- 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
1
Posted on 10/21/18 at 5:06 pm to Lsuchampnj
All the things you are saying have nothing to do with the call.
The basics have been covered. By definition he hit a defenseless player with forcible contact to the head or neck AREA.
Just because he hit him w his forearm makes zero difference.
The basics have been covered. By definition he hit a defenseless player with forcible contact to the head or neck AREA.
Just because he hit him w his forearm makes zero difference.
Posted on 10/21/18 at 5:07 pm to tigerfoot
quote:
The basics have been covered. By definition he hit a defenseless player with forcible contact to the head or neck AREA.
Yeah. Except that he didn’t.
Posted on 10/21/18 at 5:08 pm to geauxjo
Was he defenseless?
Posted on 10/21/18 at 5:08 pm to GRTiger
quote:
If he would have planted his helmet into the QBs neck, breaking his collarbone, he'd be playing 4 quarters in two weeks. Oh well.
or if he was a safety that dropped his head and torpedo'd a WR in the helmet he would have had that call overruled and play 4 qtrs next game.
The Auburn safety hit was even more egregious than the Bama hit on UT QB. And that call was overturned by the same stupid sons of bitches in Bham...
Posted on 10/21/18 at 5:08 pm to tigerfoot
quote:forceable, not incidental.
Contact to the head or neck area.....check.
forceable contact to chest area with hands... check
incidental contact with helmet... check
he fricking shoved him. that was not targeting. Fitzpussy's head never rocked back or in any direction.
You can join Fitzpussy on the pile.
Posted on 10/21/18 at 5:11 pm to tigerfoot
quote:
defenseless?
Yes. And the initial contact was arms to the chest. The resulting touching of the helmets was incidental as Fitz went down.
Personal foul? Possibly. Targeting. No.
Posted on 10/21/18 at 5:11 pm to jorconalx
You should look at the pictures that have whites helmet At the faceadk level of Fitz. And his forearms hitting him around the top lace of his shoulder pads.
Posted on 10/21/18 at 5:12 pm to I20goon
What does Fitzpatrick have to do with it, why are you making fun of him now. Are you threatened by everyone?
Posted on 10/21/18 at 5:14 pm to geauxjo
Just because you didn’t mean to doesn’t make it legal.
I’d imagine 95% of penalties in football are not purposeful
I’d imagine 95% of penalties in football are not purposeful
Posted on 10/21/18 at 5:14 pm to tigerfoot
You are acting as if we don’t understand English. The point is why the hit against Tennessee QB is not targeting but this one is.
Posted on 10/21/18 at 5:16 pm to CalTiger53
quote:what does that have to do with, well, anything?
why the hit against Tennessee QB is not targeting but this one is.
And it seems if you would just read the rule you could get rid of most of the nonsense.
This post was edited on 10/21/18 at 5:18 pm
Posted on 10/21/18 at 5:18 pm to tigerfoot
quote:tigerfoot: you're fighting a losing battle. This board is filled with homers.
Defenseless player...check.
Contact to the head or neck area.....check.
Yes, targeting.
I love White as much as everyone else, but by rule, it was targeting. You are correct. Was it egregious, no. It was almost incidental. But it's the rule, and everyone knows the rule. The homers on this board are just upset he's out for a half against Bama and are melting. But the call was technically correct.
If they want to argue about changing the rule, that's fine. But this was, by rule, targeting. There's just very little intellectual honesty on this board. Mainly it's just teenagers, I suspect.
Defenders have to realize they CANNOT risk contacting a QB in the head or neck.
So GO LOW. Aim for the QBs belt. Going for the chest is too risky.
Posted on 10/21/18 at 5:22 pm to atltiger6487
quote:
tigerfoot: you're fighting a losing battle. This board is filled with homers.
I love White as much as everyone else, but by rule, it was targeting. You are correct. Was it egregious, no. It was almost incidental. But it's the rule, and everyone knows the rule. The homers on this board are just upset he's out for a half against Bama and are melting. But the call was technically correct.
If they want to argue about changing the rule, that's fine. But this was, by rule, targeting. There's just very little intellectual honesty on this board. Mainly it's just teenagers, I suspect.
Defenders have to realize they CANNOT risk contacting a QB in the head or neck.
So GO LOW. Aim for the QBs belt. Going for the chest is too risky.
Both of you are COMPLETE IDIOTS....
Posted on 10/21/18 at 5:23 pm to atltiger6487
quote:
Going for the chest is too risky.
Except that it’s totally legal and that’s where White made contact. That’s why the call was bogus and people are upset by it.
Posted on 10/21/18 at 5:24 pm to CalTiger53
Exactly! Relative to everything else we see (bama punching players) , the obvious targeting yesterday by bama against Tennessee, routine treatment that bama gives truly defenseless players ...all of which were either non calls or overturned—-this one doesn’t even come close. The fact that there are only one or two folks hanging onto the legitimacy of the call at least makes me feel a little better.
Posted on 10/21/18 at 5:25 pm to tigerfoot
quote:
Just because you didn’t mean to doesn’t make it legal
Correct. Devin didn’t do it. That’s the problem.
Posted on 10/21/18 at 5:28 pm to tigerfoot
Point 1: you are allowed to hit a defenseless player. Just not target of foul them
Point 2: white had a very light tackle, was barely a shove, therefore the tackle was not in excess of a normal tackle.
Point 3: white came in at chest height (center of jersey) leading with his hands (legal so long at it is not to the head/neck area) and then POSSIBLE made INCIDENTAL CONTACT (which is legal) with Fitzgerald's facemask, but contact was not conclusive with replay.
Therefore you confirmed that Devin white did NOT target Nick Fitsgerald...
Point 2: white had a very light tackle, was barely a shove, therefore the tackle was not in excess of a normal tackle.
Point 3: white came in at chest height (center of jersey) leading with his hands (legal so long at it is not to the head/neck area) and then POSSIBLE made INCIDENTAL CONTACT (which is legal) with Fitzgerald's facemask, but contact was not conclusive with replay.
Therefore you confirmed that Devin white did NOT target Nick Fitsgerald...
Posted on 10/21/18 at 5:34 pm to Lahurricane08
quote:well, if you describe something in a way it didn’t happen, I suppose you are right. Well done
Therefore you confirmed that Devin white did NOT target Nick Fitsgerald...
Posted on 10/21/18 at 5:35 pm to Lahurricane08
The call will stand. It’s a BS call, it really really is. But he hit Fitz’s helmet in the process of tackling him. I think they can justify it as targeting under the current rule. Not the hit this rule was intended for. Bull shite, but unfortunately it will stand.
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News