Started By
Message
1
Posted on 9/18/17 at 2:51 pm to Vandyrone
I forgive you
Posted on 9/18/17 at 2:52 pm to DoubleDown
quote:A LSU fan posted these yesterday. I believe these are the ones....
Can someone post the 2 that happened in the LSU game.
Also bonus image of another controversial call to the LSU fans....
Posted on 9/18/17 at 2:59 pm to jatebe
They kinda both look like head to head to me.... I def wouldn't have made a thread about those
Posted on 9/18/17 at 3:00 pm to RB10
quote:
The NCAA has taken the rule and gone to the extreme to try and prevent any sort of big hits.
What bothers me is that they're throwing flags on things that clearly aren't intentional and aren't even big hits.
The first targeting penalty against LSU wasn't a big hit, but he lowered and let with his helmet, so it fit the rule (and was a seriously stupid play by the defender).
But the second? It wasn't violent, I didn't think it was even that late, and it certainly didn't warrant kicking the kid out.
IMO, there just has to be some discretion. I have a VERY hard time seeing the justification for penalizing 15 yards - much less an ejection - for a hit so weak the QB doesn't even fall down.
Posted on 9/18/17 at 3:01 pm to jatebe
This is my favorite. Watch 92 look straight at Hubert Owens as he goes to the ground. He knew what he was doing
Posted on 9/18/17 at 3:01 pm to jatebe
Call me crazy, but having the sideline judge make those calls on the rub routes is probably not the best way to handle that unless it's inside the 10.
He's 30 yards from the actual play because he's supposed to be to be down on the goal line when the ball crosses. Yet, he's in the best position to make a determination on whether the receiver ran into the defender or was running a legitimate route? I don't think that's accurate.
Posted on 9/18/17 at 3:03 pm to JustGetItRight
quote:
I have a VERY hard time seeing the justification for penalizing 15 yards - much less an ejection - for a hit so weak the QB doesn't even fall down.
I'm not disagreeing with this stance per se, but this kind of statement is going to be an indictment of the sport and a reason why some people believe that football won't be around in 15-20 years.
Posted on 9/18/17 at 3:10 pm to Vecchio Cane
quote:
I'm not disagreeing with this stance per se, but this kind of statement is going to be an indictment of the sport and a reason why some people believe that football won't be around in 15-20 years.
Wanting to give an official the flexibility to punish dangerous hits without having to flag hits equal to bumping into someone on the sidewalk isn't going to be an indictment of anything.
As far as the future of football goes, people die in boxing on a pretty regular basis and it is still around. MMA is far more violent and it grows in popularity every year. As long as people enjoy the sport it will be just fine.
Posted on 9/18/17 at 3:20 pm to RB10
He let up & tripped over Arden. Bad call
Posted on 9/18/17 at 3:31 pm to jatebe
The helmet to helmet calls suck for LSU but it's the right call. They don't bitch when Drew Brees gets touched on the head and the Saints get that call.
The last image turned into a "pick play" that I don't think was ever planned. A 50/50 call.
The last image turned into a "pick play" that I don't think was ever planned. A 50/50 call.
Posted on 9/18/17 at 3:34 pm to TigerBlazer
quote:
He let up & tripped over Arden. Bad call
Doesn't look like he tripped until after he hit the QB.
Posted on 9/18/17 at 3:41 pm to RB10
Agree with you there. Both calls were technically correct but the second one, it looked like the LSU stumbled or tripped right before he went into Fitz. So I thought that call was harsh. Late hit? Yes but should not have been targeting. First one was just plain dumb by the LSU player and totally unnecessary.
Today, the defensive players have got to play smarter, especially around the QB. Anything late, is going to be a penalty and the helmet to anything is going to get called as targeting (your team needs you too much to not to use better judgement).
Today, the defensive players have got to play smarter, especially around the QB. Anything late, is going to be a penalty and the helmet to anything is going to get called as targeting (your team needs you too much to not to use better judgement).
Posted on 9/18/17 at 4:13 pm to RB10
quote:
Controversial targeting penalties by RB10
Donnie Alexander launched and hit Fitzgerald with the crown. It was clearly targeting.
Farrell kind of stumbled into Fitzgerald and their facemasks collided because of it. He didn't launch, didn't hit him with the crown and certainly didn't look like he even meant to hit him. It was late and should have been roughing, but "targeting" it wasn't.
They may as well say you're out of the game if you make contact with the quarterbacks head while he's in the pocket. That's basically how it's ruled.
Both were clear as day. To say he stumbled is dumb. If he doesn't stumble, he hits Fitz full speed head to head. They were reviewed and were no doubters. The rule may need work but as it's written, there was no doubt. Players know the rule so they should be smarter. The hit was also 2 seconds after the ball was released. Cuz he was owned by the OL. And was frustrated as frick. LSU just wants the rule changed in game as to not inconvenience their undisciplined team. Sorry just don't be stupid.
Posted on 9/18/17 at 4:48 pm to olddawg26
It depends but jumping over the line is way worse
Posted on 9/18/17 at 5:04 pm to joshua2571
quote:
What bothers me is that they're throwing flags on things that clearly aren't intentional and aren't even big hits.
Intent has nothing to do with it, nor even the size of the impact.
The closest either rule comes to addressing intent is 'aim'; you can choose to alter your aim so as to minimize impact (a good thing), after you have put yourself into the tackling process, but that in no way mitigates the aim you initially put that causes the forcible contact.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News