re: Just lost all respect for Greg McElroy as an analyst!

quote:

---

Mr. McElroy, most fans, LSU or not, don’t think the poor call was a conspiracy to advantage Alabama in the upcoming game but a double standard where similiar calls don’t go against Bama!

---

So he is admitting there is a double standard when it comes to penalties and Bama, then yes I agree there certainly is.

I like McRoy, but he is wrong on this one..

these guys are human, I doubt he took the time to look at it closely.

I asked a high school coach of 30 years to check it, he said, it didn't look like targeting ...he also said he's old school and thinks football is being watered down

He's not an analyst he's a Bamalyst.

quote:

---

Here's the thing. By the "letter of the law", technically it was targeting.

---

Quote the law to me. Please. Because you are wrong. Here is the "law". White did not do any of the things in note 1, which need to happen for targeting to be called. His initial contact was also not to the head. Not all helmet to helmet contact is targeting.

No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)

Note 1: "Targeting" means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:

Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area

A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground

Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area

Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet

LINK

He’s right, you know.

If Devin would have pulled up, he’d be playing in the first quarter.

quote:

---

This is true, but that doesn't make it targeting. The targeting rule doesn't say "any contact." It says "forcible contact." The put that qualifier in there for a reason. It looks to me that he made forcible contact with the QBs chest, not head and neck area. The face mask came forward, resulting in incidental contact.

---

All of this is correct

To be targeting, the rule requires that the forcible contact be to the head or neck area. The forcible contact occurs with the body part that leads. He lead with his hands and forearms to the chest area.

There are other indicators of targeting that do not apply here.

The fact that he was defenseless is just another precursor to calling targeting, but after that is met, the other test is that there is an indicator of targeting, it is required. they do not provide an exhaustive list, but of the indicators listed, the only one that is close is the one above, which I don’t believe it satisfies based on where the “forcible” contact was delivered.

So to the letter of the rule, it actually doesn’t signal targeting, and is thus ruled targeting by the subjective and undefined part of the rule.

SEC gave a poor explanation. The rule book is free to download online.

Bama talking head!

quote:

---

His facemask clearly catches the bottom right hand side of Fitzgerald's facemask. He was leading with his hands, but his facemask did make contact.

---

The type of contact between face masks which occurred between White and Fitgerald occurs on virtually every play during blocking or tackles on inside runs.

There was nothing to qualify it as targeting other than the absolute most strictest letter of the law and even that is in significant question. With the speed of teh game the ref migh tbe excused if that is waht he saw by his angle. However, the review panel should have immediately overruled it.

The ref on the field may have only called roughing the passer, again a very questionable call. Which makes it even more egregious if the reviewer then inserted himself and so quickly called the targeting.

Not a big fan of his but will say Mark Packer disagrees with him.

This is a rule with so much inconsistency and the consequences can be devastating for a team on someone’s subjective call, regardless of whether that call is wrong or right. Sad that such an important call is all over the map in college football.

quote:

---

Most fans know that Nick Saban wants to play against the best.

---

100% false. NS wants the win. He couldn't care less about the method. Saban had the opportunity to say what you claim he believes. He didn't. Saban is garbage!