Started By
Message
1
Posted on 1/2/25 at 12:14 pm to BFANLC
quote:
I've already posted the difference in the missed calls. Mostly that the targeting stopped an Asu drive where as the other missed calls didn't change anything.
You don't think the no targeting call on bond wouldn't have changed anything?
Posted on 1/2/25 at 12:15 pm to OU Guy
You folks really should just get used to this stuff.
Posted on 1/2/25 at 12:25 pm to HorninHouston
quote:
You don't think the no targeting call on bond wouldn't have changed anything?
2 things:
A. when you watch them both in slow motion, the hit on Bond wasn't nearly as textbook as the hit by the Texas DB. The ASU DB actually pulls up just before the hit and even raises his arms so as not to "attack".
B. the targeting on that one would have been after the interception, so would have changed field position of that drive, but not the interception.
Posted on 1/2/25 at 12:30 pm to Nutriaitch
quote:
2 things:
A. when you watch them both in slow motion, the hit on Bond wasn't nearly as textbook as the hit by the Texas DB. The ASU DB actually pulls up just before the hit and even raises his arms so as not to "attack".
B. the targeting on that one would have been after the interception, so would have changed field position of that drive, but not the interception.
according to the rules leading with a forearm is targeting. I hate that penalty as much as anyone but at least be honest. That was a much more violent hit than taeff's who was just going in for the tackle.
According to the rules they should have both been called but, as you know, the refs seem to arbitrarily call that when they want to affect the outcome of the game. Something has to change.
We should have lost but for a different reason. On the ASU FG we blocked it hit the ground and bounced through the uprights. According to the rulebook that should have counted. The refs obviously didn't know the rule.
Just another horrible job all around from an officiating crew. How can anyone be surprised at this point?
This post was edited on 1/2/25 at 12:33 pm
Posted on 1/2/25 at 12:33 pm to Nutriaitch
quote:
A. when you watch them both in slow motion, the hit on Bond wasn't nearly as textbook as the hit by the Texas DB. The ASU DB actually pulls up just before the hit and even raises his arms so as not to "attack".
B. the targeting on that one would have been after the interception, so would have changed field position of that drive, but not the interception.
The asu DB did not pull up. He launched into the head/neck area.
The asu wr caught the ball, turned, took steps and started dropping their hips to make a move. Taffee made a textbook, clean tackle.
Posted on 1/2/25 at 12:34 pm to tBrand
Posted on 1/2/25 at 12:47 pm to HorninHouston
quote:
o mention of the clear targeting on bond I see. Why am I not surprised
That's clearly shoulder to shoulder, man.
Posted on 1/2/25 at 12:50 pm to mmmmmbeeer
quote:
That's clearly shoulder to shoulder, man.
you should see someone about your eyes. That was clear forceable contact to the neck leading with a shoulder....targeting according to the rulebook
This post was edited on 1/2/25 at 12:52 pm
Posted on 1/2/25 at 12:50 pm to SquatchDawg
They quit calling that penalty a couple of years ago.
Posted on 1/2/25 at 12:53 pm to BigScoreboard
quote:
Wrong. Don't have to launch or use the crown of the helmet. Any violent hit to the head of a defenseless receiver is targeting.
Which is the problem with the rule to begin with. It is too damn subjective, that even the refs don't know. They obviously didn't think the receiver was defenseless or they would have allowed the call to stand.
Posted on 1/2/25 at 1:08 pm to HorninHouston
quote:
That was clear forceable contact to the neck leading with a shoulder....targeting according to the rulebook
I haven't seen a slo-mo or zoomed in view. The shitty little tweet in this thread looks very much like shoulder to shoulder. I could certainly change my opinion if given a better view, but I can only look at what I can see.
Posted on 1/2/25 at 1:13 pm to TexasOnTop
quote:
The asu wr caught the ball,
No, at the point of contact, the asu WR did not have possession of the ball. It's a miracle he made the catch after the violent contact.
quote:
turned, took steps and started dropping their hips to make a move.
He turned his head, no steps were taken with the ball in his possession. His hips did not drop.
Everything in your post is a blatant lie.
Posted on 1/2/25 at 1:17 pm to deeprig9
we both had plays that could have resulted in targeting. I'm glad neither were called. Unless it's clearly and intentionally meant to hurt the player let them play imo.
Or let's just switch to flag football since that appears to be where we are headed.
Or let's just switch to flag football since that appears to be where we are headed.
Posted on 1/2/25 at 1:21 pm to Wildcat1996
quote:
Missed calls are part of the game and everyone knows and accepts this. However, this went to a booth review and was obvious. It's not easy to explain that. Gross incompetence or foul play? Take your
I asked the Texas fan which calls that UT got robbed on. Still waiting.
Posted on 1/2/25 at 1:23 pm to deeprig9
quote:
He turned his head, no steps were taken with the ball in his possession. His hips did not drop.
You might need glasses. He took a step. Turned up field. He obviously possesses the ball or it wouldn't have been a catch. If you watch the receivers head level it drops from when he catches the ball to when he starts to turn, meaning his hips dropped.
Posted on 1/2/25 at 1:25 pm to Wildcat1996
quote:
Gross incompetence or foul play? Take your pick.
Option C. Consistency in refereeing.
Posted on 1/2/25 at 1:25 pm to TexasOnTop
quote:
You might need glasses. He took a step. Turned up field. He obviously possesses the ball or it wouldn't have been a catch. If you watch the receivers head level it drops from when he catches the ball to when he starts to turn, meaning his hips dropped.
the bond hit was far more violent. You won't see mention of it in the national narrative, however. It is what it is. I'm glad neither were called.
Posted on 1/2/25 at 1:34 pm to HorninHouston
I just love how the fans are spending every waking moment on here trying to justify the cheating refs.
They even brought new posters and alters to argue how very fair the crooked refs were.
This is like a major campaign to defend the cheating refs.
I will always look at anything shown as a win by texasterix this playoff football season as stolen football valor.
fans are spending every waking moment on here trying to justify the cheating refs. They even brought new posters and alters to argue how very fair the crooked refs were.
This is like a major campaign to defend the cheating refs.
I will always look at anything shown as a win by texasterix this playoff football season as stolen football valor.
Posted on 1/2/25 at 1:35 pm to OU Guy
Your tears are salty sweet sooner. See you in Dallas next season.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News