Started By
Message
Lost in all of this discussion about the Dallas Turner hit on Jayden Daniels...
Posted on 11/7/23 at 12:30 pm
Posted on 11/7/23 at 12:30 pm
Let's argue for the sake of it that it was indeed targeting. Even if it would have been called correctly on the field, what exactly would have changed? Turner would have been ejected for the remainder of the game to be certain, but Jayden Daniels would have remained on the sidelines with Nussmeier starting in his place. It's not like LSU was robbed of 15 free yards off a penalty because roughing the passer was indeed called on Turner.
What exactly are we arguing here? You can say the refs missed a call but its impact on the game would have been negligible if they had called it correctly. Daniels would have remained injured targeting or no targeting. I just don't see how it would have mattered.
What exactly are we arguing here? You can say the refs missed a call but its impact on the game would have been negligible if they had called it correctly. Daniels would have remained injured targeting or no targeting. I just don't see how it would have mattered.
24
Posted on 11/7/23 at 12:33 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Even if it would have been called correctly on the field, what exactly would have changed?
It would help prove that the officials aren’t corrupt.
This post was edited on 11/7/23 at 12:33 pm
Posted on 11/7/23 at 12:35 pm to Roll on Tigers
quote:
It would help prove that the officials aren’t corrupt.
If they were indeed corrupt they wouldn't have called roughing the passer.
Posted on 11/7/23 at 12:43 pm to RollTide1987
It wouldn't have changed a fricking thing which is why it's so fricking embarrassing to hear some of our retards act like it's why we lost the game.
Bama whopped our front 7 and our center had the yips with low snaps and multiple false starts. The interception to set up the short field ended it. Simple as that.
Bama whopped our front 7 and our center had the yips with low snaps and multiple false starts. The interception to set up the short field ended it. Simple as that.
Posted on 11/7/23 at 12:52 pm to RollTide1987
Just for arguments sake, a targeting call would be a harsher punishment for the guilty player and his team. It would give him and his coaches time to reflect on what he did wrong. He might not lead with his helmet and launch at this next QB they play or a QB they play in the future. It is not just about how a penalty effects the present game. It is about effecting the guilty players type of play in the future, and possibly saving the health of a future opponent. I believe that is the intent of the rule.
Posted on 11/7/23 at 12:54 pm to Roll on Tigers
quote:
It would help prove that the officials aren’t corrupt.
There is nothing that could ever be done to convince you conspiracy theorists loony lsu fans that Bama doesn’t pay off refs. It’s ingrained in you. It’s your coping mechanism.
Posted on 11/7/23 at 12:55 pm to RollTide1987
What would be LSU's excuse if the hit never happened?
Posted on 11/7/23 at 12:56 pm to Tarpon08
quote:
Bama whopped our front 7 and our center had the yips with low snaps and multiple false starts. The interception to set up the short field ended it. Simple as that.
I don't know what the deal was with the center, seems like they got cute with the snap counts and confused him.
I would also add Mason Taylor's drop, that was a huge turning point.
LSU ultimately lost the game because they couldn't stop Alabama and thus needed the offense to be perfect and no offense is going to be perfect vs a defense like Alabama's.
Posted on 11/7/23 at 12:58 pm to YankeeHandle
I understand what you're getting at, but I can imagine that in that environment / at that level of competition those are bang-bang plays. Turner was 1 yard from Daniels when he threw the ball. Whether you think it was targeting / not targeting, I think its a bit silly to assume that there was malicious intent. Sure he can learn from it, and I'm sure he will regardless of the call... but split second decisions in a huge game are exactly that, split second.
Posted on 11/7/23 at 1:00 pm to YankeeHandle
quote:
Just for arguments sake, a targeting call would be a harsher punishment for the guilty player and his team. It would give him and his coaches time to reflect on what he did wrong. He might not lead with his helmet and launch at this next QB they play or a QB they play in the future. It is not just about how a penalty effects the present game. It is about effecting the guilty players type of play in the future, and possibly saving the health of a future opponent. I believe that is the intent of the rule.
Get outta’ here with that common sense shite.
Posted on 11/7/23 at 1:08 pm to MykTide
quote:
There is nothing that could ever be done to convince you conspiracy theorists loony lsu fans that Bama doesn’t pay off refs
Please, it's the entire conference and the majority of the country that feel that way. When everyone says it's been happening and continues to happen with the exception of the one's who are benefiting - whose really doing the coping?
It's a terrible look for the game of football to everyone but those who benefit from it. People are fed up with it.
This post was edited on 11/7/23 at 1:10 pm
Posted on 11/7/23 at 1:09 pm to Roll on Tigers
It wouldn't prove anything about the officals to you LSU fans. You would just find something else to whine about.
Posted on 11/7/23 at 1:09 pm to TRUERockyTop
quote:
Please, it's the entire conference and the majority of the country
Posted on 11/7/23 at 1:10 pm to RollTide1987
Soooooo..... If you feel it won't change the outcome of the game, there's no need to call penalties?
Makes total sense.
Makes total sense.
Posted on 11/7/23 at 1:12 pm to Crimson_Chaos
Alot of plays/players have been called for targeting that did not have malicious intent. The rule was put in place to make players think twice before even coming close to another players helmet with there own helmet. Bang, bang play or not, it doesn't matter.
It seems to have made a difference because I haven't seen hardly any targeting calls called this year on DBs angainst WRs. Used to see 1 or 2 a game it seems.
It seems to have made a difference because I haven't seen hardly any targeting calls called this year on DBs angainst WRs. Used to see 1 or 2 a game it seems.
Posted on 11/7/23 at 1:19 pm to YankeeHandle
I agree, the rule does make a difference... but that doesn't mean that it doesn't still happen, even if by 'accident'. Heck, there were three plays total in the Bama-LSU game that could be reviewed for targeting.
1. Hit on JD5
2. Hit on Jalen in his earhole when he was running into the endzoe
3. Hit on Jalen on a perimeter run when the DB (Burns, I believe) lowered his head and cracked the crown on his helmet directly into incoming Milroe (dangerous for the DB).
My point being, while the rule dissuades a certain type of tackling... it will never fully prevent.
I at least appreciate the civil discussion about it as opposed to the constant melting
1. Hit on JD5
2. Hit on Jalen in his earhole when he was running into the endzoe
3. Hit on Jalen on a perimeter run when the DB (Burns, I believe) lowered his head and cracked the crown on his helmet directly into incoming Milroe (dangerous for the DB).
My point being, while the rule dissuades a certain type of tackling... it will never fully prevent.
I at least appreciate the civil discussion about it as opposed to the constant melting
Posted on 11/7/23 at 1:23 pm to RollTide1987
do you think Alabama is better with or without Turner?
not saying we win, but it couldn’t have hurt our chances.
he did pressure Nuss almost every pass.
not saying we win, but it couldn’t have hurt our chances.
he did pressure Nuss almost every pass.
Posted on 11/7/23 at 1:24 pm to Crimson_Chaos
quote:
.. but that doesn't mean that it doesn't still happen, even if by 'accident
I'd say that the vast majority nowdays are accidents which means they could safely get rid of the automatic suspensions. Seems excessive to punish a player that much who is just trying to make a legit football play.
Posted on 11/7/23 at 1:25 pm to RollTide1987
My only argument is consistent enforcement of the rules. It seems that the parameters of what is targeting changes week to week. We were even the benefactor of a targeting call vs MSU that I thought was total BS that got Shawn Preston ejected. I don’t have anythint against Turner. I like his style of play in terms of his physicality. I just want to see the rule enforced evenly whether it makes a difference in the outcome or not.
Posted on 11/7/23 at 1:28 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Let's argue for the sake of it that it was indeed targeting. Even if it would have been called correctly on the field, what exactly would have changed? Turner would have been ejected for the remainder of the game to be certain, but Jayden Daniels would have remained on the sidelines with Nussmeier starting in his place. It's not like LSU was robbed of 15 free yards off a penalty because roughing the passer was indeed called on Turner.
What exactly are we arguing here? You can say the refs missed a call but its impact on the game would have been negligible if they had called it correctly. Daniels would have remained injured targeting or no targeting. I just don't see how it would have mattered.
I don't think anyone is arguing that the game was won or lost on the targetting no-call.
It was an illegal hit which injured a player. People are mad about that and want the offending player punished as per the regulation.
Page 1 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News