Ouch.
Helmet to Helmet
17,922 Views |
167 Replies |
Last: 7 days ago by AWP 97
Angry Jonathan Zaludek
Joined:
May 25, 2009
Posts:
8,510
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
No targeting?
That is targeting
Targeting? Seemed to leave feet
Targeting
Yup, any other game would draw a penalty and review. But these big 12 refs a fkn trash
Targeting for sure
Would have been just like against tu.
The hit caused a concussion, if Ruben Owen's was laying on the ground unconscious they would have called it.
You can't get a free pass bc you get the concussion.
You can't get a free pass bc you get the concussion.
How was it not reviewed from the booth? Text book targeting.
I am not above blaming this one on the refs.
In such a close game, several key no calls were the difference.
In such a close game, several key no calls were the difference.
Thanks and gig'em
Should have been first down and half the distance. That no call changed the outcome of the game.
Definitely targeting, but also appears that it would have changed nothing.
How can no one see that with how long he was playing on the field. That's just bad.
RARay said:
Definitely targeting, but also appears that it would have changed nothing.
Ball on the 1 and 1st down
Miami = tu
Exactly.
South Llano
Targeting?!?!?
I guess next year we should just give 250k to any player who knocks out an opponent and given a concussion.
New Orleans Saints style. Apparently that's the game now.
New Orleans Saints style. Apparently that's the game now.
And they're not even talking about it. Such BS.
Angry Jonathan Zaludek
Joined:
May 25, 2009
Posts:
8,510
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I wish they'd quit the facade of targeting being about protecting players. It's a subjective penalty that at least in the SEC, depends if Eugene Semko likes you or not.
Eugene Semko was in the replay booth, tu law grad, no way in hell he was calling that
It definitely changed it. Reed tried to force it rather than have a fresh 1st and goal from the 1. Let's also not forget the no call late slam against KC that would have extended the drive.
Unfreaking believable that they did not review that for targeting.
Doesn't matter. 1st down on the 2 yrs line and Reed still thrown an INT. Reed sucks, with any other QB we will by 2 by 2 TDs.
RARay said:
Definitely targeting, but also appears that it would have changed nothing.
1st and goal from the 2, probably run it in, at least it forces the front 7 in tight
Shouldn't have to win by a ref bailout. Terrible run defense, worst offense.
Season's over and sunshine pumpers will have to find new hobbies
Season's over and sunshine pumpers will have to find new hobbies
allenb said:RARay said:
Definitely targeting, but also appears that it would have changed nothing.
Ball on the 1 and 1st down
And? We weren't going to run the ball with no timeouts. The interception was thrown on third down. Nothing changes with a couple more yards.
It was neither leading nor launching. You need one of those.
Sorry, yall. Not targeting. Just a bad bang bang play.
ETA: Made a mistake after watching the review from the other side of the field. 100% hit to the head and neck area of a defenseless player. This was absolutely targeting.
ETA: Made a mistake after watching the review from the other side of the field. 100% hit to the head and neck area of a defenseless player. This was absolutely targeting.
RARay said:allenb said:RARay said:
Definitely targeting, but also appears that it would have changed nothing.
Ball on the 1 and 1st down
And? We weren't going to run the ball with no timeouts. The interception was thrown on third down. Nothing changes with a couple more yards.
2 extra downs gives Reed a chance to not try to force anything. It does matter.
Eliminatus said:
It was neither leading nor launching. You need one of those.
Sorry, yall. Not targeting. Just a bad bang bang play.
You don't need those when the player is defenseless. Forcible contact to head or neck is the standard.
Eliminatus said:
It was neither leading nor launching. You need one of those.
Sorry, yall. Not targeting. Just a bad bang bang play.
You're looking at the wrong play.
Eliminatus said:
It was neither leading nor launching. You need one of those.
Sorry, yall. Not targeting. Just a bad bang bang play.
Forceable contact to the head of a defenseless player. That's targeting. You don't need any other elements.
bslater07 said:RARay said:allenb said:RARay said:
Definitely targeting, but also appears that it would have changed nothing.
Ball on the 1 and 1st down
And? We weren't going to run the ball with no timeouts. The interception was thrown on third down. Nothing changes with a couple more yards.
2 extra downs gives Reed a chance to not try to force anything. It does matter.
There wasn't time for "two more" downs. He already had another down when he threw the int. He also wasn't "forcing". He just missed the throw. Badly.
Eliminatus said:
It was neither leading nor launching. You need one of those.
Sorry, yall. Not targeting. Just a bad bang bang play.
Initiating contact with the crown of the helmet (top).
Launching (leaving feet to attack).
Using shoulder, forearm, fist, or elbow to attack the head/neck.
Hitting a defenseless player, who is especially vulnerable due to their physical position or focus (e.g., a receiver catching a pass, a kicker).
Featured Stories
See All
More improvement is A&M's goal in Monday's non-conference finale
by Olin Buchanan
Scouting Report: Texas A&M vs. Prairie View A&M
by Tom Schuberth
Ten season-defining moments along Texas A&M's championship run
by Richard Zane
5:44
4d ago
4.5k
The Film Room: Miami 10, Texas A&M 3
by Stephen McGee
6:00
4d ago
5.3k
Defense in Review feat. Sean Porter: Miami 10, Texas A&M 3
by Billy Liucci