- 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
so that makes it ok to target when a players isnt defensless 
1
Posted on 10/23/16 at 9:38 am to Tiger Nation 84
quote:
so that makes it ok to target when a players isnt defensless
I didn't write the rule.
quote:
Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14):
A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return.
A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
A player on the ground.
A player obviously out of the play.
A player who receives a blind-side block.
A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped.
A quarterback any time after a change of possession.
A ball carrier who has obviously given himself up and is sliding feet-first.
This post was edited on 10/23/16 at 9:42 am
Posted on 10/23/16 at 9:42 am to SG_Geaux
Lsu got away with hammering Kelly to the face/facemask on one of the INTs.
It happens.
It happens.
Posted on 10/23/16 at 9:46 am to KLSU
quote:I could actually buy this logic, but the announcers at the time said it was officially called not targeting because the Bama player didn't lead with the crown, which of course he clearly did. So if that was the official reason, then there is definitely a problem.
The BAMA player hit a running back that had the football. The TAMU player hit the running back on a block with his head turned making him "defenseless"
Posted on 10/23/16 at 9:55 am to irnfan
How come nobody ever quotes note 1 of this rule. Leading with the crown negates the defenseless player part of the rule which is in note 2. Wilson led with the crown. Speedy took the crown of Wilson's helmet to the teeth. Unless you play the the Tide this is targeting.
Posted on 10/23/16 at 10:04 am to Aman
The A&M guy wasn't defenseless but that wasn't the issue - the Bama player lowered & lead with the crown of his helmet to the ball carrier's head, ie. spearing. This has always been illegal and is specifically called out in the new targeting rule separate from the defenseless player section.
The call that got the A&M player ejected was also wrong. The players were both in direct line of sight of each other. The A&M player led with his shoulder to the Bama player's chest. It was as clean of a hit as there is.
The call that got the A&M player ejected was also wrong. The players were both in direct line of sight of each other. The A&M player led with his shoulder to the Bama player's chest. It was as clean of a hit as there is.
Posted on 10/23/16 at 10:10 am to 75503Tiger
quote:That would be really tough to do because Bama is usually the beneficiary of NON calls, especially holding by the o-line. They never seem to have questionable calls go against them.
Someone from the outside will have to be presented enough hard facts to get them interested. Otherwise, almost every ref in the conference is simply a moron so we need to review the hiring process
It's not like officials make phantom calls against Bama's opponents it's that Bama gets away with more penalties NOT being called against them.
Posted on 10/23/16 at 10:14 am to irnfan
quote:
the announcers at the time said
So they are the authority on officiating? Or just when you agree because it's for or against the team you hate?
------------------------------
Bama's opponents have been called for holding less than any team in the conference. (check the stats) So looks like our defensive linemen are easier to block than all the other teams in the conference.
This post was edited on 10/23/16 at 10:20 am
Posted on 10/23/16 at 10:18 am to iluvlsusports
This is true. Saban coaches his players to know they have a longer rope to play with to taunt their opponents and draw penalties on their reactions. We've seen it time and time again.
Posted on 10/23/16 at 10:19 am to Aman
Helmet to helmet contact doesn't require intent and can be called by the replay official.
You can be a Bama fan and still admit that hit needed a review....at lease, The Bama guy lead with his helmet. I don't think that can even be debated
The fact the guys on the field whose job is to be watching the return action and the guy in the booth all decided that helmet to helmet hit didn't even warrent a review, is laughable and highlights the inconsistent of the officials.
You can be a Bama fan and still admit that hit needed a review....at lease, The Bama guy lead with his helmet. I don't think that can even be debated
The fact the guys on the field whose job is to be watching the return action and the guy in the booth all decided that helmet to helmet hit didn't even warrent a review, is laughable and highlights the inconsistent of the officials.
Posted on 10/23/16 at 10:22 am to adamb2151
quote:
Saban coaches his players to know they have a longer rope to play with to taunt their opponents
And yet Stewart was called for taunting after standing over a guy he blocked yesterday that had been holding him all game. (ArDarius Stewart, our receiver)
This post was edited on 10/23/16 at 10:24 am
Posted on 10/23/16 at 10:28 am to Lonnie4LSU
quote:
You can be a Bama fan and still admit that hit needed a review....at lease, The Bama guy lead with his helmet. I don't think that can even be debated
I thought it was gonna get called also. The kid is a freshman and was running straight at the ball carrier. He leaned in to make the hit. It could have been called.
He's gonna be one hell of a linebacker.
Posted on 10/23/16 at 10:38 am to tiger chaser
quote:
Watched the game in HD
In HD????? Seriously? HD? You must be rich.
But does every room in your house have IOL?
Posted on 10/23/16 at 10:44 am to windhammontanatigers
quote:
There was no difference between the blatant non call against Bama and then the ejection of the Aggie player .
All I can say is if these rules are meant to really protect the long-term health of the players, then that Bama hit should have been one of the easiest calls ever for targeting and ejection. The fact that it wasn't even reviewed while the aTm player (their biggest playmaker in the secondary) was quickly ejected after his hit on the Bama players was even more of a joke.
The Noil hit was actually right on his face mask at full speed and Noil's face mask actually bent and looked as if it was about to break (and you could actually see either his tooth or a small piece of his helmet come flying off). He was knocked out of the game for a while and he didn't look like he knew where the hell he was at. And I hate when they say, "well, it's a "judgment call" because basically every freaking call is a judgment call. If none of the refs near the hit could see that the Noil hit was targeting and the guy should have been ejected, then they all have horrible judgment and should be replaced.
Posted on 10/23/16 at 10:45 am to bovine1
I don't believe his feet were on the ground when his helmet smashed into Noel's face mask, therefore the Bama kid LAUNCHED himself.
Posted on 10/23/16 at 11:03 am to Aman
Bama fan on LSU board defending Bama intentions - GTFO. Review the hit on the aTm player as if he was a Bama player and then we wouldn't hear anything from you to defend the same play.
Bama hit was spearing and contact with the to of the helmet to the helmet and deserved a flag.
aTm hit deserved the flag.
Refs looked the other way on an obvious flag scenario.
Bama hit was spearing and contact with the to of the helmet to the helmet and deserved a flag.
aTm hit deserved the flag.
Refs looked the other way on an obvious flag scenario.
Posted on 10/23/16 at 11:09 am to Yewkindewit
Exactly right!! If you expect dbs to slow down and get the pads lowered below the target's neck then the same has to apply in kick coverage
Posted on 10/23/16 at 11:10 am to KLSU
quote:
The difference was explained. The BAMA player hit a running back that had the football. The TAMU player hit the running back on a block with his head turned making him "defenseless". Now not saying I agree this is what was given as the excuse.
According to the rules, being defenseless has nothing to do with it if you lead with the crown of the helmet. The Bama player did lead with the crown of the helmet. The fact that it was not called on the field is understandable. However, The fact that the replay booth did not take a look at it speaks volumes.
Posted on 10/23/16 at 11:13 am to 75503Tiger
Its not like there isn't a precedence for refs being prosecuted by the feds for cheating - and those were NBA refs. They were using their positions to manipulate the final score of games to affect the point spread. This is not conspiracy theory - but fact. Do you honestly think based on what we see every week that the SEC refs are not affecting the outcome of games? If you think that, you're either a Gump or know nothing about football.
Posted on 10/23/16 at 11:16 am to 1loyalbamafan
"It could have been"
Replay guy must have been in the bathroom or getting a BJ. cause he sure wasn't doing his job.
Replay guy must have been in the bathroom or getting a BJ. cause he sure wasn't doing his job.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News