Started By
Message
1
Posted on 1/3/23 at 10:15 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
It was posted for you above. Look at it or don't.
Look at what exactly?
Posted on 1/3/23 at 10:16 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
He understands the game better than you ever will.
Whoever he is, I bet he understands shoulder to shoulder isnt a targeting ejection infraction.
Posted on 1/3/23 at 10:18 pm to djsdawg
quote:
Whoever he is, I bet he understands shoulder to shoulder isnt a targeting ejection infraction.
Maybe, which makes it funny to read through all the whining from Georgia fans for the Tennessee game.
Posted on 1/3/23 at 10:19 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Maybe, which makes it funny to read through all the whining from Georgia fans for the Tennessee game.
Irrelevant to the discussion.
Posted on 1/3/23 at 10:24 pm to djsdawg
quote:
Irrelevant to the discussion.
Being inconvenient for you doesn't make it irrelevant to the discussion.
You thought it was targeting when it was your guy, but not when things are reversed.
Posted on 1/3/23 at 10:26 pm to ComeAtMeBurrow
Listen we all troll but I'm not sure how you thought this was gonna be a good post.
Posted on 1/3/23 at 10:31 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
You thought it was targeting when it was your guy, but not when things are reversed.
2 very different plays and circumstances. One has nothing to do with the other, thus the irrelevance. Refs got it right both times. No targeting.
Glad that Vol play happened though because it helped me understand the targeting penalty better, which is inconvenient for you.
This post was edited on 1/3/23 at 10:33 pm
Posted on 1/3/23 at 10:41 pm to djsdawg
quote:
2 very different plays and circumstances. One has nothing to do with the other, thus the irrelevance. Refs got it right both times. No targeting.
Correct. One meets the criteria for a defenseless player. The other doesn't. Care to guess which is which? One was called on the field. The other wasn't. Again, want to guess?
quote:
Glad that Vol play happened though because it helped me understand the targeting penalty better, which is inconvenient for you.
It isn't inconvenient at all. I've known the rules quite well and didn’t need to fall on my face before I learned them. You might not remember the 2016 Fiesta Bowl against Notre Dame or the 2019 Fiesta Bowl against Clemson. I do.
Either way, the only real point of contention here is the subjectiveness of the penalty.
Posted on 1/3/23 at 10:41 pm to JayAg
quote:
I disagree. And I want to state that the Hamlin injury vs Harrison hit are completely different. It’s tasteless to say “BC Hamlin was hurt on a tackle in a rare/serious injury, the refs have to enforce a flag for hard hits going forward. That one play in the UGA would have changed, including that game’s outcome had they played today.” Bc when it comes to what happened Monday, that’s completely irrelevant to one hit/flag in the UGA game.
Nice strawman but I didnt say this.
I said if the Harrison hit happened on Monday, the refs wouldnt have reversed the flag.
Edit: I'm a pretty big fan of how every few posts someone honest slips in and posts a "if you dont like it you're a pussy!" or a music video about how bad arse knocking people out is.
It's refereshing when it's sprinkled in between the people pretending you can get concussed from someone hitting your shoulder.
I also enjoyed the "do you think rules are enforced based on mob mentality?" as though 2020 didnt happen. Yes I absolutely believe that.
When it comes out that the dude from the Bills has permanent vegetative brain damage shite is going to change, and quick. Which honestly knowing Disney/the NFL/The NCAA, they're probably going to go overboard again.
An example of the gears already moving.
This post was edited on 1/3/23 at 10:50 pm
Posted on 1/3/23 at 10:52 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Correct. One meets the criteria for a defenseless player. The other doesn't. Care to guess which is which? One was called on the field. The other wasn't. Again, want to guess?
Bennett was not defenseless, but it was helmet to helmet.
Harrison was defenseless, but it was shoulder to shoulder.
Neither met the criteria for targeting.
Posted on 1/3/23 at 10:54 pm to djsdawg
quote:
Neither met the criteria for targeting.
Remember guys, it's only targetting if the player lowers his head and intentionally tries to murder the other player in cold blood. Otherwise it's just tOuGh FoOtBaLl.
Posted on 1/3/23 at 10:55 pm to djsdawg
quote:
Bennett was not defenseless, but it was helmet to helmet.
#2 led with the shoulder.
quote:
Harrison was defenseless, but it was shoulder to shoulder.
Helmets still made contact.
quote:
Neither met the criteria for targeting.
One did. Then the replay crew gave their subjective opinions on it.
Posted on 1/3/23 at 10:55 pm to ComeAtMeBurrow
quote:
When it comes out that the dude from the Bills has permanent vegetative brain damage shite is going to change, and quick.
What exactly will change, and how quick?
quote:
I also enjoyed the "do you think rules are enforced based on mob mentality?" as though 2020 didnt happen. Yes I absolutely believe that.
To be exact, he said "the rule is enforced by definition, and not the whims of a mob", which is true in regards to the rules of football.
Posted on 1/3/23 at 10:58 pm to djsdawg
Just to reiterate how subjective it is. You can look up who McDaid is if you don’t know.
That last bit is particularly interesting.
quote:
"I want people to understand that once we stopped the game (and) we started looking at the video, we are applying subjectivity in the framework of the playing rules," McDaid said. "But a lot of times (with video reviews), it's not subjective when we go to replay. Where did the ball hit the ground? Did the foot step on the sideline or not? Did the game clock run when it should or not?"
The subjective dilemma
McDaid said that targeting, broadly stated now, is aiming at an opponent for purposes of attacking, or forcible contact beyond making a legal tackle or legal block.
That last bit is particularly interesting.
Posted on 1/3/23 at 11:00 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Helmets still made contact.
As you know, they could NOT confirm this, which overturned the bad call.
Good to see replay work correctly.
Posted on 1/3/23 at 11:01 pm to djsdawg
quote:
As you know, they could NOT confirm this, which overturned the bad call.
They didn't need to confirm it.
Posted on 1/3/23 at 11:02 pm to djsdawg
quote:
As you know, they could NOT confirm this, which overturned the bad call.
Good to see replay work correctly.
How you know all you care about is passing the "dur he led with his shoulder!" test and not in any way about protecting players and not watching them develop lifelong brain damage.
It's especially funny given how even with Harrison leaving the game you still needed Ohio State to Michael J Fox the winning kick.
Here's hoping nobody breaks Duggans legs to help you win your next game.
Inb4 I'm a pussy for caring about people getting lifelong brain damage.
This post was edited on 1/3/23 at 11:04 pm
Posted on 1/3/23 at 11:02 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
. "But a lot of times (with video reviews), it's not subjective when we go to replay.
This bit was even more interesting.............
Did they see helmet to helmet contact?
If yes, call stands.
If no, call is overturned.
Posted on 1/3/23 at 11:03 pm to djsdawg
quote:
This bit was even more interesting.............
Did they see helmet to helmet contact?
If yes, call stands.
If no, call is overturned.
You definitely misread that because that isn't the point he was making.
Reread it and let me know if you have any questions I can answer to help clear it up.
Page 5 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News