- 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
0
Posted on 9/14/25 at 10:12 am to MRTigerFan
quote:
It didn't look like targeting when I saw it live but as soon as I saw the replay I had a bad feeling that he might get ejected.
I knew he was gone when they went to review because it was a booth call. the field refs did not call it or even a PF.
I thiought the call was trash after viewing because the runner and tackler were colliding at a 90deg angle and Weeks helmet went across the runners face mask. The rulemakers need to tell him what he should or could have done different other than not tackle him or dive , whiff, and take a knee to the head.
I thought a good compromise here was brought up by Hunt Palmer in the post game show and change the rule similar to basketball and have a Flagrant 1 and 2 level.
To me the contact was incidental and not a foul.
Posted on 9/14/25 at 10:15 am to TigerBait1971
So, the interesting thing about this call is that they never showed the replay in TS. I’m wondering if they showed it, the natives would get restless and start tossing things onto the field, whether it was the correct call or not.
Posted on 9/14/25 at 10:16 am to TigerBait1971
they need to make an incidental and a personal foul variant for targeting. one worth five yards or maybe ten, and the other 15 and ejection.
Maybe by the rule this was targeting, but I dont think anyone watching the game thought that weeks was intentionally trying to target the ball carrier. He lowered his head into it.
very different from other plays weve all seen where the defender completely launches into the ball carriers head.
either way they need to change the way this is called, and I have been thinking that before tonights game.
Maybe by the rule this was targeting, but I dont think anyone watching the game thought that weeks was intentionally trying to target the ball carrier. He lowered his head into it.
very different from other plays weve all seen where the defender completely launches into the ball carriers head.
either way they need to change the way this is called, and I have been thinking that before tonights game.
Posted on 9/14/25 at 10:17 am to Tarpon08
quote:
Bad rule. Correct call.
Terrible rule. Call was technically correct but if the terrible rule were applied consistently there would be 15 ejections each game.
Posted on 9/14/25 at 10:21 am to TigerBait1971
quote:
I didn't get to see the Weeks targeting play. Was it legit or nit pickey?
Nit pickey IMO. The runner lowered his head too. Technically Whit should be tackling with head up so it was technically the right call but Whit did not lead with the crown with intention.
Posted on 9/14/25 at 10:23 am to Tarpon08
quote:
Bad rule. Correct call.
I don’t thing he lowered his helmet.
He dropped his hips so he was low. He was “seeing his target”. He just was lower than the target.
This wasn’t a case of lowering the helmet and hitting with the crown…at all.
Posted on 9/14/25 at 10:25 am to TigerBait1971
That’s a normal tackle.
shite rule. Players should not be ejected from a ballgame for that type of play.
shite rule. Players should not be ejected from a ballgame for that type of play.
Posted on 9/14/25 at 10:26 am to tke_swamprat
quote:
The fact that someone in the booth can slow these plays down between plays and radio to the refs to go to a review is the problem. It wasn’t called on the field. Looks like a normal football tackle at live speed. And the ball carriers head movements have to be taken into consideration.
This is a major problem. If the refs on the field don’t think it needs to be looked at, there is no way we should have Birmingham slowing down every play to see if a foul was committed.
Posted on 9/14/25 at 10:27 am to TigerBait1971
The rule is the rule, but it definitely needs to be tweaked. Unless it’s egregious, it needs to be a penalty with no ejection. It’s just too hash for a player to be ejected for something that is often unavoidable. Weeks did lower his head at the last minute and by rule it was targeting. But to be ejected for the rest of the game (and for a half of the following game if it occurs in the second half) seems excessive.
Posted on 9/14/25 at 10:29 am to Nitrogen
Yeah, my brother and I argue this all the time. Technically the rule which is a hideous one, it was helmet to helmet. But this was a SIDE tackle. It was not like 2 trains colliding. The rule has 0 common sense! Soooo, in other words, Whit Weeks is supposed to have taken advanced physics and have a crystal ball.
1) he was to know whether the player was going to duck his head or not
2) he was to know the speed of the runner at the exact moment he was coming in from the SIDE to make the tackle (i.e. was he being already tackled, how much would he be slowed, etc)
3) most tackers require some bending of the head to wrap arms around the runner, use shoulders, etc
This rule SHOULD have been written to take into account intent and analzyed taken into account what the RUNNER was doing with his head. Kelly was correct in the postgame. The RUNNER lowered his head also which is also normal. NO COMMON SENSE used in deciding targeting
1) he was to know whether the player was going to duck his head or not
2) he was to know the speed of the runner at the exact moment he was coming in from the SIDE to make the tackle (i.e. was he being already tackled, how much would he be slowed, etc)
3) most tackers require some bending of the head to wrap arms around the runner, use shoulders, etc
This rule SHOULD have been written to take into account intent and analzyed taken into account what the RUNNER was doing with his head. Kelly was correct in the postgame. The RUNNER lowered his head also which is also normal. NO COMMON SENSE used in deciding targeting
Posted on 9/14/25 at 10:40 am to GetmorewithLes
quote:
The rulemakers need to tell him what he should or could have done different
Not lead with the crown of his helmet.
Posted on 9/14/25 at 10:48 am to TigerBait1971
It was legit by the rule. But the rule is extremely dumb and needs to be burned in a fire.
This post was edited on 9/14/25 at 10:49 am
Posted on 9/14/25 at 11:02 am to paulb52
The tackles cannot lower his head. It's just a bad rule. Runner and tackler lowered their head. The letter of law was applied. The letter of intent was not applied. Rule
needs to be changed
needs to be changed
Posted on 9/14/25 at 12:31 pm to moneyg
quote:
This wasn’t a case of lowering the helmet and hitting with the crown…at all.
I hate refs as much as anyone. However, He literally hit him with the crown. Intent isn’t relevant by the letter of the law it was the right call.
Posted on 9/14/25 at 12:36 pm to Tarpon08
quote:
Bad rule. Correct call.
This, and BK said as much in the post-game. The way the rule is written is basically a huge advantage for ball carrier to always just lower their head because you're likely to get targeting basically.
We can say to tacklers "never lower your helmet" but when you're diving to make a tackle how is it possible not to? Not exactly natural to dive and keep your head looking UP
This post was edited on 9/14/25 at 12:39 pm
Posted on 9/14/25 at 1:06 pm to Tarpon08
I see helmet to helmet contact in the NFL all the time. Unless the player is trying to maliciously hurt someone the refs don’t throw a flag and kick them out of the game. I wish college would just make that a 15 yard penalty.
Posted on 9/14/25 at 1:09 pm to TigerBait1971
Let's just say the call went into Birmingham!
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News