re: Let’s Talk Officiating

Don’t act like I’m the one who needs to pull out the rulebook. You said Young wasn’t defenseless there. Only after I educated you on that concept were you forced to concede that point.

I’m happy to answer how that hit meets the rest of the requirements for targeting; after you answer my question which you deflected on. I’ll post it again:

quote:

---

Even after Vols were gifted that game, Bama is on an unprecedented 16-1 win streak. How much worse do you think it will get for UTk? 20 wins with one asterisk loss? 30? 50?

---

Former LSU coach L.Miles speaking at a booster club in the summer of his second year said that when he was head coach in the Big 12 he'd normally speak to the League office about officiating twice a year. Once in the summer to get briefed on any new rules; at the end of the season to get the League's review of the past season. In the SEC he found himself calling the League office to complain about calls every week, and not over minor stuff. "Major blown calls". He said he had never seen such League-wide bad officiating. If anything, it's gotten worse.

Stop deflecting. Answer my question and I’ll further educate you on targeting (as I had to do earlier when I taught you QB’s who just threw a pass are defenseless).

Outside of money, is there a reason conferences couldn't make officiating a full time job? These TV deals are in the billions of dollars now...you would think they could deploy a very small amount of that to employing officials. It's crazy to think a sport that commands so much revenue leaves game-changing decisions in the hands of part time workers.

Still deflecting from my original question. Just answer my question man, and I will provide a detailed explanation on why that was clearly targeting. I already gave you a courtesy education on the concept of a defenseless player, but the rest won’t be free.

I’ll ask again, how much worse, in your best guess, will this 16-1* streak get? 20 Bama wins with 1* loss? 30? 50?

quote:

---

I’ll ask again, how much worse, in your best guess, will this 16-1* streak get? 20 Bama wins with 1* loss? 30? 50?

---

UT wins next year. Series probably splits till Nicky retires, then it’s back to irrelevance for a couple decades for Bama

quote:

---

will provide a detailed explanation on why that was clearly targeting.

---

Response coming right up, almost free

quote:

---

UT wins next year. Series probably splits till Nicky retires

---

I knew you weren't a serious person, but



Go to 17 second mark on that video. UT player clearly leads with the crown of his helmet and hits Young right in the facemask a step or two after he releases. You can clearly see his head snap back from the initial contact on the facemask.


Only one indicator of targeting is needed here, but two are met:

(3) Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
(4) Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet



Here's how this discussion between you and me would go if I was interested in further interacting with your unhinged arse. You will likely dispute that UTK player initiated with the crown. I would then educate you that the crown is the "portion of the helmet above the level of the top of the facemask," and clearly that's where contact was made here after he cleary lowers his head right before initiating contact. I would point out again that, nevertheless, the crown issue is a side argument, that all we need is #3 to call this targeting and only a lunatic would argue we don't have that here. We could argue for hours over where the force of the hit was absorbed, but because you are unhinged and incapable of acknowledging reality due to your debilitating confirmation bias, you will never admit the indisputable truth that the UTk player made 'forcible contact at the head or neck area' of Bryce. At this point I would point out that if you interviewed a thousand people who are rules experts or just watch college football and are not insane like you, it is my strong opinion that a vast majority agrees #3 is indisputable and #4 was probably also met. You would likely argue that the percentages were lower, but you would agree that some people would likely agree that "forcible contact at the head or neck area." At that point I would point out this part from the intro paragraph targeting: "When in question, it is a foul." Discussion over. You lost. You are unhinged and incapable of rationally discussing this topic, which was clear to me from the beginning.

ETA the video again, here:

LINK

quote:

---

Go to 17 second mark on that video. UT player clearly leads with the crown of his helmet and hits Young right in the facemask a step or two after he releases

---

The crown of the helmet is the top of the helmet, not the face mask and portion of the helmet right above the face mask, which is the part of the defender’s helmet that makes contact. You honestly don’t know what the crown of the helmet is???

Young is defenseless in that clip so what you posted might be targeting. What you’re not considering is that the defender begins to raise his left arm before making contact and then the actual hit is obscured by other players. If the defender initialized contact with his helmet to young’s helmet that’s targeting. If he initializes contact with his left arm/hand, it’s not targeting. And the clip you provided doesn’t show definitively which happened first. What you posted could be targeting, we simply can’t draw that conclusion from what you linked.

I’m not shocked that someone who does not know what the crown of the helmet is doesn’t understand the targeting rule