technoviking said:

---

Penn state player launches into an Indiana ball carrier with the crown of his helmet. Not a defenseless player.

Edit: confirmed the targeting call

---

Bull. I'm no fan of Penn St, but that player went as low as he could possibly go without getting on his knees before the hit, and did not launch at all, both feet stayed on the ground. The actual collision between helmets happened maybe 4 feet off the ground.

There's only so much a defender can do to avoid head to head contact. Calling that Targeting as if the defender did it on purpose was absurd.

https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/1053770188724862982

I dont know how to link Twitter gifs.

Bama player that got away with one earlier just got away with another. This time no call or review.

Sounds like someone needs to go Mike Leach on the SEC.

The bias and fix seems to be in around the league. There needs to be penalties for refs in post review. Loss of salary or enough violations and you are out of the profession.

It's almost like the better our defense the more players ejected...

IMO,the rule is BS. However, if they're going to have it, they should get rid of the ejection unless a player is flagged multiple times in a game or over a period of games. And secondly, the replay booth should only be allowed to overturn an on the field call of targeting and not be allowed to call it themselves after the fact.

marble rye said:

---

Sounds like someone needs to go Mike Leach on the SEC.

The bias and fix seems to be in around the league. There needs to be penalties for refs in post review. Loss of salary or enough violations and you are out of the profession.

---

Bama says good no call

They have to include some sort or exemption for when the offensive player lowers their head into the tackler like the Penn St/Indiana hit.

When the defender aims for the belly button and the runner lowers their head down to their belly button at the last second, there's nothing a defender can do to avoid an ejection.

LSU poor call and confirmed. Two hands to the QB's chest.

just called targeting on LSU that was BS

BS call on LSU

And LSU is going to be missing one of it's key defensive players for Alabama next week with a late 4Q targeting call on Devon White.

His head was up. Stupid

John Francis Donaghy said:

---

They have to include some sort or exemption for when the offensive player lowers their head into the tackler like the Penn St/Indiana hit.

When the defender aims for the belly button and the runner lowers their head down to their belly button at the last second, there's nothing a defender can do to avoid an ejection.

---

It should be ejection for the runner.

Or just get rid of it all. So effing stupid

ClassOf17 said:

---

BS call on LSU

---

then a BS unsportsman call on the defenders

WOW, that was not targeting on LSU.

agracer said:

---

ClassOf17 said:

---

BS call on LSU

---

then a BS unsportsman call on the defenders

---

LSU still gets an INT. Damn Mond better be on his game...

agracer said:

---

ClassOf17 said:

---

BS call on LSU

---

then a BS unsportsman call on the defenders

---

Meh, you can't do that. That's textbook celebration unsportsmanlike

This will always continue until you penalize the runners for lowering their head.

Welcome to the get fd on targeting club corn dogs

Quote:

---

NCAA needs to do something about this rule.

---

Man yells at cloud.

They HAVE done something: they've instituted and strengthened the rule. It is NOT going anywhere so you're just building yourself into a lather for no reason. And unless you get on the rules committee, there's not a damn thing you can do about it. I really hate to break it to you: no one gives a **** about what you OR I think. At least not when it comes to these things.

There could be 10x the pressure that was put on the BCS put on this rule and nothing would happen.

I think we all know we're not on the rules committee. This is a discussion board.

Here's the LSU targeting call if you missed it. Scroll down in the comments for:

a Bama recruiting twitter feed, not official I hope, tweeting a no call dangerous hit against Tenn. Unreal.

Edit: I'm blind and went missed the dude who already posted. Sorry.

mshipp88 said:

---

Here's the LSU targeting call if you missed it.

---

wow. that's horrible.

Yes, horrible. One of LSU's most important defenders will now miss the first half against Bama.




Guess that's just bad luck for LSU, right?

i'm agreeing that it's a extremely questionable call at very beneficial time for bama. i'm not sure what else you're getting at.

That call against LSU is as bad as the late hit against A&M in the 2011 t.u. game.

We're in full agreement.

My second comment is just hinting at the conspiracy theory that the league office is protecting their dynasty.

I'm just an old man who yells at clouds, BUT

It seems that A&M's football program should have the resources easily on hand to compile every single SEC targeting call. They could then easily have a graduate assistant go through and label every call as both (A) upheld or overturned, and (B) Good, Bad, or Questionable call. By doing this, the school can then easily put up nearly identical plays that were called differently.

The whole point of the review system is for uniform decisions on this call. If the same group of people is looking at the same film every week, the calls should be identical (and they're not).

By doing this, and submitting it to both the league office and for public display it results in two things: 1) we can see exactly if these calls are more favorable for certain teams (and provide evidence as such) and 2) by displaying it for the public, next year's calls will need to be uniform as the refs know the school is compiling this list of EVERY SEC targeting call (and not just complaining about their own). A&M should pick this up and push because we're the undisputed targeting champions of the SEC.

We need to work within the system, and work that system in the long run. If I can show two similar plays side by side where alabama keeps their player and lsu loses theirs, it is no longer merely yelling at clouds. If I can show this pattern throughout an entire season, it simply cannot be ignored.

Damn guys! Aim lower. Targeting A&M

bmc13 said:

---

mshipp88 said:

---

Here's the LSU targeting call if you missed it.

---

wow. that's horrible.

---

What the actual f***?

This is my main issue. The same people in the SEC are looking at all of these calls and yet just in today's games we have 6 or 7 examples of calls that are totally opposite. There is no explanation for this except for explicit bias for certain teams. If someone from the SEC would give an explanation besides blatant fixing of games, I would be interested in hearing what they have to say.

This is the SEC command center. Every Power 5 conference has one except the Big 10 and each conference is allowed to enforce this rule as they see fit. If the NCAA is going to make rules that eject players, the process should be uniform across the country. As of now each conference has the power to decide how this rule is enforced, which could lead to blatant bias. Hell you have the the VP of the PAC 12 calling in and overruling the officials on an obvious call that directly affected the outcome of the game. It will be great if the Pirate runs the table and misses out on the playoff because their 1 loss was caused by some idiot with power that wanted USC to win the game.

The Pirate with a nice add to Woodie Dixon's Wiki page


Dixon overruled a targeting call in the USC versus Washington State football game on September 21, 2018, demonstrating a lack of knowledge about the rule, for which he was not trained.[7]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodie_Dixon

I would like for the SEC to explain how the LSU defender was targeting and the Bama player was not. If the explanation is just that one was a bad call then they should review the suspensions after the fact and consider giving the Bama guy one or taking away some of the other suspensions.

Wasn't the LSU call the same as ours against Bama two years ago?