helmet, and hit the QB in the helmet.  

The thing is, even in the latter case, serious injury can be caused to the QB, despite the intent probably being a clean hit.

Which is why it's against the rules.

This is a stupid tweet.  The rule clearly and explicitly does not require launch, or leading with the crown of the helmet.  Those are two potential issues, but not the only two.  As written, and as the rule has been called for years, that was targeting.

I do agree that the rule itself probably should not apply in many instances like this, but not I'm not sure how to legislate that into the game without making it even more subjective and confusing.

it's a stupid tweet. and an even more stupid rule. 

there should only be a rule against intentionally lowering the head and using the crown of a helmet as a weapon. that's it. 

this is tackle fucking football. enough with turning it into a game for fucking pussies.

it's a stupid tweet. and an even more stupid rule.

there should only be a rule against intentionally lowering the head and using the crown of a helmet as a weapon. that's it.

this is tackle fucking football. enough with turning it into a game for fucking pussies.

I don't agree with that.  Plenty of damage can be done to a defenseless QB when you hit him in the head and neck area without lowering the head and using the crown.

In fact, the "crown of the helmet" rules were actually originally created to protect the defender from injuring his own neck and spinal cord.  It didn't have anything to do with targeting a defenseless player.

so, a Big Ten officiating crew won't be calling that targeting going forward or shouldn't?

I'm ok with that