• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

LB Camren Williams (Area Scout - New England Patriots)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
buckeyes_rock said:
Me too. I thought the intent of that Targeting foul was to eliminate the guys who launched themselves at defenseless receivers and QBs, not to eject guys tackling the ball carrier. I mean crap if they call that everytime a defender tackles a RB and makes contact with their helmet, we'd have guys ejected every game. I understand that he made helmet to helmet to contact, but there didn't appear to be any intent to hurt the guy. I don't know...
Click to expand...

Yeah, he may have fit the description, but definitely not the spirit/intent of the call. Did he lower his upper body? Yes. Did he intentionally launch himself, leading with the crown into the player trying to impose harm? No.

He had 2 options: stay upright and try to tackle high and allow the back to get more yards, or lower himself and make a hard hit/tackle.

His only problems were that he didn't get low quick enough, and the hit was hard enough for the ball to come loose. Otherwise there was no malicious intent.
 
Upvote 0
MaxBuck said:
The Williams ejection was 100% warranted.
Click to expand...
That is probably tru but the targeting rule really needs to be looked at.. Both players had their heads down and as a young player you are taught to hit the ball with your helmet. If the NCAA wants to cut down on head injuries, perhaps they should go back to leather helmets or skirts.
 
Upvote 0
MaxBuck said:
Malicious intent, like it or not, isn't necessary. I personally was glad to see the ejection; guys need to get the message not to use their helmet as a weapon, mostly for their own protection.
Click to expand...
I replied to this in the Joshua Perry thread but I think the targeting rule needs to be looked at very closely by the NCAA. If the NCAA really wants to cut down on head injuries, maybe they should go back to leather helmets like the old days.
 
Upvote 0
LitlBuck said:
That is probably tru but the targeting rule really needs to be looked at.. Both players had their heads down and as a young player you are taught to hit the ball with your helmet. If the NCAA wants to cut down on head injuries, perhaps they should go back to leather helmets or skirts.
Click to expand...
The whole point of the rule is that players need to get that habit of using your helmet out of their system. It's for their own protection.

I don't think the "leather helmets or skirts" crack is on point; reducing head trauma is a concern for any good fan, I'd think.
 
Upvote 0
I think one problem of the rule is that only defensive players can be called for it. Was it targeting? By the rule, sure. But how about putting some of it on the offensive players? They duck down and lower their heads too. Now, it's smart for the offensive player since if you're upright, you risk injury and can likely get more yardage by getting low. And you can preach defensive players should keep their head up when tackling, but at certain angles and movements, it's near impossible.

It just seems like it'd damned if you do and damned if you don't. Basically what I'm saying is, the rule needs looked at. Their definitely needs to be some discretion on whether it looked like intent or not. Kind of like the previous facemask rule where it could 5 or 15 yards.
 
Upvote 0
mattynokes said:
I think one problem of the rule is that only defensive players can be called for it. Was it targeting? By the rule, sure. But how about putting some of it on the offensive players? They duck down and lower their heads too. Now, it's smart for the offensive player since if you're upright, you risk injury and can likely get more yardage by getting low. And you can preach defensive players should keep their head up when tackling, but at certain angles and movements, it's near impossible.

It just seems like it'd damned if you do and damned if you don't. Basically what I'm saying is, the rule needs looked at. Their definitely needs to be some discretion on whether it looked like intent or not. Kind of like the previous facemask rule where it could 5 or 15 yards.
Click to expand...

Offensive players can apparently be called for it... but it seems to happen very very very rarely.
I do remember seeing it at least once though... last year's Conference CG Corey got ejected.
This one appears to be a similar case.
http://tamu.247sports.com/Bolt/AM-WR-Seals-Jones-ejected-for-targeting-39946458

Few and far between though
 
Upvote 0
MaxBuck said:
The whole point of the rule is that players need to get that habit of using your helmet out of their system. It's for their own protection.

I don't think the "leather helmets or skirts" crack is on point; reducing head trauma is a concern for any good fan, I'd think.
Click to expand...
If you have a problem with people getting hit in the head, which I agree is bad, then you really have to ask the difficult question of whether we should play football at all. Injuries are very common in football, regardless of dumb targeting penalties, which in 90+ percent of cases are clearly unintentional, despite being valid penalties under the rules. Not saying you are right or wrong, I don't like to see a kid get a traumatic brain injury, but I also like to see a good hit.
 
Upvote 0
RB07OSU said:
The issue is that there will be helmet to helmet contact no matter what and yet it is penalized as if there is some intent. Williams actually tried to avoid helmet to helmet but it still happened because the ball carrier changed positions right before contact. So what lesson was learned and what future harm was actually prevented? None. Unless players are told to aim at the knees (which is equally dangerous, if not worse), it will inevitably happen.

But I really hope Josh is ok, he is the backbone of our defense imo. Absolutely need him for a championship run and I would hate to see one of the best human beings on our team miss any significant time.
Click to expand...

I thought that one had to launch himself at the opposing player for it to be targeting? Williams ran through the RB and I thought it was clear that he wanted to do a simple form tackle. Granted, it may have been bad form because he dropped his head, but tackles like that probably happen on every inside run. It only got flagged because he did it in the flats, out in the open.
 
Upvote 0
It got flagged because he used the crown of his helmet, which is against the rules. The rules are there to force a change in the way people tackle. The hope is that eventually kids won't want that 15 yarder and possible ejection, so they'll stop tackling that way. It's not meant to penalize after the fact as much as it is to prevent future hits.
 
Upvote 0
Woody1968 said:
If you have a problem with people getting hit in the head, which I agree is bad, then you really have to ask the difficult question of whether we should play football at all. Injuries are very common in football, regardless of dumb targeting penalties, which in 90+ percent of cases are clearly unintentional, despite being valid penalties under the rules. Not saying you are right or wrong, I don't like to see a kid get a traumatic brain injury, but I also like to see a good hit.
Click to expand...
UFM has said, "That's not the way we teach players to tackle." So I feel pretty much vindicated in my opinion here.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top