« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: More Targeting Craziness  (Read 7439 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8775
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-269
  • When you quit learning you quit living
More Targeting Craziness
« on: January 05, 2014, 02:06:41 PM »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRSM9JicarU

If you don't have targeting, what foul is it ?
Logged

shoreref

  • Guest
Re: More Targeting Craziness
« Reply #1 on: January 05, 2014, 10:16:30 PM »
Got me!  Maybe they figured since he was going to be carried off he'd done the job for them.
Logged

StudyingFutureZebra

  • Guest
Re: More Targeting Craziness
« Reply #2 on: January 05, 2014, 10:34:34 PM »
I was shocked they didn't call that one targeting.
Logged

Offline BankerRef

  • *
  • Posts: 217
  • FAN REACTION: +12/-3
Re: More Targeting Craziness
« Reply #3 on: January 06, 2014, 11:34:02 AM »
Quote from: TXMike on January 05, 2014, 02:06:41 PM
If you don't have targeting, what foul is it ?

That is exactly what I would want to know. 

Can't really blame the announcers for being confused about the rules when we have situations like this that only contribute to further confusion.
Logged

younggun

  • Guest
Re: More Targeting Craziness
« Reply #4 on: January 06, 2014, 03:44:13 PM »
Two flags and not one of them came up with Targeting? When in doubt... TGT.
Logged

Offline Dakota Dan

  • *
  • Posts: 111
  • FAN REACTION: +9/-1
  • ΦΑ ΣAE SD Theta
More Targeting Craziness
« Reply #5 on: January 06, 2014, 05:50:29 PM »
Remember:
These indicate less risk of a foul (I.e. Not targeting):1. Heads-up tackle in which the crown of the helmet does not strike abovethe shoulders.2. Wrap-up tackle.3. Head is to the side rather than being used to initiate contact.4. Incidental helmet contact that is not part of targeting but is due to theplayers changing position during the course of play.

What the Georgia play did was #4 ... I thought it was a good job by the crew getting together and removing the Target Foul.
Logged

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8775
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-269
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: More Targeting Craziness
« Reply #6 on: January 06, 2014, 06:15:54 PM »
Dan - I am not saying it is or is not targeting but since you are saying it is not and commending the crew for not calling that, what foul is it that caused Team A to receive 15 yards and a 1st down?  And is the crew to be commended for making THAT call?
Logged

Offline Dakota Dan

  • *
  • Posts: 111
  • FAN REACTION: +9/-1
  • ΦΑ ΣAE SD Theta
More Targeting Craziness
« Reply #7 on: January 06, 2014, 06:55:17 PM »
"No comment" on sticking the DB with the UNR foul ... Just glad they did not eject the defense player for aTGT foul.
Logged

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8775
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-269
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: More Targeting Craziness
« Reply #8 on: January 06, 2014, 06:56:57 PM »
Your "silence" speaks volumes    ;)
Logged

Offline BoBo

  • *
  • Posts: 227
  • FAN REACTION: +1/-1
Re: More Targeting Craziness
« Reply #9 on: January 07, 2014, 12:33:38 PM »
TxMike thanks for finding this. I got your pm but have not been home near the computer the last couple days.

I do NOT think this is a flag, i know every single person in here is going to go nuts and rant bout the helmet to helmet blah blah.

But if you look at the 4:08 mark (freeze it if you can) the receiver is air borne and for the most part in an upright position in the air.  The Nebraska at this time has crouched and you can see he has his right shoulder as the leading part of his body.

As you go bout two frames the Georgia wr now in the air balls up and drops his head. The Nebraska DB does not launch and is turned sideways when he makes contact.

Now if you are going to tell me he has to lower his hitting zone during that short time period you are crazy. The only way he can do that is basically be on his knees.  You can not expect that DB to wait and see or to wait for him to land then pick a hit zone.

With the looks of the hit at real speed i can see why a flag was thrown.

With the replay of it and seeing it slow motion I can definitely make a case of no flag.

Good thing he was not disqualified.

OK fire away I am ready for hit
Logged

Offline Magician

  • *
  • Posts: 1084
  • FAN REACTION: +257/-8
Re: More Targeting Craziness
« Reply #10 on: January 09, 2014, 09:57:12 AM »
If he tries to wrap up the receiver rather than "hitting" him (not sure I would call this a blow-up), he likely doesn't get hurt.  The targeting rules are as much about protecting the hitter as the hittee.  What he did here resulted in the defender getting hurt.  While I think you can easily argue this can be ignored to the letter of the rule, this is the kind of hit they want to eliminate.
Logged
Pages: [1]
« previous next »