Started By
Message
re: Rigged. No Targeting is BS!
Posted on 1/1/25 at 4:53 pm to LSUTigresFan
Posted on 1/1/25 at 4:53 pm to LSUTigresFan
quote:
what crown of the helmet and launching is.
Neither of these concepts are essential to the rule.
1
Posted on 1/1/25 at 4:54 pm to Gunga Din
quote:
You apparently don't know the rules.... At all.
Definition of Targeting
Targeting occurs when a player uses any part of their body, typically the helmet, to make forcible contact with an opponent's head or neck. This includes:
Launching into an opponent with a hit to the head or neck area.
Using the crown of the helmet (the top of the helmet) to strike an opponent.
Forcibly hitting a defenseless player in the head or neck area, even with the shoulder, forearm, or hands.
The key aspect of the targeting rule is protecting players from high-impact hits to the head or neck, which can cause concussions, spinal injuries, or other life-threatening conditions.
This post was edited on 1/1/25 at 4:57 pm
Posted on 1/1/25 at 4:54 pm to djsdawg
quote:
Neither of these concepts are essential to the rule.
I know what the rule is, obviously the person I was quoting and replying to does not.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 4:55 pm to JacieNY
quote:
Still, UT fans should have a bad taste in their mouth after this one
whoever the matchup is the fix will be in again. Tex oil money will find a way to win this one. A totally rigged system!! Just hope its not those snobs from Ga!
This post was edited on 1/2/25 at 8:38 am
Posted on 1/1/25 at 5:00 pm to LSUTigresFan
If this is the rule, how was the one against the Texas receiver not called targeting?
Helmet/shoulder to helmet with a launch...
This rule is so weirdly written and the various refs call it so differently, I really think it needs to be scrapped and go back to the spearing language
Helmet/shoulder to helmet with a launch...
This rule is so weirdly written and the various refs call it so differently, I really think it needs to be scrapped and go back to the spearing language
Posted on 1/1/25 at 5:02 pm to CaneyLake
quote:
As someone who hates the pussification of football, I support the no targeting decision there.
Then you just want the targetting rules removed because that was a perfect example of targetting.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 5:05 pm to jrobic4
What part of the SEC favoring Texas do you not understand? We are the future of football in this conference. You not so much. Now go take pride in your academic excellence. 
Posted on 1/1/25 at 5:05 pm to LSUGrrrl
quote:
Helmet to helmet doesn’t always mean targeting.
Helmet to helmet means targeting in this case.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 5:06 pm to djsdawg
quote:
Helmet to helmet means targeting in this case.
I disagree. See my post above detailing rule.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 5:07 pm to laxtonto
quote:
If this is the rule, how was the one against the Texas receiver not called targeting?
Helmet/shoulder to helmet with a launch...
This rule is so weirdly written and the various refs call it so differently, I really think it needs to be scrapped and go back to the spearing language
I been saying this since it happened. The hit on Bond was targeting.
Taaffe was trying to make a legal tackle and wasn't trying to make forcible attack with his facemask to the receiver's facemask that became a runner because if that ball came out, it was a fumble.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 5:08 pm to LSUGrrrl
quote:
I disagree. See my post above detailing rule.
The player was defenseless. See your post above.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 5:09 pm to LSUGrrrl
It was reviewed and ruled not targeting. Not sure the melt about it but officials have ruled.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 5:09 pm to LSUGrrrl
quote:
See my post above detailing rule.
This is the violation from your post:
Forcibly hitting a defenseless player in the head or neck area, even with the shoulder, forearm, or hands.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 5:10 pm to deeprig9
quote:
The player was defenseless. See your post above.
That is only 1 determining factor. I don’t understand why this is so confusing for yall.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 5:11 pm to LSU1860
Cry bitch. Our defense was in their backfield all day and they didn't call one single holding penalty on them so go f*** yourself with that stupid b*******
Doesn't change the fact that our offense is putrid and Ohio state is going to embarrass us but the refs had nothing to do with it.
Doesn't change the fact that our offense is putrid and Ohio state is going to embarrass us but the refs had nothing to do with it.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 5:12 pm to djsdawg
quote:
Forcibly
Extremely questionable and subjective. I don’t agree it was especially forceful with such little time to gain speed and no launching for extra impact. Obviously, the refs agreed.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 5:14 pm to LSUGrrrl
quote:
Helmet to helmet doesn’t always mean targeting. I thought it was a fair call.
Especially since it was a lot more face mask than helmet.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 5:15 pm to GBJs
Yep. The rule is judged to eliminate high impact hits to defenseless players in the head, neck and shoulder. It wasn’t a high impact hit. I am truly stumped why people don’t understand this.
This post was edited on 1/1/25 at 5:17 pm
Posted on 1/1/25 at 5:21 pm to LSUGrrrl
quote:
It wasn’t a high impact hit.
It was a high impact hit as evidenced by the player injury on the play.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 5:21 pm to GBJs
quote:
Especially since it was a lot more face mask than helmet.
Maybe. Maybe not.
Irrelevant Point either way.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News