Started By
Message
3
Posted on 1/1/25 at 3:47 pm to Dawg7730
F M L
Posted on 1/1/25 at 3:47 pm to Dawg7730
quote:
UGA got called for targeting against TX on that exact same hit.
Yep.
I think this one was far more obvious than ours in that game.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 3:48 pm to MikkUGA
quote:
Because he didn't lower his helmet and hit him with the top.
Ok, but that is irrelevant to the rule. If a rule exists, it needs to be properly applied.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 3:48 pm to djsdawg
No, neither of them were targeting and neither should be called.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 3:49 pm to Nado Jenkins83
Ball don’t lie
Posted on 1/1/25 at 3:50 pm to Nado Jenkins83
Targeting. Can't believe they didn't confirm it. Hope it doesn't matter.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 3:51 pm to MikkUGA
quote:
If every helmet to helmet contact got called you literally couldn't play the game.
Ok. What part of “defenseless” do you not understand?
Posted on 1/1/25 at 3:51 pm to MikkUGA
quote:
Because he didn't lower his helmet and hit him with the top. If every helmet to helmet contact got called you literally couldn't play the game.
I understand that, but lesser hits without lowering have been called.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 3:52 pm to Nado Jenkins83
If the roles were reversed, they would have 100% called targeting on ASU
Posted on 1/1/25 at 3:52 pm to MikkUGA
quote:
neither of them were targeting
Are you saying targeting doesn’t exist as a rule? Or do you just not understand the rule?
Posted on 1/1/25 at 3:53 pm to JCdawg
Yes and they shouldnt have. The rule says contact with helmet to helmet but it also says, lowering of the helmet or launching into. He did neither.
This post was edited on 1/1/25 at 3:58 pm
Posted on 1/1/25 at 3:54 pm to Nado Jenkins83
If that was an lsu player, he’d be in jail for that hit.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 3:56 pm to MikkUGA
quote:
The rule says contact with helmet to helmet but it also says, lowering of the helmet or launching into. He did neither.
You are wrong about both:
The helmets hit.
Lowering and launching are not required.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 3:56 pm to djsdawg
I'm saying incidental helmet to helmet contact is not targeting. He didn't launch into the guy and he didn't lower his helmet. Like I said if you called every helmet to helmet contact targeting, you wouldn't be able to play.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 3:58 pm to MikkUGA
quote:
Like I said if you called every helmet to helmet contact targeting, you wouldn't be able to play.
Wrong again.
It only applies on this play because the wr was defenseless.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 4:00 pm to djsdawg
It literally says in the rule, lowering the helmet to hit and launching into the head area. It's fricking dumb to think every helmet to helmet contact should be targeting. The shite is already called too much.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 4:01 pm to MikkUGA
Here is the rule:
*Targeting Rule 9-1-3: No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of their helmet.
*Targeting Rule 9-1-4: No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder.
*Targeting Rule 9-1-3: No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of their helmet.
*Targeting Rule 9-1-4: No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 4:04 pm to djsdawg
If I was so fricking wrong then why did the entire group of officials look at the replay and say it was not targeting? Because you think every helmet to helmet contact should be called. It shouldn't have been called on the Georgia hit and it shouldn't have been called here.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 4:08 pm to djsdawg
What part of lowering and forcible contact did you miss in those two rules?
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News