vander54 said:

---

The hit on UGA was not targetting. The hit on our guy was.

---

Exactly.

Georgia is not worried
tu might get preferential treatment most of the time but UGa is confident the SEC will take care of the Dawgs except when the Dawgs are playing the tide

Forcible contact to the head regardless of shoulder, helmet, crown is targeting is it not? I thought it was mostly shoulder, but was definitely forcible contact to the head and neck area.

jp95 said:

---

vander54 said:

---

The hit on UGA was not targetting. The hit on our guy was.

---

They were both targeting.

---

Why was the hit on UGA targeting.

Not defenseless player so need more than forceable contact to the head

Did not lead with the crown of the helmet

Shoulder pad made initial contact

It was flagged.

The replay booth waved it off.

vander54 said:

---

Not defenseless player so need more than forceable contact to the head

---

Bzzzzt. Wrong answer.

TexasRebel said:

---

vander54 said:

---

Not defenseless player so need more than forceable contact to the head

---

Bzzzzt. Wrong answer.

---

Lol. How was he defenseless?

Nevermind it's you

It would have been targeting on one of our players!

Forcible contact with the head/neck area is targeting.

Edit: I saw it again. He was defenseless and falling forward with a 'sip attached.

vander54 said:

---

TexasRebel said:

---

vander54 said:

---

Not defenseless player so need more than forceable contact to the head

---

Bzzzzt. Wrong answer.

---

Lol. How was he defenseless?

Nevermind it's you

---

You and I both know t.u. is the only team that call gets overturned for.

Targeting


ARTICLE 5 a The replay official shall review all targeting fouls, Rules
9-1-3 and 9-1-4 For a player to be disqualified and the Targeting foul to be
enforced, all elements of a Targeting foul must be confirmed by the Instant
Replay Official There is no option for stands as a part of a Targeting review If
any element of Targeting cannot be confirmed, then the Replay Official shall
overturn the targeting foul

Targeting elements include:

1Rule 9-1-3:

(a) A player takes aim at an opponent for the purposes of attacking with
forcible contact with the crown of the helmet
(b) An indicator of targeting is present

2Rule 9-1-4:

(a) A defenseless opponent (Rule 2-27-14)
(b) A player takes aim at a defenseless opponent for the purposes of
attacking with forcible contact to the head or neck area
(c) An indicator of targeting is present

bThe replay official may create a targeting foul from the booth when all
elements of targeting can be confirmed and the foul is not called by the
officials on the field Such a review may not be initiated by a coach's
challenge

Rule 9-1-4 does not have to be a helmet to helmet.

Don't ya'll remember when Noah Thomas got hit with a targeting to the guy's butt?

vander54 said:

---

TexasRebel said:

---

vander54 said:

---

Not defenseless player so need more than forceable contact to the head

---

Bzzzzt. Wrong answer.

---

Lol. How was he defenseless?

Nevermind it's you

---

It may not be in the rule book but when he was being tackled by one player and held up and #4 comes in a lays the wood to the neck and head area that should be targeting. The QB's head clearly snapped back when he was hit.

TexasRebel said:

---

He wasn't defenseless. You're correct on that part.

Forcible contact with the head/neck area is targeting.

---

Not that it matter necause you refuse to actually read the rules but there are two ways targeting is called.

1. Forceable contact to the neck or head area of a defenseless player

2. Making forceable contact with the crown of your helmet

Direct quote from the NCAA rule book

Quote:

---

These actions appear in two rules: Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3) and Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless

---

Neither happned

So this is my last response to you.

lagoag said:

---

vander54 said:

---

TexasRebel said:

---

vander54 said:

---

Not defenseless player so need more than forceable contact to the head

---

Bzzzzt. Wrong answer.

---

Lol. How was he defenseless?

Nevermind it's you

---

It may not be in the rule book but when he was being tackled by one player and held up and #4 comes in a lays the wood to the neck and head area that should be targeting. The QB's head clearly snapped back when he was hit.

---

Should be has an argument but we aren't talking should be. By the current definition it was not targeting.

Made my edit before your reply.

I was incorrect, you were incorrect.

It technically was not targeting unless the UGa runner was deemed a defenseless player, which would have been a stretch. One can go on and on about what would have happened had A&M delivered that hit, but we'll never know. The bottom line is that it was a quick reversal because the league office replay staff has their finger on the scale for t.u. And I'm as big a supporter of the on-field officials as anyone on here -- get ridiculed for it all the time. I think they worked a good game today. And I think, in this case, replay got it technically right. But any replay office that will tell a crew to pick up a flag that isn't subject to replay because bottles are thrown on the field (they'll deny that was the reason) can't be trusted. We KNOW what was going on in the first t.u./UGa game.

However, the rule MUST change to include that hit as a foul of some sort. Its one thing if the defender makes contact to the head or neck area incidentally. But there was clearly an indicator (launch) and the blow was delivered directly to the head. Hell, the guy's helmet came off. To add insult to injury (pun intended), he had to go off for a play due to his helmet coming off.

The calling official (there should have been multiple flags) SHOULD have called unnecessary roughness WITH targeting. That would have left in the penalty sans the ejection (would have only been half the distance or 2-ish yards) but the QB wouldn't have had to leave. Everything other than targeting isn't reviewable/remains.

What they now call targeting should be applauded and encouraged as hard nosed football. If you would prefer not to get hit, don't freaking play.

Even the rules official said it wasn't targeting before the call. Your guys need to learn the rules. They don't call plays based on your emotions.

TexasRebel said:

---

Made my edit before your reply.

---

And your edit is still wrong. A ball carry is not defenseless.

Again straight from the NCAA rulebook

Quote:

---

Defenseless Player
ARTICLE 14. A defenseless player is one who because of their physical
position and focus of concentration is especially vulnerable to injury. When in
question, a player is defenseless. Examples of defenseless players include but are
not limited to:
a. A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass. This includes an
offensive player in a passing posture with focus downfield.
b. A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a
backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to
protect themselves or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
c. A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the
return.
d. A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has
completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect themselves
or has not clearly become a ball carrier..
e. A player on the ground.
f. A player obviously out of the play.
g. A player who receives a blind-side block.
h. A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped.
i. A quarterback any time after a change of possession.
j. A ball carrier who has obviously given themselves up and is sliding feetfirst.

---

H. Is closest to this play but his forward progress was definitely not stopped.

Simple solution is lose the pads altogether. Keep a cushion around the head and a mouthpiece. Weaponizing bodies will stop quickly.

By the letter of the rule it wasn't. But when you make contact helmet to helmet so fiercely you knock a players helmet off it should be. If it's truly about player safety how can it not be? And if that hit wasn't unsafe then don't pay lip service to player safety on other players just because someone lead with the magical "crown" of the helmet.

A ball carrier going down with an opponent attached is defenseless.

vander54 said:

---

jp95 said:

---

vander54 said:

---

The hit on UGA was not targetting. The hit on our guy was.

---

They were both targeting.

---

Why was the hit on UGA targeting.

Not defenseless player so need more than forceable contact to the head

Did not lead with the crown of the helmet

Shoulder pad made initial contact

---

We must have been watching different games.

That was clearly targeting against the Georgia quarterback.
If you really don't think that was targeting what do you think the call would've been had that been an A&M defender doing the exact same thing to either a Georgia or Texas quarterback?
I guarantee you, I guarantee you that would've been called targeting.
Make no mistake.

Martin Cash said:

---

vander54 said:

---

jp95 said:

---

vander54 said:

---

The hit on UGA was not targetting. The hit on our guy was.

---

They were both targeting.

---

Why was the hit on UGA targeting.

Not defenseless player so need more than forceable contact to the head

Did not lead with the crown of the helmet

Shoulder pad made initial contact

---

We must have been watching different games.

---

Even if the helmet made contact first it wasn't the crown and the ball carry was not defenseless. So no penalty.

TAMU74 said:

---

That was clearly targeting against the Georgia quarterback.
If you really don't think that was targeting what do you think the call would've been had that been an A&M defender doing the exact same thing to either a Georgia or Texas quarterback?
I guarantee you, I guarantee you that would've been called targeting.
Make no mistake.

---

I posted the rule. Read it

I don't care what the rule is. The reality is that most teams (especially us) would have had it called in them, but sip doesn't. Just call the rules equitably, whatever they are, and everyone will live with it.

Rulebook says that was 100% targeting. Direct head hit with helmet popping off 100% time is targeting except for the dirty ass playing tsips.