At least the world sees the cheat.
Refs/esipn/ncaa really messed up this time.
It's not even defendable.
Refs/esipn/ncaa really messed up this time.
It's not even defendable.
Post Reply
1 of 1
Go to Twitter/X - search "Targeting"
2,377 Views |
18 Replies |
Last: 1 mo ago by TxAg76
We all know it's targeting.
The incessant bickering going on over multiple posts, to include dissecting specific rules, is just noise.
Noise from fans who don't want to believe their team required help to win and other fans who don't want to believe, that maybe, just maybe, their billion dollar entertainment industry isn't on the up and up.
We've watched more than enough games since the rule was instituted to know what we saw was indeed targeting.
The incessant bickering going on over multiple posts, to include dissecting specific rules, is just noise.
Noise from fans who don't want to believe their team required help to win and other fans who don't want to believe, that maybe, just maybe, their billion dollar entertainment industry isn't on the up and up.
We've watched more than enough games since the rule was instituted to know what we saw was indeed targeting.
“And if your opponent makes forcible contact with the head and neck area, we’ll call it Targeting.”
— Chad Coleman (@HashtagChad) January 1, 2025
“With dozens of slow motion camera angles that should be a pretty obvious penalty to enforce, right?”
“Absolutely not” pic.twitter.com/yLZuOjcRI2
$$$
sleepybeagle
Was it targeting? Yes…did ASU let Texas score a TD on 4th and 13 in OT? Also, yes…how about play some defense instead of letting a 28yd TD go by.
Dumb rebuttalNorthTexasAg22 said:
Was it targeting? Yes…did ASU let Texas score a TD on 4th and 13 in OT? Also, yes…how about play some defense instead of letting a 28yd TD go by.
NorthTexasAg22 said:
Was it targeting? Yes…did ASU let Texas score a TD on 4th and 13 in OT? Also, yes…how about play some defense instead of letting a 28yd TD go by.
Shouldn't have come to that!
NorthTexasAg22 said:
Was it targeting? Yes…did ASU let Texas score a TD on 4th and 13 in OT? Also, yes…how about play some defense instead of letting a 28yd TD go by.
It's highly likely that game never goes to overtime if targeting is called. Maybe come up with a different argument.
Did none of you see the blatant play in overtime where the ASU lineman picked up and pulled in the stopped RB from the 4 to give them the lead? You can't do that, it was several yards, and it was the go-ahead touchdown play in overtime. That's not trying to help Texas win.
My phone has been burning up all morning.
— Gene Steratore (@GeneSteratore) January 2, 2025
Yes, this should have been a flag for targeting in #TEXvsASU. It meets all of the criteria of targeting (Rule 9-1-4). pic.twitter.com/tv5HPIQgd0
The world saw ESPN tilt the scales for sip in last year's CFP. f$u paid the price for sip's good "luck."
Where's the outrage? Welp, lots of true sports fans started opening their eyes to how corrupt CFB has become. But, sadly, tons of t-shirt fans (bussed in from the latest WWE Smackdown I imagine) were lining up to take their place.
Where's the outrage? Welp, lots of true sports fans started opening their eyes to how corrupt CFB has become. But, sadly, tons of t-shirt fans (bussed in from the latest WWE Smackdown I imagine) were lining up to take their place.
It's targeting, yes.
But given where the ball would have been spotted, with the 1+ minute remaining, and ASU's kicker being really wobbly....there's no guarantee that ASU scores to win.
People act like it's a foregone conclusion that ASU absolutely would have won the game in regulation.
Definitely not.
There were a lot of calls missed (and made) on both sides during that game.
I absolutely HATE 'sip, and hope they never win another game in any sport in the rest of my lifetime....but to say this one call directly changed what would have been a certain ASU win....that's false.
True….but one thing it absolutely did was kill ASU's drive and a chance to win.
Well, yeah. It's sports. There are no guarantees of anything which is why they play the games.TxAg76 said:
It's targeting, yes.
But given where the ball would have been spotted, with the 1+ minute remaining, and ASU's kicker being really wobbly....there's no guarantee that ASU scores to win.
People act like it's a foregone conclusion that ASU absolutely would have won the game in regulation.
Definitely not.
There were a lot of calls missed (and made) on both sides during that game.
I absolutely HATE 'sip, and hope they never win another game in any sport in the rest of my lifetime....but to say this one call directly changed what would have been a certain ASU win....that's false.
But, a player made a play that broke the rules, and the non-call gave his team the advantage and removed the other team's fair chance to win the game in regulation. Additionally, the resulting drive gave t.u. an extra chance to win in regulation it would not have had if the correct call had been made.
That's cheating. Has nothing to do with a guarantee.
So we know for a fact ASU would have scored? Not like they had a fg blocked earlier in the game….ASU had a win probability of 91.2% on the 4th and 13.
You take your rational, completely probable post and stick it. Ain't nobody got time for your madness!TxAg76 said:
It's targeting, yes.
But given where the ball would have been spotted, with the 1+ minute remaining, and ASU's kicker being really wobbly....there's no guarantee that ASU scores to win.
People act like it's a foregone conclusion that ASU absolutely would have won the game in regulation.
Definitely not.
There were a lot of calls missed (and made) on both sides during that game.
I absolutely HATE 'sip, and hope they never win another game in any sport in the rest of my lifetime....but to say this one call directly changed what would have been a certain ASU win....that's false.
TxAg76 said:
It's targeting, yes.
But given where the ball would have been spotted, with the 1+ minute remaining, and ASU's kicker being really wobbly....there's no guarantee that ASU scores to win.
People act like it's a foregone conclusion that ASU absolutely would have won the game in regulation.
Definitely not.
There were a lot of calls missed (and made) on both sides during that game.
I absolutely HATE 'sip, and hope they never win another game in any sport in the rest of my lifetime....but to say this one call directly changed what would have been a certain ASU win....that's false.
It's not that it wasn't called. It's that they've been getting away with targeting all season long. Either they really are that lucky, the refs are that inept, or something else is going on. I could also create the circular argument like you and say that there's nothing saying they wouldn't have scored. The bottom line is that refs should never be able to affect a game the way that they have all season, regardless of which side it occurs.
trueaggie2782 said:TxAg76 said:
It's targeting, yes.
But given where the ball would have been spotted, with the 1+ minute remaining, and ASU's kicker being really wobbly....there's no guarantee that ASU scores to win.
People act like it's a foregone conclusion that ASU absolutely would have won the game in regulation.
Definitely not.
There were a lot of calls missed (and made) on both sides during that game.
I absolutely HATE 'sip, and hope they never win another game in any sport in the rest of my lifetime....but to say this one call directly changed what would have been a certain ASU win....that's false.
It's not that it wasn't called. It's that they've been getting away with targeting all season long. Either they really are that lucky, the refs are that inept, or something else is going on. I could also create the circular argument like you and say that there's nothing saying they wouldn't have scored. The bottom line is that refs should never be able to affect a game the way that they have all season, regardless of which side it occurs.
Agree. Never said ASU wouldn't have had a chance to score. My guess is they'd have got a low 40's yd FG attempt as time expires.
As for t.u. and tilting the scales, that's been going on for decades, so that part isn't news
JohnnyShotgun said:You take your rational, completely probable post and stick it. Ain't nobody got time for your madness!TxAg76 said:
It's targeting, yes.
But given where the ball would have been spotted, with the 1+ minute remaining, and ASU's kicker being really wobbly....there's no guarantee that ASU scores to win.
People act like it's a foregone conclusion that ASU absolutely would have won the game in regulation.
Definitely not.
There were a lot of calls missed (and made) on both sides during that game.
I absolutely HATE 'sip, and hope they never win another game in any sport in the rest of my lifetime....but to say this one call directly changed what would have been a certain ASU win....that's false.
You're right….not sure what I was thinking there….