Started By
Message
re: Can we all admire how terrible these calls were?
Posted on 9/17/17 at 2:01 pm to GenesChin
Posted on 9/17/17 at 2:01 pm to GenesChin
quote:
Doesn't matter if you "let up" if the action still occurs.
If you "let up" but still end up hitting a guy out of bounds it is still a late hit, even if the force wasn't as bad as it could have been
it doesn't matter for late hits out of bounds. but it does matter for targeting.
the rule requires:
1) taking aim for the purposes of attacking with forcible contact
2) delivering that forcible contact to the head or neck area
0
Posted on 9/17/17 at 2:01 pm to bmy
quote:
Because the bigger story is a 30 point arse beating delivered by MSU
Even wwhen they happened, everyone thought it was properly officiated.
People may disagree with howthe rule is written, but they were properly called
Posted on 9/17/17 at 2:03 pm to spacewrangler
quote:
The WR purposefully ran into the db to block him from coverage allowing 7 to run free, classic pick play.
You can't say that, though. The WR ran a straight line. Never once did he change direction in an attempt to block a player. Never once did he do anything other than run his hard slant.
The defender took a low tackling position against the receiver (that is a move to impede the receiver) and the defender got trucked because he is a tiny piece of shite. If the defender was bigger than the receiver and knocked the receiver down, it would have been called the other direction because it was the defender who took a position to make contact (i.e. looks like he is going to form tackle the receiver before contact).
Posted on 9/17/17 at 2:04 pm to GenesChin
quote:
Even wwhen they happened, everyone thought it was properly officiated.
People may disagree with howthe rule is written, but they were properly called
This meeting the definition of targeting and warranting an ejection clearly is not in the rulebook. Replay official confirming it should be suspended.
Posted on 9/17/17 at 2:04 pm to Ole Messcort
quote:
Not reading this entire thread.
7 pages. I don't understand why people engage with this dumbass. It's like trying to have a debate with a two week old head of cabbage.
Posted on 9/17/17 at 2:04 pm to meansonny
quote:
The defender took a low tackling position against the receiver (that is a move to impede the receiver)
Yes, he did. The defender initiated contact making it a horrendous call.
Posted on 9/17/17 at 2:05 pm to bmy
quote:
This meeting the definition of targeting and warranting an ejection clearly is not in the rulebook
Sure it is.
Posted on 9/17/17 at 2:05 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:
7 pages. I don't understand why people engage with this dumbass. It's like trying to have a debate with a two week old head of cabbage.
It's always fun watching people walk their initial argument back when they realize they don't know the rules or that the rule was improperly applied. Or they just vanish.
Posted on 9/17/17 at 2:06 pm to pvilleguru
quote:
Sure it is.
Believe what you want
Posted on 9/17/17 at 2:07 pm to bmy
all the lols in the world won't change that arse whipping lsu received ...
Posted on 9/17/17 at 2:07 pm to bmy
Don't all defensive players take aim at an opponent for the purposes of attacking with forceable contact? It's what they do.
They don't all do it with their helmets though.
They don't all do it with their helmets though.
Posted on 9/17/17 at 2:08 pm to bmy
You can see his head snap to the side from the helmet to helmet hit he took from the defender.
Posted on 9/17/17 at 2:10 pm to pvilleguru
quote:
You can see his head snap to the side from the helmet to helmet hit he took from the defender.
and you can clearly see the hit delivered to the chest or shoulder area.
Posted on 9/17/17 at 2:12 pm to bmy
quote:
and you can clearly see the hit delivered to the chest or shoulder area
You can't clearly see that before he hits his head.
Posted on 9/17/17 at 2:12 pm to pvilleguru
Certainly nothing hits his chest before his head.
Posted on 9/17/17 at 2:14 pm to tiderider
quote:
all the lols in the world won't change that arse whipping lsu received ...
True. And that arse whipping doesn't change that these calls were terrible.
If you'll excuse me.. I'm busy watching the saints get their asses beat
This post was edited on 9/17/17 at 2:17 pm
Posted on 9/17/17 at 2:16 pm to randomways
quote:
The right calls. You might not agree they should be targeting, but if you want to argue that, argue with the NCAA. The refs were only following NCAA rules. That sort of helmet to helmet hit, especially when they're leading with the crown, is a legitimate targeting penalty. The only question here is should, not whether.
I think we're disagreeing over what the "crown" of a football helmet actually is. To me, if it's facemask-to-facemask contact, then by definition, it's not leading with the crown.
Regarding helmet-to-helmet, if that's the rules, then that's the rules, and I don't care so much about the personal fouls... but the ejections are just an absurd result, no matter how I look at it. That's just not targeting to me.
In the first case, the LSU player held back some on purpose and didn't hit the QB with full force. It almost looked like a half-speed drill. In the second case, there was no lowering of the head or coiling at all--where else is the D-lineman going to go on that play?
I mean, you've probably got the better point here about the should/whether distinction, but it's just a very weird end result. I can't see myself being a replay official arguing for an ejection in either case.
Posted on 9/17/17 at 2:16 pm to bmy
nm i'm done with this thread
This post was edited on 9/17/17 at 2:17 pm
Posted on 9/17/17 at 2:17 pm to Sneaky__Sally
quote:
has a single person agreed with you?
Multiple
Posted on 9/17/17 at 2:17 pm to bmy
quote:
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
Ok. the gifs weren't working earlier for me, they are working now. The gif reaffirms my saying that 48 was a textbook targeting and the second one is a horrible example of using a video/gif to make your argument. From that angle it looks like a target but another angle might be a better angle for your argument unless you are goofing.
The pick play was pretty bad too.
Page 7 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News