Started By
Message
1
Posted on 1/1/25 at 6:29 pm to baytay2010
Textbook targeting.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 6:31 pm to laxtonto
Wasnt even close to targeting
Posted on 1/1/25 at 6:37 pm to baytay2010
The player was not defenseless. Defenseless would be in the process of making a catch. He already caught the ball and as the Texas player was running toward him, he turned into the Texas player as he was turning to run with the ball. Therefore incidental helmet to helmet contact and not targeting.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 6:40 pm to MikkUGA
quote:
The player was not defenseless. Defenseless would be in the process of making a catch. He already caught the ball and as the Texas player was running toward him, he turned into the Texas player as he was turning to run with the ball. Therefore incidental helmet to helmet contact and not targeting.
Take a good long look at the still shot in the OP. Assess each of your claims while looking at the picture.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 6:47 pm to deeprig9
I watched the play live. The guy caught the ball and turned to run when they collided. Therefor not in the process of making the catch and not defenseless. It's incidental helmet to helmet contact during a tackle. Not targeting.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 6:50 pm to deeprig9
Georgia fans on here being cry baby's about a call because Texas fans acted like bitches over Jackson's hit.....also not targeting proves nothing. Both were not targeting. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 6:51 pm to MikkUGA
quote:
I watched the play live. The guy caught the ball and turned to run when they collided. Therefor not in the process of making the catch and not defenseless. It's incidental helmet to helmet contact during a tackle. Not targeting.
The guy didn’t have time to protect himself as evidenced by the hard hit to his helmet.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 6:52 pm to baytay2010
SEC Rec active in every game ensuing the SEC wins…same thing happened vs Clemson with Bogus PI
Posted on 1/1/25 at 6:52 pm to MikkUGA
quote:
I watched the play live. The guy caught the ball and turned to run when they collided. Therefor not in the process of making the catch and not defenseless. It's incidental helmet to helmet contact during a tackle. Not targeting.
I will repeat myself.
Take a good long look at the picture in the OP. At the moment of the contact, the receiver does NOT have possession of the ball. How he ended up with possession of the ball after the fact is a miracle.
What you see in the pic is a receiver with one hand on the ball, his left hand, while the right hand is still trying to come in to the ball to get both hands on it, right at the point of the defender leading at full speed with the crown of his helmet, not the arm, not the shoulder, but the crown of the helmet, directly to the defenseless receiver's helmet.
Film don't lie.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 6:53 pm to MikkUGA
quote:
I watched the play live. The guy caught the ball and turned to run when they collided. Therefor not in the process of making the catch and not defenseless. It's incidental helmet to helmet contact during a tackle. Not targeting.
If the ball comes out on that hit, it’s ruled incomplete… because it was a bang bang play and the receiver was “defenseless”
Posted on 1/1/25 at 6:59 pm to deeprig9
Then watch the film. The guy caught the ball with his back turned and turned to run with it. He was not in the process of making the catch. The refs reviewed the entire play in slow motion and said it wasn't targeting. Just because you are upset because Texas fans acted like bitches about Jackson's hit, you all are going to get on here and act just like them....yea ok. Still not targeting in my eyes or the refs eyes.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 7:01 pm to MikkUGA
quote:
It's incidental helmet to helmet contact during a tackle. Not targeting.
My only problem with the call is this exact same thing was targeting last year and the year before. I do feel this year, targeting has been not called/over ruled a lot more than previous years for basically the same play. I hope the trend continues. Would love for them to institute an intent aspect to the rule and do away with the ejection portion of the rule as well.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 7:01 pm to deeprig9
By the way. He already caught the ball. What you see is him turning to run with the ball in his left hand.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 7:03 pm to MikkUGA
quote:
Then watch the film.
I have watched, rewatched, rewatched, rewatched, and rewatched. In slow motion. It is textbook targeting. Even Texas fans here are admitting it.
I don't know what your problem is. My guess is you are a degenerate gambler (nothing wrong with that) with money on TX on a parlay because no objective observer would say that's not targetting. The replay refs got it wrong and should be suspended/fired.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 7:06 pm to baytay2010
That exact same play would have been called targeting 99 out 100 times over the last few years. Anyone who doesn’t recognize that is either blind, bias or ignorant. That is a fact.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 7:10 pm to deeprig9
quote:
Forcible Contact to Shoulder/Neck/Head
A defender breaking down with his head up to make a textbook form tackle is not “forcible contact,” and if it is, they should start playing with flags.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 7:11 pm to AUTubaHerd
Please look at the pic in the OP where it shows the defenders helmets down and being launched into the defenseless receiver’s helmet
Posted on 1/1/25 at 7:12 pm to deeprig9
Then you are admitting that Dan Jackson's hit was targeting. Maybe if you all are so sensitive about bs targeting calls you should find a softer sport to watch. You probably all watch soap operas and the Bachelorette.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 7:15 pm to baytay2010
Y'all are queens. The arms are extended. The man is tackling.
Y'all are queens.
Did I mention the queens part. Y'all are.
Y'all are queens.
Did I mention the queens part. Y'all are.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News