RefStripes.com

Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: houstonjaguar on October 09, 2017, 10:47:10 AM

Title: Yet Another Targeting
Post by: houstonjaguar on October 09, 2017, 10:47:10 AM

Opinions?  I think it is targeting @ :30.

http://www.rocketcitynow.com/sports/alabama-am-loses-first-swac-game-to-southern_20171008043227/830397924

Title: Re: Yet Another Targeting
Post by: Rulesman on October 09, 2017, 12:24:53 PM

Targeting.  ^flag

Title: Re: Yet Another Targeting
Post by: ElvisLives on October 09, 2017, 01:22:47 PM

Classic.

What?  Is somebody suggesting it shouldn't have been ruled as targeting?

Yet again, this is a player that sees an opportunity for a "big hit," and is only interested in punishing the opponent, for the highlight reel.  So many other things he could have done to stop the play from being successful, but he chose to inflict punishment on the opponent, instead.  He could have reached for the ball to try to prevent the reception.  He could have driven his shoulder into the abdomen of the receiver and wrapped his arms around him to disrupt his ability to complete the catch (once the ball was touched).  He could have just driven himself - shoulder first with head off to the side - into the abdomen of the receiver without wrapping up, in hopes of dislodging the ball.

Again, a courageous and correct targeting call, and DQ.

The penalty should be that they sit out the next game (at least), period.  Not just a half.

Robert