Started By
Message
re: Can someone explain to me why King's fumble should have been a targeting call.....
Posted on 11/30/24 at 8:13 am to koreandawg
Posted on 11/30/24 at 8:13 am to koreandawg
1) struck a player while leading with the crown of his helmet.
2) lunged crown first making contact with a player's head area.
He did both. This isn't that hard to learn and understand. Figure it out for yourself.
2) lunged crown first making contact with a player's head area.
He did both. This isn't that hard to learn and understand. Figure it out for yourself.
2
Posted on 11/30/24 at 8:17 am to koreandawg
quote:
I haven't seen one angle that showed he was hit in his helmet.
First I would not have called it targeting but the tackler did lead with this head. Looked like a reflex move before the hit. It was not to head or neck area of H King as he hit the ball.
Targeting can be called due to the tackler hitting with the crown of the helmet.
Like I said I would not have called it
Posted on 11/30/24 at 8:18 am to TigerLunatik
quote:
I love these posts. Guy quotes someone making a correct statement and asks if they enjoy being wrong.
Thanks for showing you also don't understand the rule, what bowl will LSU be going to, the mayo bowl??
Posted on 11/30/24 at 8:19 am to GetmorewithLes
Head on the ball is never targeting. The play was reviewed and no targeting was called. Everyone saying it was targeting just wanted UGA to lose. Its simple.
Posted on 11/30/24 at 8:26 am to DrewDawg13
quote:
Thanks for showing you also don't understand the rule
As already posted, can't hit with the crown of the helmet and the rule is in place to protect the defender. Go ahead and tell me why that is wrong.
Posted on 11/30/24 at 8:26 am to Barstools
quote:
Everyone saying it was targeting just wanted UGA to lose. Its simple.
I wanted UGA to win and it was targeting. What now?
Posted on 11/30/24 at 8:31 am to Redbonebandit
I’m pretty sure it could be argued as targeting because he “led” with his crown. You don’t have to make helmet to helmet.
Whatever. Glad it wasn’t called.
Whatever. Glad it wasn’t called.
This post was edited on 11/30/24 at 8:32 am
Posted on 11/30/24 at 8:33 am to koreandawg
Because it was
Posted on 11/30/24 at 8:35 am to koreandawg
There were some bad calls that went GA’s way. But not calling targeting wasn’t one of them.
Posted on 11/30/24 at 8:36 am to TigerLunatik
They call targeting with its obvious big hit..otherwise they usually let it go.
It was def targeting by rule. Bet there were 10 others during game also.
They didn’t call many penalties at all..that game lasted as long with 8 OT as the UTenn game did.
It was def targeting by rule. Bet there were 10 others during game also.
They didn’t call many penalties at all..that game lasted as long with 8 OT as the UTenn game did.
Posted on 11/30/24 at 8:43 am to Bamadog75
quote:
Shut the hell up, you are a whiny bitch. You know it was targeting and everone else knows it to. Just accept it was and say it was a bullshite call and that you don't care. Besides that crap call , Georgia got a no hold on a obvious hold when it was 2nd and 9 at the end of the game ,should have been 2nd and 19. You may have converted but it would have been harder than 3rd and 9.
On the targeting call they should have at least reviewed it at least. I'm a bama fan got no dog in the fight but I saw at least five or six bad calls against tech in the last 5 minutes of the game. And I'm not pulling against Georgia for bama to get in the playoffs because I don't think they deserve it at all and shouldn't be in.
Melt.
Posted on 11/30/24 at 8:43 am to RealDawg
quote:
They call targeting with its obvious big hit..otherwise they usually let it go.
The subjectivity of the enforcement is the problem most people have with the rule. Either call it as it's written, change the way it's written or get rid of it all together. Knowing how corrupt the NCAA is, they probably love all this debate about it. It's stupid.
Posted on 11/30/24 at 8:46 am to TigerLunatik
I am good with the no-call last night but I am in 100% agreement with your post.
Posted on 11/30/24 at 8:50 am to Cool McCool
quote:
Cool McCool
quote:
Registered on:11/4/2024
Who's alt are you?
Posted on 11/30/24 at 8:52 am to InkStainedWretch
quote:
the rule sucks
It's the way it's written. It is open to broad interpretation.
I say this as an official.
Also, that was an ACC crew last night.
Posted on 11/30/24 at 8:54 am to SteelerBravesDawg
quote:
SteelerBravesDawg
I think you are the alt.
Guilty dog barks first.
Posted on 11/30/24 at 8:55 am to UFFan
quote:
UGFan
You’re so broken, and I love it.
Posted on 11/30/24 at 8:56 am to i am dan
Here is the rule again:
Targeting - NCAA Rule Book 2019
Rule 9 - Conduct of Players and Others Subject to the Rules
Section 1. Personal Fouls
Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet
ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 9-6) (A.R. 9-1-3-I)
Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player
ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)
Note 1: "Targeting" means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:
-Launch-a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area
-A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground
-Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
-Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet
And here is the play:
LINK
Targeting - NCAA Rule Book 2019
Rule 9 - Conduct of Players and Others Subject to the Rules
Section 1. Personal Fouls
Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet
ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 9-6) (A.R. 9-1-3-I)
Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player
ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)
Note 1: "Targeting" means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:
-Launch-a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area
-A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground
-Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
-Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet
And here is the play:
LINK
Posted on 11/30/24 at 8:59 am to N97883
IF safety mattered, 17 would have been ejected and King should have been taken out of the game. Not play another hour or whatever they ended up playing.
Posted on 11/30/24 at 9:02 am to Cool McCool
Bitch I've been here nearly 5 years, original account.
Again, who's alt are you?
Again, who's alt are you?
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News