Started By
Message
re: LSU Defensive Player That Was "Targeted"
Posted on 10/27/24 at 10:55 pm to Hugh McElroy
Posted on 10/27/24 at 10:55 pm to Hugh McElroy
quote:
And you apparently don't have eyes to see.
I think it's very clear that Ryan caught motion in his peripheral vision because he turned and looked as he was getting hit but he was focused on the ball carrier and didn't see Walker until he was getting hit.
Which fits the definition of the blindside block.
If it makes you feel better to pretend you were victimized by a bad call, then by all means.
It was the correct call though, per the rules.
0
Posted on 10/27/24 at 11:02 pm to SidewalkTiger
After looking at those pics, it was a BS call. Thats not blindside.
Did he hit his helmet to make it targeting?
Did he hit his helmet to make it targeting?
This post was edited on 10/27/24 at 11:09 pm
Posted on 10/27/24 at 11:03 pm to djsdawg
quote:
After looking at those pics, it was a BS call. Thats not blindside.
Perhaps you can commiserate with the Aggies about it.
Posted on 10/27/24 at 11:12 pm to djsdawg
quote:
Did he hit his helmet to make it targeting?
It wasn't with the crown of his helmet. The only reason it was targeting was because it was called blindside. No blindside, no targeting.
Posted on 10/27/24 at 11:24 pm to SidewalkTiger
This topic is now closed and this will be the last post in the thread as I will decide who is wrong and who is right.
Texas A&M posters are right and LSU posters are wrong. The argument from LSU posters is that the LSU player had his eyes closed and therefore was hid from a blindside.
There is currently no rule on the NCAA books that indicate it is illegal to hit a player that has his eyes closed. It's a stupid argument and one that LSU fans should feel ashamed for defending.
Players need to keep their eyes open, period.
Texas A&M posters are right and LSU posters are wrong. The argument from LSU posters is that the LSU player had his eyes closed and therefore was hid from a blindside.
There is currently no rule on the NCAA books that indicate it is illegal to hit a player that has his eyes closed. It's a stupid argument and one that LSU fans should feel ashamed for defending.
Players need to keep their eyes open, period.
Posted on 10/28/24 at 12:21 am to Lonnie Utah
quote:
Secondly, if targeting is going to be a rule, it needs to be equally applied to the offensive and defensive players. Just because a player has the ball doesn't give them the ability to use their head as a weapon. There need to be consequences for both sides of the ball for players lowering their heads and initiating contact.
You're just being a fricking crybaby, next week you'll be drunk arguning something equally retarded because that's how you feel that week.
Posted on 10/28/24 at 1:27 am to Ed Guitarzan Gordan
If you slow the video down the Aggie WR turned almost completely sideways to lead with his shoulder.
The defender was turned toward the line of scrimmage and extended his arms to defend himself although he was late doing so.
The problem is the defender did not have his feet positioned to have a proper base on the ground to absorb the hit. And thus set himself up to have a dramatic looking hit put on him.
This call was complete horseshite and resulted in a TD being called back.
The defender was turned toward the line of scrimmage and extended his arms to defend himself although he was late doing so.
The problem is the defender did not have his feet positioned to have a proper base on the ground to absorb the hit. And thus set himself up to have a dramatic looking hit put on him.
This call was complete horseshite and resulted in a TD being called back.
This post was edited on 10/28/24 at 1:29 am
Posted on 10/28/24 at 1:57 am to JayAg
Targeting shouldn't be a rule
Posted on 10/28/24 at 7:29 am to SidewalkTiger
quote:quote:
Thanks for those stillshots. Really makes it objectively obvious that the blocker was in the field of vision of the defender. Plain as day.
You're a victim of your own willful ignorance, at this point.
Posted on 10/28/24 at 7:43 am to ColoradoElkHerd
quote:
The defender was turned toward the line of scrimmage and extended his arms to defend himself although he was late doing so.
Right which leads us to this.
quote:
Blind-Side Block ARTICLE 7 A blind-side block is an open field block against an opponent that is initiated from outside the opponent’s field of vision, or otherwise in such a manner that the opponent cannot reasonably defend themselves against the block
A
B
C
From Frame A to Frame C here, is 0.15 of a second. However, due to our biology, the average human reaction time is around 0.25 of a second. So therefore even if #3 had turned his his to see the WR, he still would not have had time to properly react to protect himself. That circles us back to this part of the rule.
quote:
Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14) When in question, a player is defenseless
The refs got it right. You might not like it, but they did. Furthermore, had you WR be actually blocking and not on a headhunting mission, he would have just gotten a 15 yards penalty and he wouldn't have gotten tossed. Let's not forget this image in the series....
This post was edited on 10/28/24 at 7:47 am
Posted on 10/28/24 at 7:49 am to Lonnie Utah
And one more thing. reconcile this play from 2019 with the one you're talking about from Saturday. (Yes, I'm still bitter about it. (I told LSU fans I had a loooong memory...)
This post was edited on 10/28/24 at 7:50 am
Posted on 10/28/24 at 7:50 am to Lonnie Utah
quote:
Honestly, offensive targeting needs to be called more often.
People like you won’t be happy until we’re playing flag football.
Posted on 10/28/24 at 7:56 am to FoTownBam
quote:
People like you won’t be happy until we’re playing flag football.
And people like you won't be happy until all our football heroes end up like Chuckie Mullins or are brain dead with CTE.
I think a lot of you simpletons are mis-understating the point of that statement. The point of that statement is this: Why is the impetus and consequence of targeting always on the defensive player? How many times have we seen two players approaching each other and the offensive player ducks their head at the last second and the defensive player call called for the penalty and ejected for doing nothing wrong? In THOSE SPECIFIC CASES the targeting penalty should be called on the offensive player, because they were the one that started the unsafe contact. If the rule is in place for "player safety" then the offensive player needs to be held accountable for their actions as well. It's a simple as that. Offensive targeting would truly make the game safer.
Posted on 10/28/24 at 8:05 am to JayAg
quote:
They ruled a defensive player defenseless.
Dude asked how the hell a defensive player can be defenseless?
RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU'VE EVER SEEN A CRACK BACK BLOCK.
So, there's one.
Posted on 10/28/24 at 8:20 am to Hugh McElroy
quote:
It wasn't with the crown of his helmet.
It doesn't have to be with the crown of the helmet.
Posted on 10/28/24 at 9:11 am to Lizardman2
To be fair, Walker is about 8 inches taller than Sage.
Posted on 10/28/24 at 9:59 am to Lonnie Utah
Standing still and looking at your opponent after you have blocked him is not now and has never been a penalty.
There were no taunting hand gestures, there was no taunting call. Lonnie Utah obviously never actually played a down of ball in his life.
There were no taunting hand gestures, there was no taunting call. Lonnie Utah obviously never actually played a down of ball in his life.
Posted on 10/28/24 at 10:02 am to Ed Guitarzan Gordan
quote:Drink bleach.
This topic is now closed and this will be the last post in the thread as I will decide who is wrong and who is right.
Posted on 10/28/24 at 10:03 am to ColoradoElkHerd
By the rule it's a penalty but it's a dumb rule. That was what football is supposed to be. Head on swivel, kids.
Posted on 10/28/24 at 10:05 am to TigerLunatik
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News