Aggie said:

---

Anyone who thinks that was targeting is letting your hate blind you.
Hit his shoulder pad

If exact same play happened in A&M game and A&M defended made the hit this board would be 100% .. that's a clean football hit

---

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. The fact that it wasn't even reviewed is all you need to know.

They got the fumble call right.

They **** the bed on the targeting.

Aggie said:

---

Anyone who thinks that was targeting is letting your hate blind you.
Hit his shoulder pad

If exact same play happened in A&M game and A&M defended made the hit this board would be 100% .. that's a clean football hit

---

That was literally the text book definition of targeting. Any player in the country not wearing burnt orange or crimson red gets called for that.

BrazosDog02 said:

---

Bob Loblaws Law Blog said:

---

BrazosDog02 said:

---

MSCAg said:

---

I guess I do not understand Targeting rules.

---

I do. It wasn't targeting and it was a fumble. I feel like I'm watching a different game that the board. Lol.

---

That's one way to look at it. A wrong way, but certainly one way.

---

It's the way you look at it when you don't have a dog in the fight. It's what we call impartiality. I get the emotions from the board but it was not targeting and it was a Clear fumble. They replayed both over and over frame by frame. I suggest you watch that because people here sound stupid.

---

Welcome to the zoo, where the majority of posters wear foil hats so the sip overlords can't read their thoughts.

Everybody here is triggered by puke orange. If that had been a running back carrying the ball, nobody would think anything. But because it was a QB, we have to unleash all possibilities available to reverse the outcome.

IslanderAg04 said:

---

What we have to look forward to, when their **** program and culture come to the SEC.

---

We already have it with Bama.

Bama gets a lot of calls their way too.

cupofjoe04 said:

---

ISU got totally robbed. That was targeting, clear as day. And the QB sure appeared to be down before the ball came loose. What a pathetic, gutless officiating crew.

---

Agreed, but don't blame the refs... that WR should have walked into the end zone a few plays prior. An uncanny amount of luck.

ScapeGOAT said:

---

You're more than qualified to be a referee then.

Doesn't have to be helmet to helmet to be Targeting. Clearly launched and led with the crown of his helmet.

---

my labrador is more qualified than those texas homer referees on that field today.

The call on the field was announced as "runner was down"

The play stood.

Can anyone begin to explain that?

BrazosDog02 said:

---

Bob Loblaws Law Blog said:

---

BrazosDog02 said:

---

MSCAg said:

---

I guess I do not understand Targeting rules.

---

I do. It wasn't targeting and it was a fumble. I feel like I'm watching a different game that the board. Lol.

---

That's one way to look at it. A wrong way, but certainly one way.

---

It's the way you look at it when you don't have a dog in the fight. It's what we call impartiality. I get the emotions from the board but it was not targeting and it was a Clear fumble. They replayed both over and over frame by frame. I suggest you watch that because people here sound stupid.

---

The only one sounding stupid here is you, it is the definition of targeting. Defenseless runner going down, lead with the crown of his helmet and made contact with the head and neck area.

His head was up at the pint of contact and he actually lead with his right forearm, you know, the fumble causing punch to the ball.

TexasRebel said:

---

The call on the field was announced as "runner was down"

The play stood.

Can anyone begin to explain that?

---

What he actually said was 'call on the field was ball out before the runner was down.'

"No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder"

Head or neck area on defenseless player is targeting. Crown is not relevant. Seems by definition it was targeting.

I was not watching the game but according to this board you already get screwed on every call and every game so nothing should change once UT gets in the conference. It will just be who cheats more, UT or Alabama!

For everyone saying we're biased and that was not targeting, you don't think it at least deserves a review? I mean that hit was more viscous contact to the head than 90% of our targeting calls. Just look at the two against Miami…..if that was A&M it would have been called targeting and everyone would just be talking about how it was textbook and our coaches need to learn to coach to look at what you're tackling and players need to quit being stupid.

They're baaack.... to bs calls, non calls, blind eyes, and general fookery.

merch said:

---

Head or neck area on defenseless player is targeting. Crown is not relevant. Seems by definition it was targeting.

---

He wasn't a defenseless player in that case, though, no?

Actually that kind of play is exactly what trying to avoid. Ball carrier already down/going down and takes unnecessary shot to head/neck

Anybody think if you reverse that play that it isn't calling targeting on ISU?

I thought he became defenseless as soon as he started going down?

Martin Cash said:

---

TexasRebel said:

---

The call on the field was announced as "runner was down"

The play stood.

Can anyone begin to explain that?

---

What he actually said was 'call on the field was ball out before the runner was down.'

---

That's not what the graphic said.

TexasRebel said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

TexasRebel said:

---

The call on the field was announced as "runner was down"

The play stood.

Can anyone begin to explain that?

---

What he actually said was 'call on the field was ball out before the runner was down.'

---

That's not what the graphic said.

---

Or what the ref said before going to review, unless my hearing has worsened.

Charlie 31 said:

---

Happy Ides of October!

---

They will probably issue an apology tomorrow and admit they got the call wrong. Not that it makes any bit of difference in the outcome.

Fumble caused by targeting and refs *missed* targeting call; win*...gifted.

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/ncaa-football/news/college-football-targeting-rule-penalty-ejection/yqdcwtpqt13vpmj7bcseti5d

"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.


What I don't get is how it wasn't at least reviewed.

If you guys can read some of the stuff you post! It's embarrassing.

Just Tired said:

---

Charlie 31 said:

---

Happy Ides of October!

---

---

She looks like Aslan's human wife. #nerdout

WhoIsYourDaddy1939 said:

---

If you guys can read some of the stuff you post! It's embarrassing.

---

I don't need to read it, I wrote it.

Like what? Calling out Bama for getting calls like tu?

Funny, I remember the tu fans crying about the bad calls for Bama in their game. Said they were robbed.

It was quite a dilemma though for the refs. I mean the two most favorable called teams in the NCAA, quite the quandary.

This is an easy $5.00 to spend. To watch a bunch of grown men cry about everything that doesn't go their way. #priceless

Play calling

Offense

No calls

Jimbo

Players

Big Brother Out!

Iowa State choked the game away dropping that wide open TD pass with a couple minutes left. Plus in first half threw that INT in the end zone giving away an easy 3 points. Major mistakes and They got what they deserved.

But they called a "routine harmless tackle" of Ewers, roughing the passer. Saying that he "DROVE" the QB into the ground is an absolute travesty of football.

WhoIsYourDaddy1939 said:

---

This is an easy $5.00 to spend. To watch a bunch of grown men cry about everything that doesn't go their way. #priceless

Play calling

Offense

No calls

Jimbo

Players

Big Brother Out!

---

I knew the FBI trolled this site and now it's football. Go find Hunter! FJB!!!

Also I don't think 22-30 year old men are grown in 2022. They can't read cursive nor decide a pronoun but at least they will pick a Glock over the other.

WhoIsYourDaddy1939 said:

---

This is an easy $5.00 to spend. To watch a bunch of grown men cry about everything that doesn't go their way. #priceless

Play calling

Offense

No calls

Jimbo

Players

Big Brother Out!

---

Do you really think there is one ounce of difference between the people on this site, and those on any other football board? These are literally the exact same things every fan base whines over when things aren't going their way. It's as easy to find cry-baby fans on a football forum as it is to find a roach in a dumpster. Have you ever been on OrangeBloods or the like? It's the same freaking thing…

But please, keep you $5 coming and keep thinking you have found something unique.