Started By
Message
Targeting? A&M style
Posted on 11/8/15 at 9:35 am
Posted on 11/8/15 at 9:35 am
Just curious what others think about the over turned targeting call. I figured there was zero chance they over turned that last night...of course I was wrong.
It was obviously targeting anyway you looked at it, and I believe if it had been a defensive player it would have stood. It is frustrating to see the rules so slanted to the O.
Somebody post the gif.
It was obviously targeting anyway you looked at it, and I believe if it had been a defensive player it would have stood. It is frustrating to see the rules so slanted to the O.
Somebody post the gif.
Posted on 11/8/15 at 9:36 am to Tigerman97
They overturned it because Seals is soft.
Posted on 11/8/15 at 9:36 am to Tigerman97
it was shoulder to shoulder on replay. The AU guy's head snapped with the impact which made it look like he hit his head. I think it was a good no call
Posted on 11/8/15 at 9:37 am to Tigerman97
From what I've seen this year, if that was not targeting then 90% of the targeting call have been bogus.
Posted on 11/8/15 at 9:39 am to mrbroker
quote:The initial contact was shoulder to shoulder...but one of the angles showed a clear and violent helmet to helmet that followed. It absolutely was targeting. But Auburn could have been called for targeting as well on the QB, same play.
it was shoulder to shoulder on replay. The AU guy's head snapped with the impact which made it look like he hit his head. I think it was a good no call
Posted on 11/8/15 at 9:40 am to ljhog
quote:
if that was not targeting then 90% of the targeting call have been bogus.
90% of targeting calls ARE bogus. How is a 6'6 man supposed to block someone who is 5'10 without it appearing like targeting and without damaging his spine?
Posted on 11/8/15 at 9:43 am to Tigerman97
It looked like targeting to me.
Not only that, but after being ruled targeting, I didn't see enough on a replay to overturn it. On one of the angles it did look like there was helmet to helmet contact.
I was shocked it was overturned, and I had no dog in the fight as I was going to be happy to see a melt from either Aubie or Aggie.
Posted on 11/8/15 at 9:45 am to AustinDawg
Didn't see it and don't care. It is ruining football.
Posted on 11/8/15 at 9:46 am to AustinDawg
he led with his shoulder. It is hard to avoid helmet to helmet in all situations but the lead with the shoulder was clean. FB is a violent sport and sometimes it happens. They had plenty of time on replay to see all angles
Posted on 11/8/15 at 9:48 am to Tigerman97
quote:
It is frustrating to see the rules so slanted to the O.
not very SEC of you my friend.
Posted on 11/8/15 at 9:48 am to bigDgator
quote:
Didn't see it and don't care. It is ruining football.
It's a necessary evil given evidence of concussion long term effects.
Posted on 11/8/15 at 9:50 am to mrbroker
That he did, but these days they seem to call ANY helmet-to-helmet contact like that targeting.
I don't like the rule very much as it seems arbitrary in enforcement, but it did look like other targeting calls from this year.
Posted on 11/8/15 at 9:50 am to Tigerman97
At first I thought targeting no doubt but it looked like shoulder on the replay and I had no problem with the overturn.
Posted on 11/8/15 at 9:51 am to Tigerman97
quote:
It was obviously targeting anyway you looked at it,
it wasn't obvious at all but I thought it was grey enough to not get overturned.
quote:
I believe if it had been a defensive player it would have stood. It is frustrating to see the rules so slanted to the O.
I absolutely agree with that. They are super-concerned with protecting the offensive players but stuff like that seems fair game.
Posted on 11/8/15 at 9:59 am to AustinDawg
They didn't call the helmet to helmet contact that concussed/ knocked Kyler Murray out of the game targeting... three yards away on the same play.
Football is a violent sport. If you don't want to get hit, don't suit up.
Football is a violent sport. If you don't want to get hit, don't suit up.
Posted on 11/8/15 at 10:05 am to ljhog
quote:
From what I've seen this year, if that was not targeting then 90% of the targeting call have been bogus.
That is my issue. There is just very little consistency. And when you are talking about ejecting players, there should be lots of consistency.
Posted on 11/8/15 at 10:06 am to PanhandleDawg
You are a fan of a school that is known for painting and ringing cowbells and absolutely nothing else. So posting that pic...is quite rich
This post was edited on 11/8/15 at 10:08 am
Posted on 11/8/15 at 10:06 am to higgs_boson
Yeah, the targeting penalty is so fricking arbitrary. It's a problem
Posted on 11/8/15 at 10:08 am to Tigerman97
I was in the nose bleeds at the game and the replays weren't that helpful one way or the other.
I recorded the game but i will have to work up the gall to watch the shite show.
I recorded the game but i will have to work up the gall to watch the shite show.
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News