Started By
Message
Can we all admire how terrible these calls were?
Posted on 9/17/17 at 12:41 pm
Posted on 9/17/17 at 12:41 pm
Both were called roughing the passer with targeting and both targeting calls were upheld after being reviewed by the replay official 
Bonus call:
Offensive pass interference
Bonus call:
Offensive pass interference
51
Posted on 9/17/17 at 12:42 pm to bmy
30 points. 3. 0.
Posted on 9/17/17 at 12:42 pm to bmy
This will be a never ending melt won't it
Posted on 9/17/17 at 12:43 pm to bmy
Targeting was legit
If you are going to protect people do it all the way
If you are going to protect people do it all the way
Posted on 9/17/17 at 12:43 pm to bmy
Melt
Posted on 9/17/17 at 12:43 pm to bmy
It's weird that you enjoy this being your schtick
Posted on 9/17/17 at 12:45 pm to bmy
I agree. They should have awarded LSU 30 points instead.
Posted on 9/17/17 at 12:46 pm to SummerOfGeorge
He is so unbelievably obsessed with this shite it's comical.
Posted on 9/17/17 at 12:46 pm to bmy
Helmet to helmet is targeting....and pick play. The calls look correct to me.
Posted on 9/17/17 at 12:46 pm to thelawnwranglers
quote:
Targeting was legit
If you are going to protect people do it all the way
you're kidding
which of those hits were unsafe?
Posted on 9/17/17 at 12:47 pm to bmy
The second targeting call was close - a good call, but a close one. That first one, though, will probably be played at future referee seminars as the textbook example of targeting.
Posted on 9/17/17 at 12:47 pm to JuiceTerry
quote:
I agree. They should have awarded LSU 30 points instead.
LSU would have still lost in overtime because MSU was much better. That doesn't change the fact that these calls were atrocious
Posted on 9/17/17 at 12:48 pm to bmy
quote:
which of those hits were unsafe?
The one I saw on 48 maybe? was a targeting in that he left his feet slightly at the last second and put his crown in the facemask of the quarterback. It was certainly legit. I didn't see the other so I can't comment on it.
Posted on 9/17/17 at 12:48 pm to bmy
Dude, STFU. Even LSU fans are saying those hits were dirty. It's obvious to everyone those plays were dirty.
Posted on 9/17/17 at 12:49 pm to bmy
Grinded
Posted on 9/17/17 at 12:49 pm to bmy
All three calls are textbook penalties. Not sure what you are looking for with this thread.
Posted on 9/17/17 at 12:49 pm to TheTideMustRoll
quote:
The second targeting call was close - a good call, but a close one. That first one, though, will probably be played at future referee seminars as the textbook example of targeting.
this is a good example of targeting
the gifs i posted were barely roughing the passer but that's a call i'd be okay with
Posted on 9/17/17 at 12:51 pm to Warfarer
quote:
The one I saw on 48 maybe? was a targeting in that he left his feet slightly at the last second and put his crown in the facemask of the quarterback. It was certainly legit. I didn't see the other so I can't comment on it.
i posted the other one. 92 was ejected for targeting despite minor contact being clearly delivered to the chest. he didn't even extend his arms to push
This post was edited on 9/17/17 at 12:52 pm
Posted on 9/17/17 at 12:51 pm to TheTideMustRoll
I don't like the fact that they are infractions. I don't like the rule.
But, the fact is , according to the rule, they are both infractions.
But, the fact is , according to the rule, they are both infractions.
Posted on 9/17/17 at 12:51 pm to bmy
A player running with the ball is not defenseless. A QB in mid-pass is. If you want to complain about the rules, you should try learning them first.
Page 1 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News