Started By
Message
So will the SEC officiating address the targeting no call in the NC game or not?
Posted on 1/9/19 at 10:16 am
Posted on 1/9/19 at 10:16 am
12
Posted on 1/9/19 at 10:26 am to GumboPot
Yes they do not call them on QB's much,but they should have on this one.
Posted on 1/9/19 at 10:28 am to GumboPot
For real, I dont give a frick about the hit. It's the ABSOLUTE LACK OF CONSISTENCY... imo you should not be penalized for a helmet to helmet hit when the person you are tackling low falls into your helmet OR lowers their helmet to try and tank the hit/tackle...
Posted on 1/9/19 at 10:30 am to GumboPot
Can't call that because the runner (QB) lowered his head. Had Lawrence not lowered his head the defensive player would have hit him in the chest or stomach area.
Posted on 1/9/19 at 10:32 am to Lahurricane08
quote:
For real, I dont give a frick about the hit. It's the ABSOLUTE LACK OF CONSISTENCY... imo you should not be penalized for a helmet to helmet hit when the person you are tackling low falls into your helmet OR lowers their helmet to try and tank the hit/tackle...
Agree.
quote:
It's the ABSOLUTE LACK OF CONSISTENCY
Yes.
That's why this no call should be addressed.
It seems this year there was ZERO consistency on targeting calls/no calls from game to game. Is it the neck area or not? Why is it not targeting when the ball carrier lowers the crown of their helmet?
Posted on 1/9/19 at 10:33 am to GumboPot
Don’t understand why they don’t protect the QB in college football.
Posted on 1/9/19 at 10:34 am to TidalTim
quote:
Yes they do not call them on QB's much,but they should have on this one.
Posted on 1/9/19 at 10:35 am to DawgsLife
quote:
Can't call that because the runner (QB) lowered his head. Had Lawrence not lowered his head the defensive player would have hit him in the chest or stomach area.
I actually agree with you.
But it was called against Delpit in the Fiesta Bowl.
Almost the exact situation. Delpit led with his helmet going into tackle and would have hit the runner in the stomach area but the runner lowered his head and they hit heads. Delpit was ejected.
Posted on 1/9/19 at 10:35 am to GumboPot
weren't they B1G officials?
Posted on 1/9/19 at 10:36 am to GumboPot
What do the SEC officials have to do with this? It wasn't an SEC crew.
By the book its targeting. This is a prime example(along with the LSU player against UCF. Can't remember his name, forgive me) of why the rule needs to be fixed. Defensive players shouldn't be punished for shite that's out of their control.
By the book its targeting. This is a prime example(along with the LSU player against UCF. Can't remember his name, forgive me) of why the rule needs to be fixed. Defensive players shouldn't be punished for shite that's out of their control.
Posted on 1/9/19 at 10:37 am to DawgsLife
quote:
Can't call that because the runner (QB) lowered his head. Had Lawrence not lowered his head the defensive player would have hit him in the chest or stomach area.
That's not true. There have been plenty of targeting calls against defenders when the runner has lower his head and caused the helmet to helmet. They treat it as leading with the helmet therefore targeting.
Posted on 1/9/19 at 10:37 am to bayou85
quote:
weren't they B1G officials?
Yes.
I thought they did a good job.
Normally I would think the play in the OP was a good no call. However based on the targeting calls through the season it should have been called.
Posted on 1/9/19 at 10:38 am to GumboPot
Delpit. that's who I was thinking of. Also the runner didnt lower his head, he fell in to the path. Same point to be made though. Wasn't delpits fault.
Posted on 1/9/19 at 10:39 am to bamaboy87
quote:
What do the SEC officials have to do with this?
Address the issue.
quote:
By the book its targeting. This is a prime example(along with the LSU player against UCF. Can't remember his name, forgive me) of why the rule needs to be fixed. Defensive players shouldn't be punished for shite that's out of their control.
Something to this effect is all SEC officiating needs to say.
There needs to be consistency across the league on what is and what isn't targeting.
Posted on 1/9/19 at 10:41 am to GumboPot
quote:
But it was called against Delpit in the Fiesta Bowl.
Ah! Gotcha! I didn't realize you were working an angle. I was merely commenting on this particular one.
Posted on 1/9/19 at 10:41 am to bamaboy87
quote:
Also the runner didnt lower his head, he fell in to the path.
You are right. Bad choice of words on my part.
But I think we agree the helmet to helmet contact was incidental and not targeting.
Posted on 1/9/19 at 10:42 am to GumboPot
quote:
There needs to be consistency across the league on what is and what isn't targeting.
There needs to be consistency across the country. It's a good rule that's poorly enforced because it doesn't take in to account shite that is out of players control. And it's literally an opinion flag.
Posted on 1/9/19 at 10:43 am to GumboPot
quote:
But I think we agree the helmet to helmet contact was incidental and not targeting.
Abso-fricking-lutely
Posted on 1/9/19 at 10:43 am to DawgsLife
quote:
Ah! Gotcha! I didn't realize you were working an angle. I was merely commenting on this particular one.
I'm really not honing in on the Delpit targeting penalty. I'm just using it as an example of the inconsistency across the league when applying the targeting rule.
Posted on 1/9/19 at 10:44 am to RebelRye
quote:
That's not true. There have been plenty of targeting calls against defenders when the runner has lower his head and caused the helmet to helmet. They treat it as leading with the helmet therefore targeting.
They shouldn't. If the runner lowers his helmet, then it should be a no call. I am not arguing that is what is being done, merely that it should be a no call. Otherwise every team in America will be recruiting the shortest RB's they can get and tell them to get real low and lower their head.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News