Started By
Message
re: Still pissed
Posted on 1/4/26 at 3:25 am to Hugh McElroy
Posted on 1/4/26 at 3:25 am to Hugh McElroy
Looks like forcible contact to the helmet of a defenseless player, which is a foul.
1
Posted on 1/4/26 at 6:35 am to djsdawg
quote:
Looks like forcible contact to the helmet of a defenseless player, which is a foul
Yes, as every knowledgeable, objective person can plainly see.
Posted on 1/4/26 at 7:22 am to FootballFrenzy
quote:Alabama.
I don’t care if that receiver had a Longhorn on his helmet and the defender was an Aggie, that is targeting all day long.
Frenzy Frenzy, get outta town, you don't believe a word of that.
Poor AgriCULTure and Mechanical College
Posted on 1/4/26 at 7:33 am to Hugh McElroy
quote:
I think most people know it was targeting. Rantards just don’t want to admit it.
If most people are all aggies because not a single noncult member agrees with you.
Poor AgriCULTure and Mechanical College
Posted on 1/4/26 at 9:08 am to Hugh McElroy
It absolutely was targeting and the exact hit they are trying to eliminate from the game.
You see what it did to the defender.
You see what it did to the defender.
Posted on 1/4/26 at 9:12 am to Hugh McElroy
as I said I'm sure your completely unbiased and unemotional opinion is correct and it's every bit as obvious and cut and dried as you say and the refs were clearly on the take and are probably purchasing new houses as we speak
ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below).
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. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:
LAUNCH. A player leaving their feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area.
A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground.
Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area.
Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet.
So yes there does seem to be some ranter bull shite going on
quote:
Launching is nowhere in the rule book.
ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below).
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. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:
LAUNCH. A player leaving their feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area.
A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground.
Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area.
Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet.
So yes there does seem to be some ranter bull shite going on
This post was edited on 1/4/26 at 9:25 am
Posted on 1/4/26 at 9:17 am to Hugh McElroy
Score more than 3 points and then talk.
Posted on 1/4/26 at 12:00 pm to chkenhawk
It’s like you can’t read.
Posted on 1/4/26 at 12:08 pm to Hugh McElroy
He didn't "launch" at the player, didn't lower his head and use the crown of his helmet.
Posted on 1/4/26 at 12:32 pm to SouthernInsanity
quote:
He didn't "launch" at the player
He doesn't have to launch. Launch is not in the rule itself. It's an example of one way that a player can apply forcible contact.
That was forcible contact. The defensive played literally knocked himself unconscious.
Posted on 1/4/26 at 12:37 pm to Hugh McElroy
Just to be completely clear, here is the relevant language:
1. There was helmet to helmet contact.
2. It was forcible. (Dude was knocked out!)
3. WR was defenseless (so no crown of helmet needed).
That's plainly and clear targeting, and anyone saying otherwise is a fool or a liar or deluded.
quote:
“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. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to
1. There was helmet to helmet contact.
2. It was forcible. (Dude was knocked out!)
3. WR was defenseless (so no crown of helmet needed).
That's plainly and clear targeting, and anyone saying otherwise is a fool or a liar or deluded.
Posted on 1/4/26 at 2:45 pm to Hugh McElroy
quote:
That was forcible contact. The defensive played literally knocked himself unconscious
So are you arguing that it was targeting...ok. But FYI.... FORCIBLE CONTACT is FOOTBALL or at least it used to be.
Posted on 1/4/26 at 11:07 pm to Hugh McElroy
more so to you
still standing behind that launch is never mentioned comment?
forcible contact is part of the game unless you want to start playing flag football (but only the other teams defense amIright).
There have to be indicators, they are somewhat judgement calls but the refs didn't see them, the rules official didn't see them, I didn't see them, but your homer arse did see them. Shocking.
It was a really hard hit. You want to outlaw those too now? Or just against your team?
still standing behind that launch is never mentioned comment?
forcible contact is part of the game unless you want to start playing flag football (but only the other teams defense amIright).
There have to be indicators, they are somewhat judgement calls but the refs didn't see them, the rules official didn't see them, I didn't see them, but your homer arse did see them. Shocking.
It was a really hard hit. You want to outlaw those too now? Or just against your team?
This post was edited on 1/5/26 at 1:25 am
Posted on 1/5/26 at 6:24 am to Hugh McElroy
quote:
That's plainly and clear targeting, and anyone saying otherwise is a fool or a liar or deluded.
I read where an NCAA official (who reviewed the play after the game) stated that there had to be an indicator of targeting as well, like throwing his head into the guy or launching upward into the head, the defender was determined as to be making a play on the ball and there was no indication of direct intent of contact to the head.....clean hit, good defense, case closed. Move on.
Posted on 1/5/26 at 1:34 pm to kajon
He can't move on. He's either a fool or deluded
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News