Started By
Message
re: For those of you still upset or confused about the Loston "late hit" call...
Posted on 11/11/13 at 12:08 am to Tuscaloosa
Posted on 11/11/13 at 12:08 am to Tuscaloosa
Honestly all the targeting calls are bullshite. How many times have we seen somebody on kickoff or defense get blindsided and knocked out. And that's not considered targeting. Don't think I want it be called targeting... Those big hits on special teams is part of the game. But if they call some of those bs targeting calls on DB's, they should call them on the offense and special teams and go ahead and constantly ruin the game we love.
1
Posted on 11/11/13 at 12:09 am to TheWhizzinator
quote:
On the Clinton-Dix hit nothing was ever acknowledged when it is obvious that there was helmet to helmet contact.
Sure it was obvious to us. We had the benefit of seeing it on a big screen multiple times, seeing slow mo replay. Referees were all looking at the near interception to determine possession.
I'm just saying it wasn't a blatant "no-call" that the refs intentionally missed due to Bama bias, or whatever stuff that gets tossed around like that.
But I agree with you that it could have been called - had it been seen.
Posted on 11/11/13 at 12:10 am to LsuTigers80
quote:
Honestly all the targeting calls are bull shite. How many times have we seen somebody on kickoff or defense get blindsided and knocked out. And that's not considered targeting. Don't think I want it be called targeting... Those big hits on special teams is part of the game. But if they call some of those bs targeting calls on DB's, they should call them on the offense and special teams and go ahead and constantly ruin the game we love.
Tempted to frame this and hang it on my wall. Couldn't have said it better. I agree 100%.
Posted on 11/11/13 at 12:11 am to LaBornNRaised
quote:
Well that was my point because its subjective. He was still trying to gain yards from the looks of it...
His elbow was a split second from being down. Loston could have done nothing, and he'd been tackled in the same spot. I understand maybe trying to force a fumble, but fact of the matter is that he led with his crown and landed a big helmet to helmet shot
Posted on 11/11/13 at 12:11 am to A_Leather_Glove
quote:
Landry's defenseless, but it looks like HaHa leads with his shoulder and makes primary contact with Jarvis's chest/shoulder...
You can clearly see Dix head(lol) rock back from contact with Landry's helmet. It wasn't until after the helmet to helmet contact did his shoulder make contact.
Posted on 11/11/13 at 12:12 am to Tuscaloosa
Posted on 11/11/13 at 12:13 am to Tuscaloosa
quote:
Ole Miss player lowered his head.
Yeah. His head ended up lower than Jackson thought it would be. But the Bama receiver also went down as Loston came in. I don't think Loston went for the head, he was trying to dislodge the ball, but when the receiver fell to the side it ended up with contact to the head. Same situation as with Jackson. Neither were targeting.
Fifteen yards and no ejection seems right in both.
Posted on 11/11/13 at 12:15 am to TheWhizzinator
quote:
obvious that there was helmet to helmet contact.
You are either blind or stupid. There is no helmet to helmet even in slow-mo. Its obvious shoulder to shoulder. Look more closely or go get your eyes checked.
Posted on 11/11/13 at 12:16 am to BlackPawnMartyr
quote:
You are either blind or stupid. There is no helmet to helmet even in slow-mo. Its obvious shoulder to shoulder. Look more closely or go get your eyes checked.
Take your crimson colored glasses off bro...you are obviously blind.
Posted on 11/11/13 at 12:16 am to John Redcorn
quote:
I don't think Loston went for the head, he was trying to dislodge the ball,
Yea just jacked up and trying to make a play. Him and AJ hugged it out after the call. Those guys knew it was just men playing football.
Posted on 11/11/13 at 12:17 am to TheWhizzinator
quote:
This should have been called but of course it wasn't
i wont disagree that it could have been called targeting based on some of the other calls ive seen this year, but to say it should have been called is pretty dumb. its not even clear from the clip you provide if the receivers head or neck even contacts the defender
Posted on 11/11/13 at 12:18 am to BlackPawnMartyr
I honestly think Loston really was just trying to cause a fumble and misplaced his helmet on Norwoods.
Posted on 11/11/13 at 12:19 am to TheWhizzinator
You are so blind and stupid. Its not even close to helmet to helmet you can clearly see them hit shoulders, and his body push up then their bodies pop back. its clear their helmets never bump. You are just making yourself look silly and like some sort of butthurt sore loser.
This post was edited on 11/11/13 at 12:21 am
Posted on 11/11/13 at 12:21 am to TheWhizzinator
As you should have inferred from the clip you provided, Dix led and hit Landry with his shoulder.
At no point in the video do their helmets touch
At no point in the video do their helmets touch
Posted on 11/11/13 at 12:21 am to TheWhizzinator
I dunno man, I'm definitely not one to be biased, but it looks like Landry's head rocks back more from the sudden change in his body's direction than a hit delivered to his head. The primary contact point to me looks like shoulder to shoulder because Landry's upper torso changes direction first following the hit.
Either way, it's clear that this rule is way too difficult to officiate properly. Needs to be addressed.
Either way, it's clear that this rule is way too difficult to officiate properly. Needs to be addressed.
Posted on 11/11/13 at 12:23 am to LsuTigers80
quote:
I honestly think Loston really was just trying to cause a fumble and misplaced his helmet on Norwoods.
I agree, I don't think Loston had bad intent
Posted on 11/11/13 at 12:30 am to A_Leather_Glove
Norwood was not a defenseless player. If his progress was really stopped and he was wrapped up then the play should have been blown dead. Since the whistle is not blown then he must still be moving forward.
Other than missile drop kicking the guy I don't understand how he goes in for a tackle any other way.
I think it is obvious the real reason for the rule in to prevent kill shot on WR going for a catch. So why would anyone try to fit this into the rule when everyone already calls it a bs rule. That same shite happens all the time in games during gang tackling.
Also has there ever been a targeting call on someone not going to break up a pass with a kill shot.
Other than missile drop kicking the guy I don't understand how he goes in for a tackle any other way.
I think it is obvious the real reason for the rule in to prevent kill shot on WR going for a catch. So why would anyone try to fit this into the rule when everyone already calls it a bs rule. That same shite happens all the time in games during gang tackling.
Also has there ever been a targeting call on someone not going to break up a pass with a kill shot.
Posted on 11/11/13 at 12:31 am to Tuscaloosa
I don't think he is a tPOS, I just think he made a mistake. I hate the targeting rule and am glad he got to stay. However, by definition he so should have been thrown out. alot more have been thrown out for alot less. Still it is a stupid fricking rule and I hope it's gone soon.
Posted on 11/11/13 at 12:35 am to Colonel Flagg
quote:
Norwood was not a defenseless player.
Norwood clearly wasn't going anywhere and was in an awkward position where he couldn't protect himself.Posted on 11/11/13 at 12:37 am to TheWhizzinator
The HCD hit was definitely shoulder to shoulder.
Page 3 of 4
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News