Started By
Message
re: First SEC "targeting" ejection just happened
Posted on 8/31/13 at 5:18 pm to Harryk15
Posted on 8/31/13 at 5:18 pm to Harryk15
quote:
Surprise, LSU fans agree with it, if you think that's worth an ejection then you are an idiot
well, i'm an LSU fan and i don't agree with it. i think it's marginal that it was called a penalty but i'll give the refs that because the ball was uncatchable but ejection? no. this was against rice but before the year is out this will determine the outcome of more than one game.
1
Posted on 8/31/13 at 5:22 pm to LSU GrandDad
same here. Aggie or not. stupid rule and stupid call.
Let them play football.
Let them play football.
Posted on 8/31/13 at 5:26 pm to boXerrumble
Nah that's not targeting.
Posted on 8/31/13 at 6:05 pm to Harryk15
quote:
Surprise, tam fans don't agree with it, if you think that's worth an erection then you are an idiot
FIFY
Posted on 8/31/13 at 6:18 pm to Alahunter
quote:Not sure what "started to launch" means, but targeting does not require launching to meet the criteria.
He started to launch at him.
This post was edited on 8/31/13 at 6:19 pm
Posted on 8/31/13 at 6:21 pm to redgreen
Never realized SEC fans were such fricking pussies
Posted on 8/31/13 at 6:22 pm to arrakis
quote:
Not sure what "started to launch" means, but targeting does not require launching to meet the criteria.
do you agree with the ejection or do you believe he'll be reinstated?
Posted on 8/31/13 at 6:29 pm to sorantable
quote:
I wish someone would target your POS QB.
If JFF keeps up his shite talking this will happen. Career over.
Posted on 8/31/13 at 6:33 pm to Harryk15
They'll change their tune with their DB's get ejected.
Posted on 8/31/13 at 6:34 pm to ChrisTAMU
Of course they will.
But that doesn't make for a good manufactured rage, directed at other teams.
But that doesn't make for a good manufactured rage, directed at other teams.
This post was edited on 8/31/13 at 6:35 pm
Posted on 8/31/13 at 6:45 pm to EKG
If our player did the same thing I would feel the same way. It's a cheap shot not by intent but by decision making. I don't know if I agree with the ejection rule or not- but if it helps stop targeting a defenseless receiver that has no chance to catch a ball I'm all for it.
Posted on 8/31/13 at 6:47 pm to BigAppleTiger
quote:
If our player did the same thing I would feel the same way. It's a cheap shot not by intent but by decision making. I don't know if I agree with the ejection rule or not.
Is that not what this discussion is about?
This post was edited on 8/31/13 at 6:48 pm
Posted on 8/31/13 at 6:50 pm to bmy
quote:
do you agree with the ejection or do you believe he'll be reinstated?
I can't say whether he'll be reinstated because replay ruled the initial point of contact met the criteria. If there's something at the conference level, that's beyond anything I know about.
From what I saw, it met the criteria and was a good call. It was close, but the rule states, "when in question, it's a foul".
IIFC the applicable rules are 9-1-3 and 9-1-4
Hope that helps
Posted on 8/31/13 at 6:51 pm to EKG
quote:
Is that not what this discussion is about?
Yep. And I'm almost solidly in its favor.
Posted on 8/31/13 at 6:52 pm to BigAppleTiger
Gotcha. I wasn't sure, based on your "I don't know if I agree w it" comment.
This post was edited on 8/31/13 at 6:53 pm
Posted on 8/31/13 at 6:53 pm to JimMorrison
quote:
probably a make up call
Im guessing the bullshite phantom ineligible man down field penalty right before the first half ended
Posted on 8/31/13 at 6:54 pm to EKG
nothing rustled.
Posted on 8/31/13 at 6:55 pm to BigAppleTiger
Posted on 8/31/13 at 7:03 pm to DRE06
quote:and jff sold shite. Don't seem right.
A&M corner back was just ejected.
Posted on 8/31/13 at 11:03 pm to Diamondawg
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News