Less than a minute left in the Mizzou-OU game….how in the world was that not targeting on Mizzou???

MaroonRevival said:

---

Less than a minute left in the Mizzou-OU game….how in the world was that not targeting on Mizzou???

---

Because he wasn't defenseless player as he was clearly a runner at that point so the only way it is targeting is if it is with the crown of the helmet which is wasn't.

Since they only replayed it once despite so much time it's hard to tell exactly what happened but absolutely ****ing nuts it was flagged instantly, how they often do. Crazy they didn't review without a flag.

How can they eject a Florida player with a helmet to our receivers hip but not look at that play?!

I said it in the watching the games thread. That's the worst non-targeting call I've ever seen. I don't care who you are you cannot tell/show me a definitive play of what is/isn't targeting after that. Absolute horse *****

So Jahdae was targeting on a defensive player…but taking that dude's head off was not targeting. And that was clearly the crown.

MaroonRevival said:

---

So Jahdae was targeting on a defensive player…but taking that dude's head off was not targeting. And that was clearly the crown.

---

The criteria for targeting is different based on whether the ball carrier is defenseless or not defenseless.

Unreal that 2 players are laying on the ground, we see 1 replay... and play resumes like everything is cool

I thought "launching" is part of the equation?

They are ejecting players left and right for normal football plays but you can leave a guy half-dead on the field for 5 minutes

concac said:

---

MaroonRevival said:

---

So Jahdae was targeting on a defensive player…but taking that dude's head off was not targeting. And that was clearly the crown.

---

The criteria for targeting is different based on whether the ball carrier is defenseless or not defenseless.

---

Or in that case, it was a blindside block so the defender is deemed defenseless.

Kansas Kid said:

---

concac said:

---

MaroonRevival said:

---

So Jahdae was targeting on a defensive player…but taking that dude's head off was not targeting. And that was clearly the crown.

---

The criteria for targeting is different based on whether the ball carrier is defenseless or not defenseless.

---

Or in that case, it was a blindside block so the defender is deemed defenseless.

---

Then the criteria is complete bull****

91_Aggie said:

---

They would have called targeting on both defensive players if that were A&M

---

Our guys would've stood over him, then ripped their own helmets off on the way to the opposing sideline to make throat slashes.

91_Aggie said:

---

They would have called targeting on both defensive players if that were A&M

---

Would have reviewed 3 times.... and might have ejected half the players on defense for just being on the field

concac said:

---

MaroonRevival said:

---

So Jahdae was targeting on a defensive player…but taking that dude's head off was not targeting. And that was clearly the crown.

---

The criteria for targeting is different based on whether the ball carrier is defenseless or not defenseless.

---

We only saw it replayed once - which is incredible - but the ball carrier appeared to be sliding/being tackled when he got blasted in the head by the crown of the defensive player's helmet. If that isn't targeting then the rule is uttterly worthless.

Kansas Kid said:

---

MaroonRevival said:

---

Less than a minute left in the Mizzou-OU game….how in the world was that not targeting on Mizzou???

---

Because he wasn't defenseless player as he was clearly a runner at that point so the only way it is targeting is if it is with the crown of the helmet which is wasn't.

---

They only showed one replay, but it looked to me like the defender led with his helmet.

Kansas Kid said:

---

concac said:

---

MaroonRevival said:

---

So Jahdae was targeting on a defensive player…but taking that dude's head off was not targeting. And that was clearly the crown.

---

The criteria for targeting is different based on whether the ball carrier is defenseless or not defenseless.

---

Or in that case, it was a blindside block so the defender is deemed defenseless.

---

It was blindside…except he as looking right at Jaedae….

TexasAggiesWin said:

---

Unreal that 2 players are laying on the ground, we see 1 replay... and play resumes like everything is cool

---

yes, 5 minutes and they reply it ONE TIME....usually get 15 replays with frame by frame analysis of an A&M player glancing off someone...TARGETTING. EJECTION!

AustinAg2K said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

MaroonRevival said:

---

Less than a minute left in the Mizzou-OU game….how in the world was that not targeting on Mizzou???

---

Because he wasn't defenseless player as he was clearly a runner at that point so the only way it is targeting is if it is with the crown of the helmet which is wasn't.

---

They only showed one replay, but it looked to me like the defender led with his helmet.

---

I think he might have inadvertently first made contact at upper shoulder pads, while launching, that got in the way of him smashing the crown of his helmet into the guys facemask

MaroonRevival said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

concac said:

---

MaroonRevival said:

---

So Jahdae was targeting on a defensive player…but taking that dude's head off was not targeting. And that was clearly the crown.

---

The criteria for targeting is different based on whether the ball carrier is defenseless or not defenseless.

---

Or in that case, it was a blindside block so the defender is deemed defenseless.

---

It was blindside…except he as looking right at Jaedae….

---

Tell that to the coordinator of the NCAA officials who covered this play in his week 10 video.

https://texags.com/forums/5/topics/3502988/last#last

Go watch the ****ing replay.

MaroonRevival said:

---

Go watch the ****ing replay.

---

Go read the rules and the case book. Then try to tell the coordinator of officials that he doesn't know the rule.

PS. Don't be misled by the title blindside block. It doesn't just mean a block from behind.

Let's assume you are correct. Then all that tells me is the rule is not addressing the right problem. If Jahdae is guilty, and the Mizzou player is so innocent he doesn't even warrant an initial flag, then the rule is ****ed up.

MaroonRevival said:

---

Let's assume you are correct. Then all that tells me is the rule is not addressing the right problem. If Jahdae is guilty, and the Mizzou player is so innocent he doesn't even warrant an initial flag, then the rule is ****ed up.

---

I think in the next few years you will see that hit made illegal as well. Without a doubt, it was more dangerous than the Jahdae hit but under the current rules, it isn't targeting because it could only have been called if he hit with the crown of the helmet which he didn't based on the angles I saw (I rewatched it a few times using my DVR).