Started By
Message
0
Posted on 1/1/23 at 7:57 am to TomRollTideRitter
Rules are too subjective.
Posted on 1/1/23 at 8:01 am to ScoggDog
quote:
Shoulder to shoulder contact, did not lead to the head.
If there was any accidental helmet to helmet, then targeting seems like the correct call.
Part of the targeting rule is you can't hit a defenseless player above the shoulders.
There are about 4 stipulations to the targeting rule.
Most of you think it's just about crowns of helmets.
Same thing with blindside blocking.
And yeah, Ive seen every fanbase want the targeting call when it's questionable and it's their team benefitting from the call on game threads all year.
I'm going by the rule, not what I want the rule to be.
This post was edited on 1/1/23 at 8:04 am
Posted on 1/1/23 at 8:05 am to UGA40
Didn’t watch the game until i looked at my phone and saw it was 42-41 w/a minute left so i missed this play / but it was discussed here so i went and found the video clip ….
I think a targeting call was merited - he was defenseless and there was helmet to helmet …i mean, dude left the game due to that hit.
Some UGA homer posted that the ground caused the concussion lol bruh, his body had more defensive moves to protect him as he fell than when he laid out trying to catch that ball …that ground contact was minimal compared to him being drilled
I think a targeting call was merited - he was defenseless and there was helmet to helmet …i mean, dude left the game due to that hit.
Some UGA homer posted that the ground caused the concussion lol bruh, his body had more defensive moves to protect him as he fell than when he laid out trying to catch that ball …that ground contact was minimal compared to him being drilled
Posted on 1/1/23 at 8:10 am to 850SaintsGator
quote:But there was no helmet to helmet. I’m not sure why people think you need to get hit in the head to have a concussion. People get concussions in car accidents all the time without getting hit in the head….same mechanism as this.
there was helmet to helmet
Posted on 1/1/23 at 8:21 am to SneakyWaff1es
He was concussed because when Bullard rammed him in the shoulder, his head went violently sideways. That will do it for you just every time. However, Bullard hit him shoulder to shoulder, and didn’t leave his feet to launch at him. As for defenseless receiver, don’t throw an idiotic jump ball in the middle. If you can’t tackle a player trying to make a reception after the ball is there, then you simply aren’t playing football.
Posted on 1/1/23 at 8:30 am to UGA40
It was targeting or at a minimum a personal foul. It has been a personal foul for years.
Posted on 1/1/23 at 8:31 am to PassingThrough
quote:
If you can’t tackle a player trying to make a reception after the ball is there, then you simply aren’t playing football.
Which, I am afraid the game is heading to
Posted on 1/1/23 at 8:33 am to UGA40
I'm hardly 100% objective, given my familial UGA affiliation, but football is still football, and that was a clean hit.
Posted on 1/1/23 at 8:35 am to Pastor Mike
It’s the type of hit that we should be seeing about 20 times a game the way they play football now. The passing game plays with no fear because it’s so protected, it empowers they to basically do whatever they want. If we can bring hits like that back you would see a lot more focus on the running game.
Posted on 1/1/23 at 8:36 am to UGA40
Maybe I saw it wrong but it seems crazy calling him defenseless when it looked like he was pretty close to catching the pass for a TD. I’ll rewatch it again but I feel like it’s a lot closer to being caught for a TD than people are realizing. Defender made a hard hit to make sure it didn’t happen. Unfortunate that he was concussed but that doesn’t mean it was targeting.
Posted on 1/1/23 at 8:37 am to UGA40
quote:
To the objective fans... what ya got, targeting or not?
There was something that I did not understand about the ruling. Gene said the WR was a defenseless player. the ruling came back that it was not targeting but never addressed the defenseless player issue. I did not believe the hit was targeting but how did he become not a defenseless player and hence no penalty?
Posted on 1/1/23 at 8:39 am to GetmorewithLes
quote:
Gene said the WR was a defenseless player. the ruling came back that it was not targeting but never addressed the defenseless player issue.
We will get to the point where you can not make contact while a player is in the act of catching the football.
Posted on 1/1/23 at 8:45 am to UGA40
I don’t like GA much but it was clean.
Rules have gotten a bit too soft in my opinion on some of this stuff. Especially forcing “screens” on kickoff return blocking rather than just knocking the guy into the turf.
Rules have gotten a bit too soft in my opinion on some of this stuff. Especially forcing “screens” on kickoff return blocking rather than just knocking the guy into the turf.
Posted on 1/1/23 at 8:46 am to GetmorewithLes
I hate the rule was it is subjective as hell and bullshite, but I have seen that exact play called targeting 100 times, if he was out bounds used to be called simplest unnecessary roughness, but after it was made on the field then I definitely didn’t see clear and convincing evidence to overturn it, you got lucky on that and that’s it. It’s clear they didn’t want to call targeting in playoffs as they missed on in other game too.
Do it again in championship game and it will be called for sure now after it knocked out a key player they will be looking for it.
In the old guys, we would have put so many helmets through your QBs bad leg bones would have been sticking out of it 9 different ways in retaliation, but they didn’t do shite
Do it again in championship game and it will be called for sure now after it knocked out a key player they will be looking for it.
In the old guys, we would have put so many helmets through your QBs bad leg bones would have been sticking out of it 9 different ways in retaliation, but they didn’t do shite
Posted on 1/1/23 at 8:47 am to GetmorewithLes
quote:
I did not believe the hit was targeting but how did he become not a defenseless player and hence no penalty?
There was no penalty because there was no contact to the head or neck area. It's not against the rules to hit a defenseless player cleanly.
Posted on 1/1/23 at 8:48 am to TigerLunatik
Anyone have a replay?
Posted on 1/1/23 at 8:50 am to NorthernGamecock
quote:
Rules have gotten a bit too soft in my opinion on some of this stuff. Especially forcing “screens” on kickoff return blocking rather than just knocking the guy into the turf.
They make it worse, at least I think, but trying to tone down some of these plays rather than just eliminate them.
Most injuries, every game, occur on special teams. You could spot the ball at the 25 instead of kicking it off. And you could simply not advance a punt.
They dictate the defense can't really defend the WR, yet penalize the defense for the only plays they have left - hit the WR at the point where he tries to catch, or hit the QB before he can throw it. If they'd go back to legal downfield pushing before the throw, they'd have less injuries because DBs could actually cover.
And it's not the fault of the defense that every offense likes to send four or five WRs out now, with no more than a single back that can't block well. The first decision that puts the QB in danger belongs to the OC.
Posted on 1/1/23 at 8:50 am to UGA40
It was an extremely violent hit, but it was shoulder to shoulder. Since the forward pass has been legal, going up for a pass over the middle has always been a risky proposition for a WR. I understand wanting to protect players, but football is a physical and violent sport; if you take that physicality and that aggression out of the game then it’s not football as anyone has known it before. I wish Harrison a speedy recovery and all the best, but Bullard’s hit was quintessential hard nosed, physical football.
Page 3 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News