Nick Ruffin

[AuburnGrad97 37]

This was a perfect tackle, and what DB's are taught to do from the day they begin playing in the secondary. I have no idea who we pissed off and when, but we seem to get the worst calls called against us in OUR OWN HOUSE! This was a terrible call, and when I heard it was under review, I thought "good, at least they will reverse the targeting". I was in shock that they let the call stand. I feel bad for Nick, because he was playing a great game against a rival opponent in front of that AUsome crowd, and then had to leave the field because of a terrible call. I understand that rules are needed to help players from getting injured, but I have only seen this "targeting" rule correctly used about 10% of the time.

[cooltigger21 0]

This was a perfect tackle, and what DB's are taught to do from the day they begin playing in the secondary. I have no idea who we pissed off and when, but we seem to get the worst calls called against us in OUR OWN HOUSE! This was a terrible call, and when I heard it was under review, I thought "good, at least they will reverse the targeting". I was in shock that they let the call stand. I feel bad for Nick, because he was playing a great game against a rival opponent in front of that AUsome crowd, and then had to leave the field because of a terrible call. I understand that rules are needed to help players from getting injured, but I have only seen this "targeting" rule correctly used about 10% of the time.

Got to remember who is in charge of the officials, bammer grad Steve Shaw.

[lionheartkc 6,150]

The refs seemed overly sensitive the whole game, to me. I thought the other late hit call was bogus, too. It's like they expect the players to be able to see what is happening away from where they are. Ruffin hit before the play was dead, and if there was any contact the the head, it was because the receive lowered his helmet. Ruffin even turned to avoid helmet to helmet. As for the other late hut, the runner was trying to tightrope the line and had not even slowed down.

It was like the refs preferred flag football at times.

[AU64 10,122]

Clear no targeting, clearly not late. The DB's angle shows that he could not tell if the ball was caught or not and the ball hit the ground after ruffin cleaned it up. What are you supposed to do let the receiver catch the ball and run before we touch him? come on.

IF it was so "clear" why was it called ? Maybe not so clear as noted by many people...ref has to make a decision and and after the replay, the call stood....so JMO but not much of an argument and I saw a similar call in another game that was shoulder to shoulder in a similar way...and the guy got tossed too.

So might as well quit crying over Steve Shaw's robots and figure what effect it will have this week.

[JFDTiger80 790]

The refs seemed overly sensitive the whole game, to me. I thought the other late hit call was bogus, too. It's like they expect the players to be able to see what is happening away from where they are. Ruffin hit before the play was dead, and if there was any contact the the head, it was because the receive lowered his helmet. Ruffin even turned to avoid helmet to helmet. As for the other late hut, the runner was trying to tightrope the line and had not even slowed down.

It was like the refs preferred flag football at times.

I totally agree with you.

[AuburnGrad97 37]

This was a perfect tackle, and what DB's are taught to do from the day they begin playing in the secondary. I have no idea who we pissed off and when, but we seem to get the worst calls called against us in OUR OWN HOUSE! This was a terrible call, and when I heard it was under review, I thought "good, at least they will reverse the targeting". I was in shock that they let the call stand. I feel bad for Nick, because he was playing a great game against a rival opponent in front of that AUsome crowd, and then had to leave the field because of a terrible call. I understand that rules are needed to help players from getting injured, but I have only seen this "targeting" rule correctly used about 10% of the time.

Got to remember who is in charge of the officials, bammer grad Steve Shaw.

True. You know, I hate to be "that guy" that complains about the officiating after every game. Luckily, we haven't lost a game due to bad calls yet, because it sounds like sour-grapes. That said, I typically watch Auburn games with my group of friends here in Georgia, many of which are not life-long Auburn fans. They like Auburn because I do, and because we are an exciting team to watch. I have noticed a trend forming, and that is that during every game, my friends keep looking at me and asking "why is Auburn getting penalized so much?". They see the same things I do, but from a non-biased perspective. Yesterday, the trend of no calls for pass interference on Auburn receivers, holding on Auburn defensive linemen, chop blocks, facemasks, and other penalites continued in the LSU game. Their DB's were draped on our receivers like a quilt before the ball got there, and no call. Auburn, however, was flagged several times for pass interference. I'll admit, most of the calls against us were right on the money. We interfered with the player before the ball got there. Why were we flagged, and LSU wasn't?

I about lost it on the call for the "hit out of bounds" that happened late in the game. The LSU player (don't remember who) was tap-dancing down the sideline, trying to pick up more yards, trying to break tackles, and just before the last Auburn defender hit him to knock him out of bounds, the LSU players foot stepped out of bounds by about 5 inches. We hit him, and there comes the flags for a hit-out-of-bounds. At full speed, how is the Auburn defender supposed to know he stepped out 0.25 seconds for the hit? To make matters worse, at some point, CAP was running down the sidelines, and was tackled right at the line. The tackle continued about 5 yards out of bounds, at which point the LSU defender used a "clothes-line" type motion and took CAP down very hard. I am still waiting for the flag on that one.

I guess I should be proud that the officials think so much of Auburn that they feel like the other team should get 98% of the calls in their favor, just to make the game somewhat competitive, but it's starting to get old. MOST teams get the benefit of the doubt on controversial calls in the OWN HOUSE, but not Auburn. I almost want to see Gus send in Auburn's version of "Ronnie Bass" to set the referees straight, but hey, we don't need it.

War Damn No-Calls!!!

[leglessdan 1,934]

As said before. ..it could've went either way and the refs and replay booth did the right thing IMO. The bigger positive is that Ruffin isn't afraid to come in and lay the lumber. Had he been 6 inches lower he may had cracked the boys sternum or collapsed a lung.

[JFDTiger80 790]

As said before. ..it could've went either way and the refs and replay booth did the right thing IMO. The bigger positive is that Ruffin isn't afraid to come in and lay the lumber. Had he been 6 inches lower he may had cracked the boys sternum or collapsed a lung.

Nick is only a true freshman, wait till he has a full year in our weight program. Wow!

[AU64 10,122]

As said before. ..it could've went either way and the refs and replay booth did the right thing IMO. The bigger positive is that Ruffin isn't afraid to come in and lay the lumber. Had he been 6 inches lower he may had cracked the boys sternum or collapsed a lung.

Gotta agree...he looks like a hitter and we need that.....just needs a little more discipline but he's a frosh...got plenty of room to develop. Looking for good things from him the next several years.

[WarTiger 3,901]

Clear no targeting, clearly not late. The DB's angle shows that he could not tell if the ball was caught or not and the ball hit the ground after ruffin cleaned it up. What are you supposed to do let the receiver catch the ball and run before we touch him? come on.

Actually that isn't even remotely true. There's no reason at all to not know that he didn't catch the ball. As you can see in this still frame the ball was thrown HIGH (not low) and Ruffin was FIVE YARDS away from him looking right at it. There's no way in hell he didn't know the ball wasn't caught. It was an absolute TEXT BOOK example of targeting AND hitting a defenseless player. EASY CALL.....

Rule reference:

ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck

area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or

shoulder. When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-

I-VI)

He couldn't stop on a dime-- given his momentum it looked like he minimized the impact by moving his head to the side.

He didn't have too. As you can see in the screen shot above he had FIVE YARDS to stop.

[auburntiger1987 759]

agree to disagree then. I stand by what i said

[Guest jojo1515]

I know what you are saying, but targeting doesn't necessarily have to be helmet-to-helmet.

Watched the replay. It wasn't targeting. Nick's shoulder went into the chest of the receiver, ( which is at or below the head and neck ) and his head snapped back. Late hit, on an unprotected player, is still a flag, I believe, but it wasn't targeting on Nick's part.

There should be no time missed , what so ever. I hope Gus peruses this matter to the league office.

I'm sorry, but what is Gus pursuing? Is he going back in time to get Ruffin back in the LSU game? He has already served his suspension as the penalty occurred in the first half. Therefore, he is available for the entire MSU game. Nothing to pursue

[PCBAuburnaFan 1]

WarTiger I usually agree with you. When it comes to the hit being targeting I'm not going to debate one way or another. However, that screen shot doesn't tell the full story at all.

I've seen plenty receivers come down with a ball like that before and I'll stand by my point that it looked like the receiver came down with it in real time from that endzone. Even though he's a freshman it's extremely rare that I've ever seen a secondary player for auburn attack a receiver they knew no longer had the ball

[TexasTiger 12,892]

I know what you are saying, but targeting doesn't necessarily have to be helmet-to-helmet.

Watched the replay. It wasn't targeting. Nick's shoulder went into the chest of the receiver, ( which is at or below the head and neck ) and his head snapped back. Late hit, on an unprotected player, is still a flag, I believe, but it wasn't targeting on Nick's part.

There should be no time missed , what so ever. I hope Gus peruses this matter to the league office.

I'm sorry, but what is Gus pursuing? Is he going back in time to get Ruffin back in the LSU game? He has already served his suspension as the penalty occurred in the first half. Therefore, he is available for the entire MSU game. Nothing to pursue

Are there greater penalties for future violations ?

[17-16 21]

The refs seemed overly sensitive the whole game, to me. I thought the other late hit call was bogus, too. It's like they expect the players to be able to see what is happening away from where they are. Ruffin hit before the play was dead, and if there was any contact the the head, it was because the receive lowered his helmet. Ruffin even turned to avoid helmet to helmet. As for the other late hut, the runner was trying to tightrope the line and had not even slowed down.

It was like the refs preferred flag football at times.

I agree about the other late hit. If you get the chance to watch a replay of the game, just listen for the official's whistle. The hit is before any whistle. NOBODY should be expected to stop a tackle in progress faster than an official can blow a whistle. "Late" should at least be after the whistle.

As for the targeting call. IMO, all targeting calls can be avoided by practicing fundamental tackling. No player has been tossed for tackling with his head up (leading with the facemask), wrapping his arms around the ball carrier, and driving with his legs. Regardless of how hard a lick was passed.

[JGLEATON 1,244]

Officiating has been BAD... that NO call in the Ole Miss game that should have been a facemask, but was a bama touchdown could have cost ole miss the game... and the Incomplete Pass call against Bama earlier in the game should have been a complete pass and a touchdown IMO... at LEAST they got the Ole Miss interception right after a review at the end!

The NO PI call against Duke on 3rd down in the 1st quarter against LSU would have kept the drive going, but we had to settle for a field goal... in a closer game (like next week?) that could cost someone a game...

the SEC Refs need to start doing a MUCH better job all around, and they need to bring THEIR A game next week for both ours AND Miss State's sake.

They have a Review now so there is no excuse NOT to get the call right... (unless a flag is just NOT thrown when it should be!)

[AuburnArch13 185]

Officiating has been BAD... that NO call in the Ole Miss game that should have been a facemask, but was a bama touchdown could have cost ole miss the game... and the Incomplete Pass call against Bama earlier in the game should have been a complete pass and a touchdown IMO... at LEAST they got the Ole Miss interception right after a review at the end!

The NO PI call against Duke on 3rd down in the 1st quarter against LSU would have kept the drive going, but we had to settle for a field goal... in a closer game (like next week?) that could cost someone a game...

the SEC Refs need to start doing a MUCH better job all around, and they need to bring THEIR A game next week for both ours AND Miss State's sake.

They have a Review now so there is no excuse NOT to get the call right... (unless a flag is just NOT thrown when it should be!)

At least ours are better than the Pac-12's...

[CleCoTiger 1,957]

Found it dismaying that after they showed the reply on the stadium jumbo tron, and all could plainly see that it was NOT targeting, the ref had the stones to actually say ' after further review, the call on the field stands '.

That's the language they use when the replay official says there's not enough evidence to confirm or overturn a call. No stones required here. The ref was just using the required boilerplate language.

[bigbird 60,532]

All I know is it has been a while since I have seen a safety at AU hit like NR. He has impressed me this year with his play.

[CleCoTiger 1,957]

All I know is it has been a while since I have seen a safety at AU hit like NR. He has impressed me this year with his play.

Kid is gonna be a good 'un pretty much for sure. Dang sure don't see any fear of contact in his play. Might see some fear of contact from offensive players on the opposing side...which is exactly what I want to see.

[Stripe 5]

Clear no targeting, clearly not late. The DB's angle shows that he could not tell if the ball was caught or not and the ball hit the ground after ruffin cleaned it up. What are you supposed to do let the receiver catch the ball and run before we touch him? come on.

Actually that isn't even remotely true. There's no reason at all to not know that he didn't catch the ball. As you can see in this still frame the ball was thrown HIGH (not low) and Ruffin was FIVE YARDS away from him looking right at it. There's no way in hell he didn't know the ball wasn't caught. It was an absolute TEXT BOOK example of targeting AND hitting a defenseless player. EASY CALL.....

Rule reference:

ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck

area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or

shoulder. When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-

I-VI)

He couldn't stop on a dime-- given his momentum it looked like he minimized the impact by moving his head to the side.

He didn't have too. As you can see in the screen shot above he had FIVE YARDS to stop.

The rule is all fine and dandy, but he hit him dead in the chest, not in the neck or head. That's what makes this not targeting. I don't care who you are you get hit that hard your neck will rag doll too. I realize that's mostly what brought the penalty, but he didn't hit I'm in the neck or head. It was shoulder to chest.

[bdc81 90]

Our hit on the Out of Bounds LSU runner was clearly a penalty. He was not tip toeing down the line, he had been knocked out of bounds and was trotting up the white boundary.

The Ruffin play was bang bang. Did appear that NR was trying to pull up but that is a judgement call.

If it was the reverse and Sammy was hit late we would all be mad, but Sammy would have planted a 180 lb db into the JHS turf

I have no doubt CGM and the athletic dept gives the SEC office an earful whenever it is warranted. Like the double take toe dance 3 rd down spot given to uat (2010?)

Our job is to have Holly Rowe gushing about the level of the decibel meter level before the opposition's freshman QB takes a snap. That way the announcers have something to talk about

during a runaway game without saying something derogatory about Auburn.

Little doc

[JGLEATON 1,244]

All I know is it has been a while since I have seen a safety at AU hit like NR. He has impressed me this year with his play.

Kid is gonna be a good 'un pretty much for sure. Dang sure don't see any fear of contact in his play. Might see some fear of contact from offensive players on the opposing side...which is exactly what I want to see.

ALL of this... shake it off Nick, and just keep doing what you're doing!!

[JGLEATON 1,244]

@AuburnArch13 "At least are's are better than the PAC-12's"....

You have a great point...

[AUloggerhead 2,232]

He intentionally hit him with shoulder not helmet, I though it was about shoulder height but because the receiver was already low it was close. I didn't think it should have been called targetting but because it was close and because they are trying to defend recievers in that situation I could see the call going either way.. If he had gotten there a step earlier I don't think they would have called it. I think because he was a little late getting there they erred on the side of protecting a player. I can live with the call as long as we get similar calls when our receivers are hit.

Yep, I agree. Don't really believe it was intentional targeting either. The fact that the receiver was sliding down just prior to getting hit made it a shot to the neck/head region. Ruffin appeared to begin to slow up too, but that was only evident by looking at the replay in slo-mo. The perception of the hard hit was that it could be a targeting-type foul. This was one of those judgment calls by the ref and I can also agree that the ref was intent on protecting the receiver.