Started By
Message

How was this not targeting?

Posted on 1/3/15 at 6:07 am
Posted by Shockley03
Knoxville, TN
Member since Oct 2012
703 posts
Posted on 1/3/15 at 6:07 am


I don't understand how this is not targeting. Everyone is talking about the hit, but I've heard no one bring up this blatant targeting. As much as I hate the rule, I thought this was the kind of hit they are trying to eliminate. If they call this, Michigan State starts pretty far back and probably doesn't win the game. I've seen hits in the grey area being called and discussed as targeting, but why not this one? It's a defenseless player and the Michigan State player launches himself into the head of Baylor's kicker.
Posted by 3rddownonthe8
Atlanta, GA
Member since Aug 2011
5212 posts
Posted on 1/3/15 at 6:17 am to
This hit is as legal as it gets. The kicker was going to try to make a play ( I'm assuming he would tell him a joke or bite him or something, tackling was never an option). But the hit was with the shoulder and he got in front.
Posted by gatorhata9
Dallas, TX
Member since Dec 2010
26175 posts
Posted on 1/3/15 at 6:20 am to
He may have been a defenseless player, that's up for interpretation.

I do not think he led with the crown of his helmet or targeted the head or neck area. It looked like shoulder to shoulder contact.
Posted by davesdawgs
Georgia - Class of '75
Member since Oct 2008
20307 posts
Posted on 1/3/15 at 7:55 am to
The better question is how was this not pass interference.

Posted by LewDawg
Member since May 2009
75242 posts
Posted on 1/3/15 at 11:45 am to
Bell got flagged for this one...




Is that not the same thing?
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow SECRant for SEC Football News
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook to get the latest updates on SEC Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitter