Started By
Message
re: Is this not the definition of targeting?
Posted on 11/14/22 at 12:32 pm to meansonny
Posted on 11/14/22 at 12:32 pm to meansonny
Dude, I’m not seeing it. And I ask that because QBs are usually given deference in instances like this. Fans are certainly more apt to call it targeting if it’s the QB as opposed to a running back who gets hit like this on nearly every play. If you want to die on this hill, cool. All I’m saying is I don’t think it was targeting and that’s how it was called.
1
Posted on 11/14/22 at 12:35 pm to The Albatross
quote:
All I’m saying is I don’t think it was targeting and that’s how it was called
Other angle showed contact to the shoulder and body.
It was a good no-call.
Nothing from this photo or this sideline angle would refute the call, though. I've watched this play a dozen times over from multiple angles. Every angle on the sideline looks bad. All other angles does not.
It was a good review and good noncall.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News