GT1

quote:

---

Bottom, line, your big bitch is the refs didn’t call targeting on a crucial play of the game in the A gap in a scrum while your QB ran upright. He wasn’t getting the first down, so you needed a call that is not going to happen to bail you out. The refs on the field didn’t call it and the booth isn’t gonna over rule a play in the A gap in a scrum. Clear evidence has been shown that other, more clear and egregious targeting calls were also not called, so it’s odd your expectations are they should have called a less evident call to bail you out… the refs let holding by both teams go. They let targeting go. They missed some PIs, like when 16 had one of your targeters beat on a post and he grabbed him slowing him down. They also called some PIs.
The refs missed plenty of calls and made a few bad ones. For both teams. Yet, the refs still bailed you out in OT and you couldn’t put it in from the 1. All this goes away if you can run 1 yard against UGA. 1 yard.
You couldn’t get 1 yard against the team you feel like you dominated when you really needed to. 1 yard away. That has to sting.

---

I already mentioned before, he wasn't "in a scrum." Sure he ran up the middle but Jackson came from the edge and launched. That's not 2 guys meeting in the hole. Also, King had the 1st down if he held on so you're wrong there too. It's like you didn't even watch the game. Go back and watch where the line judge from the right walks in with his hand up to spot the ball he didn't see the fumble and was marking Kings forward progress which would have given the 1st down. You're damn right I'm pissed that we couldn't get a 1 yard when we needed it, I blame a lot on OT play calling where I think we made some pretty bad calls and had better opportunites to win it on the edge, but the whole point of the matter is it shouldn't have ever even made it to that. Without that call you are all licking your wounds wondering how the hell GT outplayed you all night. Instead you get a gift on a no call and it's all about your team's "resiliency." At least one of you had the decency to admit you were gifted a no call there and that you wouldn't have won the game without it.

quote:

---

You mean extending a possession and the field position along with having one of your fragile Dbs ejected wouldn’t have done anything? And this isn’t between the tackled in a pile. Open field. Clear as day.

---

That was your 2nd drive of the game. DB got hurt there and didn't play again so the ejection wouldn't have changed anything. You got several first downs and kept driving after that before turning it over on downs when you couldn't pick up a 3rd and 1 or a 4th and 1, so no I still say it wouldn't have changed anything. And if you want to whine about other calls that weren't made, there's also this one:

Open field. King already being tackled (defenseless player). Helmet straight to the head. No flag.

LINK

quote:

---

We also got called for defensive holding when one of your lineman chop blocked us while the puller also had his arm on him, which by rule is a chop block. You got 15 yards and a drive extended. Two huge calls at critical times in the game.

---

Our puller did not have his arm on your guy on that play. Your guy had our C by the collar pulling him down well before the cut block came in. I will gladly provide you the slo-mo video if you like. It wasn't a chop block. It may could have been called an illegal cut block because he wasn't directly in front of the guy who cut him, but our C wasn't engaged with him. He was engaged with our C by pulling his collar. The flag was out before the cut block even occurred. At worst it would have been offsetting penalties. That happened on a 1st down run that already went for like 9 yards so it didn't "extend" a drive.

quote:

---

Let’s call this for what this is. You knew you had us. You could taste it. Then your exhausted and battered QB (who I have a ton of respect for in how he played) ran upright into the A gap and didn’t protect the ball and our guy put a hat on it and caused a fumble. And even with the refs spotting you a cheap PI in OT putting the ball on the 1 yard line, Tech could not finish.

It was an overall well played game by Tech other than the low level chop and cut blocks. It was a tough way to lose. Take it like a man. Not like the Tech Flag boy.

---

Sorry but I'm going to have to disagree. If you want to talk about a cheap PI, regardless of if that ball was tipped, the PI call there was even weaker. That happened on 4th down when you would have turned the ball over to us. It was nothing to do with us not being able to finish. And for all those so called cut and chop blocks... I counted less than 10 and they were all backside cuts not even cuts in front of the running lane. This isn't Paul Johnson's offense with 285lb OL diving at you. So we did it 10x out of 93 offensive plays. Or let's talk about the no-hold call that would have made it 2nd and 20 for your boys with less than a minute to tie it up.

quote:

---

Is this targeting?

LINK

---

Yep. They missed that one. Don't know how it would have played out from there but that was early in the game and you continued to get your arse whipped until 5 mins to go from that point so probably wouldn't have changed anything.

quote:

---

No, you tucked your little stinger arse and got the hell out of dodge when confronted but we both know you're back here reading these replies. You cant help yourself.

---

Lol when confronted? You guys have made zero argument since. And yes there have been plenty of times targeting has been called when there isn't a clear front facing video view. It doesn't matter if King is between the tackles either, that isn't anywhere in the rule. Besides, Jackson comes in from the edge at an angle and launches with his head completely down. He hits damn near every qualifier for targeting when you only need one for it to be a penalty. I guess it's like one of the comments on this tweet... yeah we needed video to prove that it wasnt an angel in the backfield that gave him an uppercut the same time Jackson hit him. FOH with that. You guys realize that when literally EVERYBODY is on the other side of an argument as you, you are most assuredly the one who is wrong. This was made by an NFL and CFB rules analyst, one of the guys that helped write the damn targeting rule.

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

quote:

---

simple physics, show me where the simple physics made this targeting and you not a little bitch

---

Ahh yes, I'm the little bitch but the whole CFB world agrees except UGA fans. As usual.

quote:

---

They almost never call targeting between the tackles. Especially in a scrum. Football would be over if they did. Your QB was beat up and tired from being run like a rented mule and was running upright. Thats what happens.
The much much clearer targeting was on our #6 when he scored the TD. Crystal clear. No call.

Frankly, the football gods wanted you to lose for all the low level cut blocks. They smite cut blockers with great fury and whatnot.

---

Read what I said above about targeting on Lovett. It was shoulder to shoulder. Even if it had been called targeting there is no different outcome, he scored anyway. Also that's BS about it not being called between the tackles. The whole premise of targeting is to keep players from lowering their head like that. It's just as, if not more dangerous to the tackler than the ball carrier. It was targeting. You UGAg fans dont even have the balls to say, yep we got the breaks at the end and glad we did. You just won't ever admit you got help, but boy oh boy when you play Bama, let's cry about some refs!!! Anyhooo.. I'm out of here after this just was dropping by to show you the proof. Keep praising Jackson for tackling like that if you want and hopefully he'll David Pollack himself.

quote:

---

Look at you trying so very, very hard. Maybe you should look at the two obvious ones against tech...you know, Lovett in the endzone - and remind us of how the tech player hurt his neck...

Take your crying back to stingtalk...starting to sound OSU after Bullard cleaned house

---

Trying so very, very hard? That isn't trying hard my man. It's the exact letter of the rule. Lovett in the endzone was shoulder to shoulder. If you'd like I can make you the exact same type of gif and show you that Ahmari Harvey's head goes in front of Lovett's head and they collide shoulders. But if you want to play that game, so let's say they do call that targeting... he caught it and scored anyway so what? 15 yarder on kickoff? Still get a touchback? No change. If the CORRECT call is made against Jackson, you lose the game. Huge difference in no-calls there.

quote:

---

Nice good info, thanks for that. I'll be pulling for Dom. What's the buzz on the offense with Buster? Feeling good about that hire?

---

Really happy with the hire so far from everything I'm hearing. I think we'll have decent QB competition all through fall camp with King and Pyron (I think Pyron will end up QB1). I don't know how much truth there was to it, but there were a lot of whispers about BVG possibly transferring to GT with Dom/Buster but in the end he decided to stay put. I liked what I saw in the spring game and while it was pretty vanilla on the defensive side, I did like some of the play designs from Buster getting the ball out quickly and getting it to playmakers in space.

From what I've heard, Dom to GT was a done deal pretty much as soon as he entered the portal, just waiting to finish school before he announced. Hope he can stay healthy, he'll definitely be the #1 target if so.

IIRC, that over 20 grams felony will also contain an "intent to distribute" charge as well.