- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
That's a stupid targeting call
Posted on 1/1/26 at 8:43 pm
Posted on 1/1/26 at 8:43 pm
They gotta change this crap, that was bang bang play. Led with shoulder. What the hell are you supposed to do as a defender?
This post was edited on 1/1/26 at 8:45 pm
10
Posted on 1/1/26 at 8:43 pm to roach3
Horrendous call.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 8:44 pm to roach3
I agree they need to change it but tha was textbook targeting. The thrust got him. “Launching forcibly into the head or neck area”
This post was edited on 1/1/26 at 8:45 pm
Posted on 1/1/26 at 8:45 pm to roach3
It was targeting based on the rule however the rule has to be changed.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 8:46 pm to Schmelly
Yeah I understand it's textbook, but it's a stupid rule.
A defender was trying to make a tackle, if he doesn't thrust and a receiver isn't slightly going down already. He gets bulldozed
I mean this is football
A defender was trying to make a tackle, if he doesn't thrust and a receiver isn't slightly going down already. He gets bulldozed
I mean this is football
Posted on 1/1/26 at 8:46 pm to roach3
fricking bullshite call, it was a textbook tackle. May as well make this shite flag football
Posted on 1/1/26 at 8:50 pm to Schmelly
Dude, every tackle has a thrust.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 8:51 pm to roach3
No different than the hit on Stockton
Posted on 1/1/26 at 8:52 pm to WhoDatNC
“ It was targeting based on the rule however the rule has to be changed.”(quote WD).
I love physical football but if it was my son taking that kind of hit I wouldn’t like it. Probably a prudent rule.
I love physical football but if it was my son taking that kind of hit I wouldn’t like it. Probably a prudent rule.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 8:52 pm to Higgysmalls
Hit on Stockton was worse imo
Posted on 1/1/26 at 8:54 pm to Higgysmalls
quote:
No different than the hit on Stockton
If this was targeting, the hit on Stockton was DEFINITELY targeting
Posted on 1/1/26 at 8:56 pm to roach3
Good targeting call. He t'd him up. I want to watch football minus unconscious people. Just wrap him up.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 8:58 pm to RCDfan1950
quote:
I love physical football but if it was my son taking that kind of hit I wouldn’t like it. Probably a prudent rule.
Then let your son play soccer or run track.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 9:00 pm to roach3
Targeting should be like any other personal foul. 2 and you're gone. You shouldn't get ejected for a bam bam play.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 9:01 pm to RCDfan1950
quote:
but if it was my son taking that kind of hit I wouldn’t like it.
Don't raise a pussy
Posted on 1/1/26 at 9:02 pm to roach3
They're not going to change anything about the rule because of all the CTE stuff. Just do your best to continue getting used to it.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 9:04 pm to Schmelly
quote:
was textbook targeting. The thrust got him. “Launching forcibly into the head or neck area”
No adjustment for the offensive player ducking into the contact is bullshite
Posted on 1/1/26 at 9:09 pm to roach3
How is this LSU related?
Posted on 1/1/26 at 9:20 pm to Schmelly
quote:
The thrust got him.
There was no thrust - the defender simply braced for impact.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News