Started By
Message
Is this targeting?
Posted on 10/20/24 at 5:55 pm
Posted on 10/20/24 at 5:55 pm
LINK
I’m not saying this is why Arkansas lost, but it was a big call in the game. No flag thrown, then reviewed for targeting, ruled not. I’m sorry, BS.
I’m not saying this is why Arkansas lost, but it was a big call in the game. No flag thrown, then reviewed for targeting, ruled not. I’m sorry, BS.
51
Posted on 10/20/24 at 5:56 pm to Columbia
If your Texas in the UGA game, yes.
Everyone else, no.
Everyone else, no.
Posted on 10/20/24 at 5:57 pm to Columbia
I think it’s reasonably debatable & the no call on the play that hurt CJ Daniels looked pretty similar — he didn’t even have the ball.
This post was edited on 10/20/24 at 5:58 pm
Posted on 10/20/24 at 5:57 pm to Columbia
No. All should pads. If you expect him not to hit him and let the receiver just catch the ball then you’re soft. That’s a guy making a play
Posted on 10/20/24 at 5:57 pm to Columbia
No, that's not targeting.
Posted on 10/20/24 at 5:58 pm to Columbia
Didn’t look like targeting to me. They put the replay up on the video board during the game and the folks sitting around me also didn’t think it was targeting.
We’d have gladly accepted the ejection however if they decided to rule otherwise.
We’d have gladly accepted the ejection however if they decided to rule otherwise.
Posted on 10/20/24 at 5:58 pm to Columbia
He lowered his shoulder into the WR, and was clearly aiming at the WR's chest, not his head. Refs got it right.
Posted on 10/20/24 at 5:58 pm to Columbia
Was it a face mask on Durham on his TD? There was no flag . Newsflash all of the refs suck in the SEC! And no it’s not why you lost
Posted on 10/20/24 at 5:59 pm to Columbia
I don't think so. He turned his body to avoid.
Posted on 10/20/24 at 5:59 pm to Columbia
quote:
No flag thrown, then reviewed for targeting, ruled not. I’m sorry, BS.
Uh, several flags were thrown. Then they reviewed it for targeting and picked up the flags.
Posted on 10/20/24 at 6:00 pm to Columbia
Looks like he led with his shoulder not the crown of the helmet to me! So No! 
Posted on 10/20/24 at 6:01 pm to Columbia
I don't think so. It was all shoulder into the WR's chest.
Posted on 10/20/24 at 6:01 pm to Columbia
Read the rule. It was not targeting. Pads hit the chest (not head or neck area). This is still football.
The face mask of the offensive player hit LSU’s player after initial contact was made.
The face mask of the offensive player hit LSU’s player after initial contact was made.
Posted on 10/20/24 at 6:02 pm to Columbia
It wasn’t helmet to helmet but launching could have been argued. But big hits are part of the game.
Posted on 10/20/24 at 6:04 pm to Clark14
quote:
It wasn’t helmet to helmet but launching could have been argued. But big hits are part of the game.
I think you need to leave your feet for launching, he still had one foot on the ground.
This post was edited on 10/20/24 at 6:05 pm
Posted on 10/20/24 at 6:04 pm to Columbia
I’m assuming this was the Sage hit. It wasn’t targeting. If the pussy announcers didn’t glorify the hit, you wouldn’t think it was targeting. You’re team fricking sucks get over it.
Posted on 10/20/24 at 6:09 pm to Columbia
No. Hard hit but helmet across the body, led with shoulder. There was another view showing it clearly wasn’t targeting.
Posted on 10/20/24 at 6:12 pm to Columbia
After further review, it wasn't.
Posted on 10/20/24 at 6:14 pm to Columbia
It was so clear that he just grazed his face mask on the forward facing view. All of the forceful contact was shoulder pad to chest.
Everyone yelling “First contact was to the facemask!!” Is just a blinded fan asking for help from the refs.
Everyone yelling “First contact was to the facemask!!” Is just a blinded fan asking for help from the refs.
This post was edited on 10/20/24 at 6:15 pm
Posted on 10/20/24 at 6:39 pm to Columbia
Nope
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News