Started By
Message
If you can’t hit a guy at the goal line who’s trying to score
Posted on 12/28/22 at 8:48 pm
Posted on 12/28/22 at 8:48 pm
Take the defense completely off the field. They are basically the Washington generals.
That is not targeting. No way that defender could know exactly where the runners head would be at the time off impact.
That is not targeting. No way that defender could know exactly where the runners head would be at the time off impact.
10
Posted on 12/28/22 at 8:49 pm to NineLineBind
He lowered his head. If that hadn’t happened, it’d have been a no call.
Posted on 12/28/22 at 8:49 pm to NineLineBind
He could've, I dunno, not lowered his head
Posted on 12/28/22 at 8:49 pm to Tuscaloosa
So did the runner.
Posted on 12/28/22 at 8:50 pm to NineLineBind
Ok, so offsetting penalties and they get another play anyways a couple inches further
This post was edited on 12/28/22 at 8:51 pm
Posted on 12/28/22 at 8:51 pm to NineLineBind
His helmet hit the ball, ball came popping out. There was no helmet to helmet whatsoever
Posted on 12/28/22 at 8:51 pm to NineLineBind
quote:
So did the runner.
Runner was falling backwards.
Posted on 12/28/22 at 8:51 pm to TitleistProV1X
quote:
There was no helmet to helmet whatsoever
This is not accurate.
Posted on 12/28/22 at 8:52 pm to Tuscaloosa
quote:
Runner was falling backwards.
You mean as he was running over a defender?
Posted on 12/28/22 at 8:52 pm to Tuscaloosa
quote:
Runner was falling backwards.
So the tackler was supposed to know that the runner would spin backwards ina fraction of a second and not hit him? Then he scores anyway.
Posted on 12/28/22 at 8:53 pm to NineLineBind
Again, if he doesn't lower his head it's not targeting
Nothing the runner did caused him to lower his head
Nothing the runner did caused him to lower his head
Posted on 12/28/22 at 8:53 pm to buckfammer
quote:
You mean as he was running over a defender?
Wouldn’t call that running over anyone. His back was towards the goal line and he was falling backwards when both contacts were made.
Posted on 12/28/22 at 8:54 pm to NineLineBind
quote:
So the tackler was supposed to know that the runner would spin backwards ina fraction of a second and not hit him?
No, the tackler was supposed to not lower his head and lead with the crown of his helmet. It was textbook targeting.
Posted on 12/28/22 at 8:55 pm to NineLineBind
Guys lower their heads all the time tackling runners. The QB wasn’t defenseless he was trying to get over the goal line. bullshite call.
Posted on 12/28/22 at 8:56 pm to CNB
quote:
Again, if he doesn't lower his head it's not targeting
Again, if he doesn’t move in and lower his head, he has no chance to stop the guy lunging for the goal line. Defense plays with their hands tied behind their backs. They are fricking spectators.
Posted on 12/28/22 at 8:59 pm to NineLineBind
What I hate, is the only way to see the "targeting" was to slow the replay down and watch it frame by frame. It did not look like targeting at full speed.
Posted on 12/28/22 at 8:59 pm to Tuscaloosa
Disagree. When I saw it, the contact itself made him fall backwards.
The runner lowered his head as well. Not an easy thing to do when one is falling backward.
The runner lowered his head as well. Not an easy thing to do when one is falling backward.
Posted on 12/28/22 at 9:01 pm to Tuscaloosa
in other words, you've never played the game
Posted on 12/28/22 at 9:03 pm to CNB
quote:
Again, if he doesn't lower his head it's not targeting
Nothing the runner did caused him to lower his head
frick this gay earth.
Posted on 12/28/22 at 9:04 pm to Harry Rex Vonner
quote:
in other words, you've never played the game
Oh, for sure. Never ever.
quote:
- Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
- Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet
The second bullet point is arguable. Maybe. The first one is not. Sorry.
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News