Started By
Message
Bye not beneficial
Posted on 1/1/25 at 6:44 pm
Posted on 1/1/25 at 6:44 pm
So, without a huge comeback by Oregon, bye teams will be 0-3. I hope we can be the outlier tomorrow.
5
Posted on 1/1/25 at 6:58 pm to Dawgman77
Well Ohio State is playing like world beaters. ASU and Boise were double digit dogs in Vegas.
More of a indictment on the seeding than anything else I think.
More of a indictment on the seeding than anything else I think.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 7:06 pm to K9
Also ASU kinda got fricked on that no targeting call
Posted on 1/1/25 at 7:10 pm to dawgfan24348
Boise got fricked on that nonexistent hands to the face call that took a TD off the board
Posted on 1/1/25 at 7:13 pm to dawgfan24348
quote:
Also ASU kinda got fricked on that no targeting call
There are actual people on the SECR arguing there was no targeting, and I don't mean Texas fans, there's LSU and even UGA (self identified) saying it is not targeting.
It is driving me crazy. They aren't trolls, they actually believe it.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 7:22 pm to Dawgman77
Based on who got byes only Oregon and UGA really were deserving though Oregon is getting run but has more to do with OSU
Posted on 1/1/25 at 7:27 pm to Dawgman77
There’s no way it hasn’t been beneficial for us given the QB and injury situation. But otherwise I may tend to agree w/ you.
This post was edited on 1/1/25 at 7:30 pm
Posted on 1/1/25 at 8:00 pm to Griffindawg
quote:
Boise got fricked on that nonexistent hands to the face
It was very existent. Go back and watch. It was on their RT
Posted on 1/2/25 at 7:46 am to dawgfan24348
Objectively, I can see the call going either way.
It was helmet to helmet but it was face-mask to face-mask rather than the defender leading with the crown of his helmet and to me there was no launching into the receivers helmet.
I think at this point defenders need to be taught to hit at the waste or legs of the offensive players.
There won't be as many pass breakups but there might actually be more fumbles if they try to focus on hitting the offensive player where they are carrying the ball.
It was helmet to helmet but it was face-mask to face-mask rather than the defender leading with the crown of his helmet and to me there was no launching into the receivers helmet.
I think at this point defenders need to be taught to hit at the waste or legs of the offensive players.
There won't be as many pass breakups but there might actually be more fumbles if they try to focus on hitting the offensive player where they are carrying the ball.
Posted on 1/2/25 at 7:46 am to prouddawg
Agreed. The delay gives our offense more time with Gunner. The D might lose some juice to start the game.
At this point, we need offensive rhythm badly
At this point, we need offensive rhythm badly
Posted on 1/2/25 at 7:50 am to Dawgman77
A bye will not help a team that doesn't deserve to be in the playoffs in the first place when they conference champions of weak conferences and play a weak strength of schedule.
My perspective is no auto-bids for conference champions and simply pick the 12 best teams based on win/loss record and strength of schedule which of course includes conference championship games.
My perspective is no auto-bids for conference champions and simply pick the 12 best teams based on win/loss record and strength of schedule which of course includes conference championship games.
Posted on 1/2/25 at 8:00 am to Dawg4Life47
quote:
At this point, we need offensive rhythm badly
Sark called this out in his pregame interview yesterday. Felt like he had a leg up because defenses tend to come out slow and sloppy tackling after a longer break. he called out the early game scores of all the teams that had byes/didnt play in their CCG. He said 2 weeks was enough to get their players back and not lose a lot on D
This post was edited on 1/2/25 at 8:01 am
Posted on 1/2/25 at 8:27 am to GurleyGirl
LINK
Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet
ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 9-6) (A.R. 9-1-3-I)
He didn't lead with the crown of his helmet. So this doesn't apply.
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). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)
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 his 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
He lead with his helmet and made contact with his facemask to the receivers facemask. I guess they don't consider a facemask part of the helmet?
Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet
ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 9-6) (A.R. 9-1-3-I)
He didn't lead with the crown of his helmet. So this doesn't apply.
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). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)
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 his 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
He lead with his helmet and made contact with his facemask to the receivers facemask. I guess they don't consider a facemask part of the helmet?
Posted on 1/2/25 at 8:35 am to Rex Feral
Looked to me the front crown of the helmet made initial contact with the receivers face mask.......
My take is, if that's not targeting with the player laying there injured, maybe it's time we go back to not having targeting penalties.
Maybe the new penalty is head hunting were you keep kill shots out of the game.
My take is, if that's not targeting with the player laying there injured, maybe it's time we go back to not having targeting penalties.
Maybe the new penalty is head hunting were you keep kill shots out of the game.
Posted on 1/2/25 at 10:00 am to Rex Feral
Should it be targeting? No because I don’t like how they’ve strayed from the original intent of defenses launching themselves at receivers.
Based on the rules as they’ve applied them to UGA….that was absolutely targeting. About the best non-call for targeting we got was against OState in the playoff…since then we always get that call.
Based on the rules as they’ve applied them to UGA….that was absolutely targeting. About the best non-call for targeting we got was against OState in the playoff…since then we always get that call.
Posted on 1/2/25 at 1:05 pm to deeprig9
quote:
It is driving me crazy. They aren't trolls, they actually believe it.
They don't understand the rules, even when they're literally printed in the threads. Dummies, man.
Posted on 1/2/25 at 2:08 pm to Dawg4Life47
quote:
Agreed. The delay gives our offense more time with Gunner. The D might lose some juice to start the game.
Fully healthy but one on D
Posted on 1/2/25 at 2:13 pm to SquatchDawg
quote:
About the best non-call for targeting we got was against OState in the playoff…
No, although the receiver was defenseless, Bullard lead with his shoulder directly into MHjr's shoulder, the helmet contact was secondary and unavoidable. That was an excellent no-call by the replay official. It was simply a perfectly timed pop by a DB on a receiver to break up the pass.
Posted on 1/2/25 at 2:35 pm to Dawgman77
OSU essentially got a bye by not having to play in the championship
Page 1 of 1
Latest Georgia News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News