Mr. AGSPRT04 said:
Called targeting, overturned on review, then awarded an unsportsmanlike penalty on review
Unsportsmanlike was on a different player for protesting the targeting call before it was overturned, arkie got a touchdown after the 15 yard penalty for cussing a ref
texag84 said:
Right call - we've just been getting screwed
We tied for first last season with UCLA, Utah, New Mexico State, Ohio State, and Temple. Total of five. We're well ahead of that pace this season.HoustonAg2106 said:
I wouldn't be surprised if we lead the nation in targeting since that became a penalty
Texagsubscriber said:
**** Bama and **** the sec. clear targeting was overturned.
Cedar09 said:
If it was our player, well you know what the call would have been....
how was that the right decision according to the rules?Bunk Moreland said:Texagsubscriber said:
**** Bama and **** the sec. clear targeting was overturned.
No it wasn't. I hate that Bama gets those overturned and other schools but they made the right decision
Bunk Moreland said:Cedar09 said:
If it was our player, well you know what the call would have been....
Agree big name schools get actual objective reviews but simply watching the play, the bama guy did not target.
I'd rather fight the fight of refs getting them right for all schools instead of whining and wishing they'd get screwed because the Ags have been screwed
Agree.... Bama gets more than their share of favorable calls but this was a good overrule.Bunk Moreland said:Texagsubscriber said:
**** Bama and **** the sec. clear targeting was overturned.
No it wasn't. I hate that Bama gets those overturned and other schools but they made the right decision
unimboti nkum said:how was that the right decision according to the rules?Bunk Moreland said:Texagsubscriber said:
**** Bama and **** the sec. clear targeting was overturned.
No it wasn't. I hate that Bama gets those overturned and other schools but they made the right decision
Blitz88 said:Agree.... Bama gets more then their share of favorable calls but this was a good overrule.Bunk Moreland said:Texagsubscriber said:
**** Bama and **** the sec. clear targeting was overturned.
No it wasn't. I hate that Bama gets those overturned and other schools but they made the right decision
The pendulum has swung too far on this targeting issue and the penalty is too severe.
Something must be done about this rule in the offseason!
targeting does not have to involve the crown of the helmet and says nothing about the offensive player ducking.Bunk Moreland said:unimboti nkum said:how was that the right decision according to the rules?Bunk Moreland said:Texagsubscriber said:
**** Bama and **** the sec. clear targeting was overturned.
No it wasn't. I hate that Bama gets those overturned and other schools but they made the right decision
He didn't target the player and use the crown of his helmet. He led with his shoulder and the UT player ducked HIS head and drive the crown of his helmet into the shoulder pad of the defender.
unimboti nkum said:targeting does not have to involve the crown of the helmet and says nothing about the offensive player ducking.Bunk Moreland said:unimboti nkum said:how was that the right decision according to the rules?Bunk Moreland said:Texagsubscriber said:
**** Bama and **** the sec. clear targeting was overturned.
No it wasn't. I hate that Bama gets those overturned and other schools but they made the right decision
He didn't target the player and use the crown of his helmet. He led with his shoulder and the UT player ducked HIS head and drive the crown of his helmet into the shoulder pad of the defender.
Quote:
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.
