Started By
Message
re: Corruption...explain how that was not targeting?
Posted on 1/1/25 at 10:20 pm to CaneyLake
Posted on 1/1/25 at 10:20 pm to CaneyLake
I agree with Caney lake on that and said it at the time. He didn’t drop his head at all and didn’t launch at all. That said I have seen the exact same play called targeting before when there was nothing the tackling player could do to avoid it and where the receiver ducked his head. It killed a great USA season once
2
Posted on 1/1/25 at 10:21 pm to TutHillTiger
I think they need to take calls like these, sit down with all the refs in a meeting and say here is what the rule book says. Why was this targeting or not. Let's come to some common ground. I mean the freaking rule is spelled out. Figure it out
Posted on 1/1/25 at 10:22 pm to TexasOnTop
Yea because apparently catching a ball and turning 180 degrees to run is not a football move. I mean there is nothing like watching a 5 hour game where each team has over 50 penalties and players flopping everytime someone breathes on them.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 10:22 pm to TutHillTiger
quote:
. He didn’t drop his head at all and didn’t launch at all.
Doesn’t mean it’s not targeting.
quote:
nothing the tackling player could do to avoid it and where the receiver ducked his head.
The wr didn’t duck his head here.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 10:23 pm to VooDude
Its texastrix. Stole another win via refs.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. Posted on 1/1/25 at 10:26 pm to MikkUGA
quote:
Yea because apparently catching a ball and turning 180 degrees to run is not a football move.
It’s not a position he can defend himself from.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 10:27 pm to djsdawg
Posted on 1/1/25 at 10:28 pm to TexasOnTop
Note 1. 3rd * is the indicator.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 10:29 pm to OU Guy
quote:
OU Guy
If true, wow.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 10:30 pm to BFANLC
quote:
I saw this and mentioned it in the game thread. Wouldn't have mattered because the play would have been a do over which is what Asu got
Correct, but they got it closer than they would have if it was called. They turned it to a tough 2pt to an easy 2pt.
quote:
Doesn't mean Asu doesn't score a td on the following plays.
It doesn’t mean asu scores at all if the call targeting
Posted on 1/1/25 at 10:30 pm to djsdawg
2:2 also
Posted on 1/1/25 at 10:34 pm to djsdawg
Parallel with chest or slightly ahead. Not distinct enough to make that call.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 10:35 pm to mmmmmbeeer
That only tells you what qualifies as defenseless. You need 1 of the first 4 points for it to be targeting on a defenseless player.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 10:35 pm to mmmmmbeeer
quote:
If true, wow.
It's not.
Okie homer account spewing the hurtbutt.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 10:38 pm to TexasOnTop
quote:
That only tells you what qualifies as defenseless. You need 1 of the first 4 points for it to be targeting on a defenseless player.
Article 4 at the top dude.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 10:39 pm to djsdawg
That is the dumbest fricking argument I have heard all day. He was not defenseless. What should they do? Hey I got it, everyone stop let him get his feet set and blow the whistle and everyone starts running again. Get the frick out of here with that bs. It's clear football is not the sport for you.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 10:39 pm to CaneyLake
quote:
The Texas defender's head was completely up, he didn't launch into the receiver at all. There was nothing he could do, I thought it was the right call
Listening to some analysis after, the way the rule is written then technically I think it was targeting. But watching the replay it’s clear that (a) he wasn’t using the crown but that the helmet-to-helmet was incidental and (b) he was just making a play and didn’t have malicious intent.
I support the idea to protect players but I think there needs to be a line drawn between dangerous/malicious plays versus just playing football. Similar to incidental facemask penalty vs yanking the guys head off facemask penalty.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 10:41 pm to mmmmmbeeer
Read the rest of article 4.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 10:44 pm to TexasOnTop
quote:
It doesn’t mean asu scores at all if the call targeting
True I'm not arguing just stating a different opinion. Doesn't matter to me who won..I liked Asu and knew they'd give someone a battle.
Kinda wish we'd get this targeting crap figured out. And I don't think it was corruption, think it's just calls are missed.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 11:06 pm to Emmanuel Goldstein
I hate LSU, and that was fricking targeting!!
Page 4 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News