jp95 said:

---

vander54 said:

---

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

---

They were both targeting.

---

Yep. Helmet to helmet is targeting no matter what. Unless your sip though apparently.

Bill Superman said:

---

jp95 said:

---

vander54 said:

---

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

---

They were both targeting.

---

Yep. Helmet to helmet is targeting no matter what. Unless your sip though apparently.

---

No it's not. Only on defenseless player otherwise it has to be with the crown of the helmet.

The penalty is stupid anyway.

Automatic disqualification for 2 halves on a penalty that can accidentally happen or be subjectively called?

A player gets a second chance after intentionally committing unsportsmanlike conduct.

Why not make targeting an UC penalty?

vander54 said:

---

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

---

Rulebook says target.
Now you go read it

vander54 said:

---

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.

---

Examples of defenseless players include but are not limited to

TAMU74 said:

---

vander54 said:

---

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

---

Rulebook says target.
Now you go read it

---

Lol

You obviously didn't read the rule.

Why was the hit targeting?

Trigon Jin said:

---

---

So i was right. Helmets never collided

Yep.

Opponent hanging on. No further progress. H.

TexasRebel said:

---

Yep.

Opponent hanging on. No further progress. H.

---

You are the biggest troll or one of the dumbest posters on this site.

Wrong again.

Hmm. Helmets made a glancing blow. Nice catch but still not targeting

Repeat that, please. 2011 couldn't hear you.

The rule book means nothing

Targeting is called 100% of the time based on the logo on the helmet. They will look at the replay until they see something that fits into the rules to make sure the right logo doesn't get the call against them.

I heard they have upheld the call now and Wade Taylor will be held out of tomorrows game for the 1st half.

vander54 said:

---

Hmm. Helmets made a glancing blow. Nice catch but still not targeting

---

I don't think this particular play was targeting. The earlier hit in the 4th I believe was targeting.

Textbook earhole, no good video angle because it happened so fast. Should have been a penalty given the history of the enforcement of the rule. Perhaps Stockton stays down and they don't overturn it. Tough kid and was also fortunate he had no ligament or leg damage!

vander54 said:

---

Bill Superman said:

---

jp95 said:

---

vander54 said:

---

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

---

They were both targeting.

---

Yep. Helmet to helmet is targeting no matter what. Unless your sip though apparently.

---

No it's not. Only on defenseless player otherwise it has to be with the crown of the helmet.

---

Maybe it's not targeting but helmet to helmet is a foul.

Bill Superman said:

---

vander54 said:

---

Bill Superman said:

---

jp95 said:

---

vander54 said:

---

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

---

They were both targeting.

---

Yep. Helmet to helmet is targeting no matter what. Unless your sip though apparently.

---

No it's not. Only on defenseless player otherwise it has to be with the crown of the helmet.

---

Maybe it's not targeting but helmet to helmet is a foul.

---

No it's not. If it was it would be a penalty on every play.

vander54 said:

---

Trigon Jin said:

---

---

So i was right. Helmets never collided

---

Is that you Stevie Wonder?

Martin Cash said:

---

vander54 said:

---

Trigon Jin said:

---

---

So i was right. Helmets never collided

---

Is that you Stevie Wonder?

---

I missed it on the replay and owned it a couple comments later. But doesn't change that it wasn't targeting.

vander54 said:

---

Bill Superman said:

---

vander54 said:

---

Bill Superman said:

---

jp95 said:

---

vander54 said:

---

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

---

They were both targeting.

---

Yep. Helmet to helmet is targeting no matter what. Unless your sip though apparently.

---

No it's not. Only on defenseless player otherwise it has to be with the crown of the helmet.

---

Maybe it's not targeting but helmet to helmet is a foul.

---

No it's not. If it was it would be a penalty on every play.

---

They do call a penalty every time the defender makes helmet to helmet contact. If this helmet is the first thing to contact their helmet then it's a foul.

Bill Superman said:

---

vander54 said:

---

Bill Superman said:

---

vander54 said:

---

Bill Superman said:

---

jp95 said:

---

vander54 said:

---

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

---

They were both targeting.

---

Yep. Helmet to helmet is targeting no matter what. Unless your sip though apparently.

---

No it's not. Only on defenseless player otherwise it has to be with the crown of the helmet.

---

Maybe it's not targeting but helmet to helmet is a foul.

---

No it's not. If it was it would be a penalty on every play.

---

They do call a penalty every time the defender makes helmet to helmet contact. If this helmet is the first thing to contact their helmet then it's a foul.

---

Only on a defenseless player or of the tackler leads with the crown of his helmet.

Or if you're not a 'sip.

TexasRebel said:

---

Or if you're not a 'sip.

---

Yes, and this.

That's fine if the rule says "defenseless." However, so many calls have been made where the player is able to defend himself.

Was there any sip targeting/not targeting today? Asking for a friend

The kid had net even got his second foot down and was just starting to turn his head. He's clearly defenseless by the first aspect letter A on that rule. Just size the definition of the word defenseless. He had 0% chance to defend himself before he was hit in the head. Anyone arguing that's not targetting is a brain dead moron, no offense. That gets called targetting 99.9% of the time and 100% of the time when there's not a steer on the defenders helmet. Wake up people, they've been given favorable officiating for decades and the reason us olds didn't want those azzclowns in the conference to start with. If it's close, you are going to get screwed as their opponent.