Started By
Message
re: So the Alabama targeting play last night
Posted on 11/17/13 at 3:20 pm to bbvdd
Posted on 11/17/13 at 3:20 pm to bbvdd
quote:
bullshite. Show me the rule where it says that.
An opponent. He does not have to be "defenseless", ball does not have to be "live" either.
Rule 9-1-3: Targeting and initiating contact with the crown of the helmet. No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.
Rule 9-1-4: Targeting and initiating contact to head or neck area of a defenseless player. No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or
2
Posted on 11/17/13 at 3:21 pm to Warfarer
"I just want to see a level playing field."
Where was your argument of a level playing field when JFF got horse collared with no call and when Georgia wasn't given a fumble that they clearly recovered? You were probably too busy looking for the next Bama led conspiracy on ITAT to notice. Typical.
Where was your argument of a level playing field when JFF got horse collared with no call and when Georgia wasn't given a fumble that they clearly recovered? You were probably too busy looking for the next Bama led conspiracy on ITAT to notice. Typical.
Posted on 11/17/13 at 3:23 pm to bmy
quote:
ule 9-1-3: Targeting and initiating contact with the crown of the helmet. No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.
Jones's helmet went into the guys shoulder. His shoulder pads went into his chest. LEGAL.
Posted on 11/17/13 at 3:25 pm to Govt Tide
quote:
Where was your argument of a level playing field when JFF got horse collared with no call and when Georgia wasn't given a fumble that they clearly recovered? You were probably too busy looking for the next Bama led conspiracy on ITAT to notice. Typical.
A&M got plenty of calls go their way during the game and UGA got plenty too. UGA wasn't given a fumble because the both had possession of the ball. I would like to see the NCAA put a rule in the book to eject any player that dogpiles a fumble and creates more chaos. There is no reason for the last 4 guys to jump on top of 2 guys that have possession of the ball.
Posted on 11/17/13 at 3:25 pm to OBReb6
Blew his arse up.
Posted on 11/17/13 at 3:27 pm to bmy
Live ball and his helmet did not hit the receivers helmet.
Next?
Next?
Posted on 11/17/13 at 3:27 pm to Warfarer
quote:To say the Auburn player had at least 30% possession of the ball is being generous.
UGA wasn't given a fumble because the both had possession of the ball.
Posted on 11/17/13 at 3:28 pm to OBReb6
They have been calling helmet to the chest as targeting. Not sure why that was not called.
Posted on 11/17/13 at 3:29 pm to bbvdd
The top of his helmet uppercut the State player under the facemask. It was definitely head/neck area. Led with the crown too.
Posted on 11/17/13 at 3:31 pm to OBReb6
Nope. Helmet went into his shoulder.
Again, can someone please provide some evidence of that exact kind of play being flagged this season? Thnx.
Again, can someone please provide some evidence of that exact kind of play being flagged this season? Thnx.
Posted on 11/17/13 at 3:32 pm to Funky Tide 8
Uppercut the facemask
Posted on 11/17/13 at 3:33 pm to OBReb6
The view from the other angle clearly shows his helmet didn't hit the facemask.
Posted on 11/17/13 at 3:34 pm to OBReb6
quote:
Uppercut the facemask
Nope.
Posted on 11/17/13 at 3:34 pm to Funky Tide 8
Nebraska player ejected for targeting.
Posted on 11/17/13 at 3:35 pm to Eric Nies Grind Time
Is that in reply to my post? That is not the exact same type of play. That is a DB hitting a WR.
Try again?
Try again?
Posted on 11/17/13 at 3:36 pm to OBReb6
quote:
Was there seriously no flag here? Can anyone explain this away?
Its very obvious when watching the gif you posted, he led with the shoulder first off. This is obvious because he is facing the camera which is on the sidelines, not straight ahead at the player.
secondly, its also obvious that he hit him square in the chest.
Targeting is hitting above the shoulders first and foremost and also leading with the helmet. Neither of these things happened, therefore it is just a vicious but legal hit.
Any claim that it should have been flagged is wrong.
Posted on 11/17/13 at 3:36 pm to Funky Tide 8
Does the targeting rule change for kickoffs?
Posted on 11/17/13 at 3:37 pm to Eric Nies Grind Time
Trae Elston was suspended for a game for a much less vicious hit last year against UTEP.
Posted on 11/17/13 at 3:38 pm to OBReb6
quote:
The top of his helmet uppercut the State player under the facemask. It was definitely head/neck area. Led with the crown too.
this is obscenely false, his helmet wasnt even pointed at the player, he pointed it to the side so as to not hit with it. He hit with his shoulder and if hit in this chest, not anywhere near the facemask.
Posted on 11/17/13 at 3:39 pm to Eric Nies Grind Time
quote:
Does the targeting rule change for kickoffs?
It is a completely different situation. The guy was fair game to be annihilated, seeing as how it was a kickoff and possession hadn't been attained by anyone yet. Should have called a fair catch. He left himself out to dry.
Page 6 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News