- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Loston's "late hit"
Posted on 11/10/13 at 11:07 pm to Colonel Flagg
Posted on 11/10/13 at 11:07 pm to Colonel Flagg
The refs blew the call.
As you said, he was not on the ground, the whistle had not been blown, so it was not a late hit.
However, it was targeting:
1. Defenseless in that he was wrapped up by another defender
2. Loston left his feet, propelling himself toward Norwood
3. Loston led with his helmet
4. Loston hit Norwood above the shoulders.
The hit met 4 separate criteria for "Targeting"
All that said, I still think the rule is horseshite
As you said, he was not on the ground, the whistle had not been blown, so it was not a late hit.
However, it was targeting:
1. Defenseless in that he was wrapped up by another defender
2. Loston left his feet, propelling himself toward Norwood
3. Loston led with his helmet
4. Loston hit Norwood above the shoulders.
The hit met 4 separate criteria for "Targeting"
All that said, I still think the rule is horseshite
4
Posted on 11/10/13 at 11:09 pm to CrimsonTideMD
I see your point but HOW ELSE COULD LOSTON HIT HIM? How can you hit somebody without going helmet first when he is in that position? Please tell me how you do that?
Posted on 11/10/13 at 11:13 pm to CrimsonTideMD
quote:
Defenseless in that he was wrapped up by another player
So if one player has a guy wrapped up the other defenders should get in line and wait to see if he breaks the tackle?
quote:
Loston lead with his helmet
No, he lead with his shoulder.
quote:
Loston hit Norwood above the shoulders
Nothing else was exposed for him to hit
Posted on 11/10/13 at 11:15 pm to CrimsonTideMD
quote:
1. Defenseless in that he was wrapped up by another defender
Not the intention of the rule. It was to protect WR coming accross the middle or a safety coming across the field on the sideline during a catch.
quote:
2. Loston left his feet, propelling himself toward Norwood
It was a gang tackle. Again this was not the point of the rule.
quote:
3. Loston led with his helmet
Debatable as the player was getting wrapped up what the hell was going to do. Do you want home to missile drop kick the player like Bobby Boucher.
quote:
4. Loston hit Norwood above the shoulders.
Again he was gang tackling how in the hell to you choose where the hit someone when you are helping clean up a play. That is stupid.
Finally, if they thought it at all was targeting they would have called it. LOL. What would have been the difference in the damn call? An ejection that could have been overturned.
People call it a bs rule, but then try to make an argument for it in a situation it was never intended to be used in during the game. LOL
This post was edited on 11/10/13 at 11:18 pm
Posted on 11/11/13 at 8:30 am to CrimsonTideMD
quote:
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
All that said, I still think the rule is horseshite
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Crimson, I agree with you. I hate the rule. I thought the game was pretty well officiated. I only had issues with a couple of non-calls. I thought there was a clear facemask on a Mettenberger sack that wasn't called and a holding call on a run by Drake that set up a TD. Didn't impact the outcome though.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
All that said, I still think the rule is horseshite
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Crimson, I agree with you. I hate the rule. I thought the game was pretty well officiated. I only had issues with a couple of non-calls. I thought there was a clear facemask on a Mettenberger sack that wasn't called and a holding call on a run by Drake that set up a TD. Didn't impact the outcome though.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News