Started By
Message
re: Phantom Targeting Call
Posted on 10/13/25 at 3:04 pm to daydreamin
Posted on 10/13/25 at 3:04 pm to daydreamin
This is the direct definition of targeting. First thing that hits the receiver is the crown of the helmet. Throw in the fact that the receiver is defenseless and you get that called 100/100 times.
Do I agree? Not really.... Is that targeting? Absolutely.
Do I agree? Not really.... Is that targeting? Absolutely.
0
Posted on 10/13/25 at 3:10 pm to daydreamin
quote:
Is the defender supposed to let the guy catch the ball and just let him start running?
If Mizzou and Bama switched uniforms no shot they call a penalty there. Maybe you should stick to flag football.
Reminder how pathetic bama is................. even with the officials and Mizzou's QB gifting you the game you BARELY by the skin of your teeth beat Lil' Ol' Mizzou.
Maybe your team and your "ALL WORLD" RB who was supposed to run all over us needs to play better and not get held to 52 yards rushing. You bunch of inbred b*tches trashed talked all week about how y'all were going to beat Bama's a$$ and all you did was $hit your pants on your own living room floor, as usual.
Posted on 10/13/25 at 3:11 pm to Jdillard343434
quote:
If you aren't happy go back to the big12 sissy
Sissy?
Looks like Bama's receiver and their RB are the sissies. We signed up for tackle football bro....WTF? Didn't know we were playing two touch football you fuggin sissy.
Look it takes a lot of balls for the WR or TE to go up and get that ball knowing he may get laid out. It happened b/c your QB threw what I believe is called a medicine ball?
Wonder why they call it that? Blame your QB not the defender that hit with his shoulder and never left his feet. It's fuggin football and like any sport sometimes people get hurt.
Posted on 10/13/25 at 3:12 pm to daydreamin
Posted on 10/13/25 at 3:32 pm to daydreamin
That was targeting. Not sure how avoidable it was, but the ejection piece is dumb. If Bama did that, you’re right, flag probably gets picked up.
Posted on 10/13/25 at 3:55 pm to daydreamin
I’d say yes it’s targeting, but I have seen worse that wasn’t called targeting. I don’t know what is or isn’t targeting anymore. Seems as if it changes from one ref to the next
Posted on 10/13/25 at 5:39 pm to Sl0thstronautEsq
For the record - I have no issue that this was called targeting. The still picture showing the contact to the head/neck (facemask) in this thread is at the end of a very violent collision. The way the rule is written, if there is any contact to the head/neck all that is left to do is judge whether that contact was "forcible". Given the dude was on the turf like a rag doll I understand why they decided what they did.
What I don't like is (in some posts here and on other sites) I see people saying Burks intentionally was aiming to injur the receiver. The game is very fast, and very violent. Anyone who thinks that these guys, playing at this speed and ferocity will 100% of the time avoid this type of contact doesn't really understand what is going on down there. Targeting is called in about 15% of FBS games, so it happens often enough - and it will continue to happen as long as it remains a contact sport. I don't recall many (if any) targeting calls where I clearly felt that a player intended to injur another. I certainly don't in this case. Watching the full video in slow motion it appears the overwhelming majority and force of the contact was with the shoulder/arms to the receivers shoulder and chest, and even the still in this thread shows the head/head part of the contact was side of helmet to facemask, as if he was trying to keep his head in front of the receiver as you should. He didn't launch, he didn't lead with his helmet, and he didn't use the crown. If he was aiming to injur, that would not be the case. Instead it appears he was trying to stay within the rules. To say that he intended to injur is a pretty big leap - and frankly a bit irresponsible.
What I don't like is (in some posts here and on other sites) I see people saying Burks intentionally was aiming to injur the receiver. The game is very fast, and very violent. Anyone who thinks that these guys, playing at this speed and ferocity will 100% of the time avoid this type of contact doesn't really understand what is going on down there. Targeting is called in about 15% of FBS games, so it happens often enough - and it will continue to happen as long as it remains a contact sport. I don't recall many (if any) targeting calls where I clearly felt that a player intended to injur another. I certainly don't in this case. Watching the full video in slow motion it appears the overwhelming majority and force of the contact was with the shoulder/arms to the receivers shoulder and chest, and even the still in this thread shows the head/head part of the contact was side of helmet to facemask, as if he was trying to keep his head in front of the receiver as you should. He didn't launch, he didn't lead with his helmet, and he didn't use the crown. If he was aiming to injur, that would not be the case. Instead it appears he was trying to stay within the rules. To say that he intended to injur is a pretty big leap - and frankly a bit irresponsible.
Page 3 of 3
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News