The problem is that it was reviewed and they still came up with no targeting. It was textbook targeting. If you are going to have the rule, enforce it. If not, do away with the rule.

3 ...

Report Post

Posted by FoTownBam

Foley Al

Member since Oct 2023

1483 posts

Posted on 11/7/23 at 1:54 pm to Triple13

quote:
It was textbook targeting

It wasn’t. If it was, it would have been called. Crying for 3 days about it ain’t gonna change anything and it’s not going to change that big L into a W

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by AlterDWI

Durango, Colorado

Member since Nov 2012

2197 posts

Posted on 11/7/23 at 2:04 pm to Triple13

quote:
It was textbook targeting

Then thats a problem bc that was one of the beautiful form tackles you'll ever see: facemask in the chest, arms wrapped up, drive the player backwards. If thats targeting, they need to change the fricking rule.

This post was edited on 11/7/23 at 2:05 pm

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Crimson_Chaos

Alabama

Member since Oct 2023

1488 posts

Posted on 11/7/23 at 2:06 pm to Triple13

I agree that there needs to be consistency, but there was consistency in THIS game... see my three examples, all three no-calls. The consistency issue is game-to-game, week-to-week. I am fearful though, that with too much oversight around this you lose the football we all know and love. There definitely needs to be a balance between player safety and controlled aggression on defense, otherwise we should just play flag football