Started By
Message
re: Rules Expert weighs in on Texastrix fiasco
Posted on 1/2/25 at 1:38 pm to HorninHouston
Posted on 1/2/25 at 1:38 pm to HorninHouston
0
Posted on 1/2/25 at 1:39 pm to HorninHouston
quote:
That was a much more violent hit than taeff's who was just going in for the tackle.
no it wasn't.
the DB even turned to avoid maximum contact. watch the replay of that one again.
the Texas DB leveled the ASU WR with a very clear crown of helmet to facemark hit likely gave him a concussion
quote:
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.
um, what?
what rulebook are you reading?
quote:
ARTICLE 1 a A field goal shall be scored if a scrimmage kick, which may be a drop kick or place kick, passes over the crossbar between the uprights of the receiving team’s goal before it touches a player of the kicking team or the ground
Posted on 1/2/25 at 1:41 pm to Nutriaitch
is this clear enough for you or do I need to break out the crayons and big chief tablet?
also that hit on bond was 100% a defenseless player hit. You can pretend it wasn't all you want..but you'd be wrong.
also that hit on bond was 100% a defenseless player hit. You can pretend it wasn't all you want..but you'd be wrong.
This post was edited on 1/2/25 at 1:42 pm
Posted on 1/2/25 at 1:41 pm to JacieNY
quote:
The more telling part of the play is not the slo mo shots of the Texas player leading with his helmet but the aftermath of the ASU guy laid out on the turf.
Exactly. It was a hard arse hit to the head.
This post was edited on 1/2/25 at 1:42 pm
Posted on 1/2/25 at 1:48 pm to HorninHouston
Even Stevie Wonder could see that was targeting
Posted on 1/2/25 at 1:49 pm to mmmmmbeeer
Watch bond's head after the hit. He clearly made contact with his head.
It's beating a dead horse at this point. You're either going to agree or not. It's time to move on.
It's beating a dead horse at this point. You're either going to agree or not. It's time to move on.
Posted on 1/2/25 at 1:59 pm to geoag58
quote:
on Texastrix fiascoby geoag58
Why do so many LSU fans want LSU to be tu's little brother so bad?
We'd gladly take em if it meant getting rid of our illegitimate red headed step brother twice removed.
Posted on 1/2/25 at 2:02 pm to OU Guy
Who knew Rockstar Games was thinking about you Sooner freakazoids when they were making GTA3
Posted on 1/2/25 at 2:50 pm to OU Guy
Fvck the short loins...
Posted on 1/2/25 at 2:54 pm to Wildcat1996
quote:
Because tu fans have been gobbling LSU calk on this forum for over a year. Both parties clearly enjoy that.
aggy believes he should chime in and immediately starts talking about fellatio. No surprise there.
Posted on 1/2/25 at 2:55 pm to OU Guy
If that is targeting, then they need to fix the rule because it shouldn't be.
Posted on 1/2/25 at 3:01 pm to 3down10
quote:
If that is targeting, then they need to fix the rule because it shouldn't be.
It was a direct hit to the head of a defenseless player. It is a very reasonable rule.
Posted on 1/2/25 at 3:04 pm to djsdawg
quote:
It was a direct hit to the head of a defenseless player. It is a very reasonable rule.
They should put helmets on to keep them safe.
Posted on 1/2/25 at 3:06 pm to HorninHouston
quote:
is this clear enough for you or do I need to break out the crayons and big chief tablet?
I copied and pasted the rule directly from the NCAA rulebook.
not whatever screenshot you sent.
word for word from the rulebook with no exceptions listed anywhere in the section.
in fact, here is a screen shot directly from the rulebook of every single word about Field Goal attempts and scoring them.
BEFORE IT TOUCHES THE GROUND.
no exceptions.
my apologies it that's too difficult for you to grasp.
quote:
also that hit on bond was 100% a defenseless player hit. You can pretend it wasn't all you want..but you'd be wrong
the WR absolutely was defenseless.
but being defenseless is only part of the rule and not the entire rule.
quote:
Note 1: “Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball
the DB trying to turn to avoid contact at the last minute is not "taking aim at an opponent"
that's what takes targeting off the table.
Posted on 1/2/25 at 3:10 pm to OU Guy
It was called and reviewed. In the slow motion review all officials agreed it wasn't targeting. So saying it was not called is his first wrong. The game was stopped and it was reviewed so how many current officials is that against one?
Posted on 1/2/25 at 3:22 pm to GainesvilleDawg
quote:
As it has been from the day SEC schedules were announced, the fix was in for Texas.
Yep, succeeded by an easy cfp draw and home field in cotton bowl. Then, the worst non-call ever ensued.
Posted on 1/3/25 at 2:26 pm to MikkUGA
LINK
The short version:
Gene Steratore, former NFL and college basketball official and current rules analyst for CBS Sports, weighed in on social media.
"Yes, this should have been a flag for targeting in Texas vs. Arizona State. It meets all of the criteria of targeting (Rule 9-1-4)."
The short version:
Gene Steratore, former NFL and college basketball official and current rules analyst for CBS Sports, weighed in on social media.
"Yes, this should have been a flag for targeting in Texas vs. Arizona State. It meets all of the criteria of targeting (Rule 9-1-4)."
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News