Started By
Message
re: (#5 Utah (15) vs #13 Oregon (37) )[FINAL] {ABC} GAME THREAD
Posted on 12/6/19 at 7:40 pm to diddlydawg7
Posted on 12/6/19 at 7:40 pm to diddlydawg7
quote:
It’s 100% targeting by definition, but there was clearly no intent.
Great call refs
3
Posted on 12/6/19 at 7:41 pm to CFFreak
Those Mormon cheerleaders are cute.
Posted on 12/6/19 at 7:41 pm to CFFreak
LSU, Suckeyes, or Clemson would beat either of these teams by 3 td's
This post was edited on 12/6/19 at 7:42 pm
Posted on 12/6/19 at 7:42 pm to CFFreak
Targeting should be a two part review IMO
Part one: Was there forcible contact to head neck are etc.? (If so 15 yard penalty)
Part two: Was there intent? Could the defender have avoided the hit? (If so ejection)
Part one: Was there forcible contact to head neck are etc.? (If so 15 yard penalty)
Part two: Was there intent? Could the defender have avoided the hit? (If so ejection)
This post was edited on 12/6/19 at 7:44 pm
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News