Started By
Message
re: The QWilliams targeting no call deserves billboard action.
Posted on 12/30/18 at 2:04 pm to HailToTheChiz
Posted on 12/30/18 at 2:04 pm to HailToTheChiz
I'm certainly no Bama fan, but that wasn't remotely targeting. Williams is so much taller than Murray, the bottom of his face mask made contact with Murray's helmet as they went to the ground.
The really bad call that went in Bama's favor was the TD that wasn't overturned. The ball was moving the entire time and the ball was in his lap when he hit the ground.
The really bad call that went in Bama's favor was the TD that wasn't overturned. The ball was moving the entire time and the ball was in his lap when he hit the ground.
Posted on 12/30/18 at 2:04 pm to EntitledBamaFan
He finished the tackle?
Why did he finish a tackle on someone that already threw the ball?
Why did he finish a tackle on someone that already threw the ball?
Posted on 12/30/18 at 2:04 pm to lsupride87
quote:
Lol at you posting the rule book
Roughing the passer
Rule 9-1-9 #4
quote:
Forcibly driving the passer to the ground and landing on him with action that punishes the player.
Fine.
Show me how Williams blatantly drove Cryler to the ground and landed on him with action that is intended to punish him.
Show me and explain.
Posted on 12/30/18 at 2:05 pm to Sid E Walker
quote:Ask Devin
Since when is face mask to face mask considered targeting?
Y’all said that face mask to face mask kissing was the right call. So did Sankey
Posted on 12/30/18 at 2:07 pm to lsupride87
Sankey and the rest of us just like to frick with LSU.
Posted on 12/30/18 at 2:09 pm to Sid E Walker
I’m not making this an LSU thing
But face masks touching is still targeting if the player is “defenseless”
A QB is considered defenseless, so as sankey described, it’s targeting
But face masks touching is still targeting if the player is “defenseless”
A QB is considered defenseless, so as sankey described, it’s targeting
Posted on 12/30/18 at 2:10 pm to lsupride87
White didnt wrap him up when he hit him. That shouldn't have been targeting, but they called it. It was a stupid call to make. An even dumber call to hold up after review. But just because one player gets called for a bullshite penalty doesn't mean everyone should.
Posted on 12/30/18 at 2:11 pm to bamaboy87
It does unfortunately mean that. White by the stupid fricking rule committed targeting. So did Williams. You can’t pick and chose when to call it
They need to just change the rule this offseason
They need to just change the rule this offseason
Posted on 12/30/18 at 2:14 pm to HailToTheChiz
From an OU fan. Wasn’t targeting. Was unnecessary roughness and helmet did come off as Williams body launched him to the turf. Would rather an OU lineman save the frustration at the end of the play for the next one & chop him. You do enough of that crap & your career gets shortened.
Posted on 12/30/18 at 2:16 pm to KaiserSoze99
quote:
That was a textbook clean hit.
For you Bama cucks and dickriders...
This is what you told us was was textbook targeting. Notice, no helmet to helmet. Only a blow to the shoulders.
LINK
Posted on 12/30/18 at 2:21 pm to lsupride87
Unfortunately, the rule is pretty much picking and choosing. It's mostly an opinion penalty. As much as it sucks, I'd rather a few players get fricked over than all of them. Hopefully it will drive change if enough people complain about the inability to call it evenly and correctly across the country.
It needs to be addressed. Big time. Incidental helmet to helmet should never be called targeting. Targeting should only be called if its BLATANT targeting. With the intention of injuring the player. If there's any doubt about it being intentional, then it shouldn't be flagged. As it stands now, the penalty is an opinion based penalty.
It needs to be addressed. Big time. Incidental helmet to helmet should never be called targeting. Targeting should only be called if its BLATANT targeting. With the intention of injuring the player. If there's any doubt about it being intentional, then it shouldn't be flagged. As it stands now, the penalty is an opinion based penalty.
Posted on 12/30/18 at 2:23 pm to GetmorewithLes
There was helmet to helmet contact. But it was incidental and should never have been called targeting.
Posted on 12/30/18 at 2:24 pm to HailToTheChiz
That was 100% targeting
Posted on 12/30/18 at 2:25 pm to bamaboy87
quote:
It's mostly an opinion penalty.
I can agree with that. And that leads to conspiracy theories. I would be OK if it did not involve suspension for next game. I never thought of it until the Devin White thing that a ref/call in one game can affect another game at a later date...
Posted on 12/30/18 at 2:26 pm to BowlJackson
Wasn’t targeting but I like the troll.
Carry on.
Carry on.
Posted on 12/30/18 at 2:26 pm to Rjlebla
I have no problem with what the o-lineman did post play.. but I mean it wasn’t late and the guy is 5 foot nothing
Posted on 12/30/18 at 2:27 pm to HailToTheChiz
I swear 90% of you still don’t understand the targeting rule
Posted on 12/30/18 at 2:29 pm to StopRobot
I was told if facemasks touch on a defenseless players its targeting
Is that no longer true?
Is that no longer true?
Posted on 12/30/18 at 2:29 pm to GetmorewithLes
White shouldn’t have been called for targeting either.
Posted on 12/30/18 at 2:31 pm to Sid E Walker
Great freaking play. Great freaking text book tackle. And btw there is no way for a 6'3 guy to actually tackle a midget and make it look dainty. He sacked the little corksucker who had made a complete fool of him and the defense all night. This little shite and the one at Army have redefined "herding knats". Great players but they go down hard when sacked by a 290 lb cat. LOL!
Latest Alabama News
Popular
Back to top


0





