- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- 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
1
Posted on 10/13/24 at 7:20 am to Doug_H
quote:
He even sarcastically stated how the refs are basically leaving that last part out and going off what they think versus what the video actually shows
He's not wrong either. This year I've seen in everyone's games that the "indisputable" part just be ignored. If they were following that rule, the call would've stood as a TD.
Posted on 10/13/24 at 7:23 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Even if Dart wasn't defenseless
Targeting requires that he be defenseless.
A runner is not defenseless. If he slides, he is defenseless. Slid too late. So no targeting.
Posted on 10/13/24 at 7:30 am to CalLSU
Not enough video evidence but it probably moved
Posted on 10/13/24 at 7:36 am to taf
quote:
Targeting requires that he be defenseless.
It does not
LINK
quote:
Targeting occurs when a player uses any part of their body, typically the helmet, to make forcible contact with an opponent's head or neck. This includes:
Launching into an opponent with a hit to the head or neck area.
Using the crown of the helmet (the top of the helmet) to strike an opponent.
Forcibly hitting a defenseless player in the head or neck area, even with the shoulder, forearm, or hands.
It's any of those 3 things.
Here is an article about an ejection for targeting on a non-defenseless player last night
quote:
Targeting has been controversial in college football since the rule was implement years ago. And in Saturday’s BYU–Arizona game, Wildcats linebacker Jacob Manu was ejected for a helmet-to-helmet hit on Cougars running back Hinckley Ropati. FOX’s Joel Klatt was fine with a penalty being assessed in the situation, but he thinks that players should not be ejected from games.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.This post was edited on 10/13/24 at 7:38 am
Posted on 10/13/24 at 7:36 am to SlowFlowPro
Dart slid sideways noy feet first and Weeks didn't move his feet at all all he did was lower his waste.
Dart created the contact.
Dart created the contact.
Posted on 10/13/24 at 7:36 am to CalLSU
Sucked but I think it was the right call.
Posted on 10/13/24 at 7:39 am to WhiteMandingo
quote:
Dart slid sideways noy feet first and Weeks didn't move his feet at all all he did was lower his waste.
Dart created the contact.
That's the "defenseless player" argument.
I'm saying that even if Dart was not defenseless, Weeks led with his crown into Dart's helmet, which eliminates the question of if Dart was defenseless
Posted on 10/13/24 at 7:48 am to Twenty 49
quote:
The NCAA Football Instant Replay Coaches Manual sets forth the basic standard for reversing on-field calls: "There must be indisputable video evidence for an on-field call to be changed by the Instant Replay Official." The word "indisputable" is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as "[t]hat [which] cannot be disputed; unquestionable." If 10 people from Montana who didn’t give a shite about Ole Miss or LSU watched the video, would they all immediately agree it was not a catch? No? Then the call on the field stands. Refs screw this up every game. They should be required to announce video overturn decisions with the preface, “After review, there is indisputable video evidence that the call on the field was incorrect.” Maybe that would remind them of the rule and lead to better application.
This guy gets it! Tessitore was hammering this point home on the broadcast and he was calling out his on “rules” guy for misinterpretation. The “rules” guy said something along the lines of “in my experience” this isn’t a catch. Tess stopped him right there and started hammering the rule and what in the video provided indisputable evidence. The “rules” guy back tracked and agreed with Tess. After the reversal, Tess went on to mention this happens all the time in CFB (I’m guessing Tess watched or called those 2 Miami games
). This post was edited on 10/13/24 at 7:53 am
Posted on 10/13/24 at 7:57 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I'm saying that even if Dart was not defenseless, Weeks led with his crown into Dart's helmet, which eliminates the question of if Dart was defenseless
If Dart isn’t defenseless (which I don’t think he was based on the chicken shite sideways, late slide) then the targeting indicator you’re looking for is:
quote:
Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet.
It’s not just hitting him with the crown of the helmet. It requires “attacking” and initiating “forcible contact” with the crown of the helmet. Weeks was basically standing still when Dart ran into him. If Dart isn’t a QB, nobody is giving that play a second thought.
Posted on 10/13/24 at 8:01 am to Rebel
quote:
it was the proper call.
I disagree. Did the ball touch the ground yes. Did he have control of the ball? I cannot say for sure yes or no. But we never saw a angle that showed the ball move. It was ruled a TD on the field and no video showed any angle where the ball moved he didn't have control. Because it was rule a TD it should have stayed as such. On the flip side if it had been called incomplete nothing they showed could changed it.
Posted on 10/13/24 at 8:05 am to LSUGrrrl
quote:
Ball hit the ground. Right call.
Ball can hit the ground if player has control. There was nothing in the video that showed he did not have control. It was called a TD and the rule says there must be indisputable evidence in order to change a on the field call and there wasn't.
Posted on 10/13/24 at 8:05 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Weeks led with his crown into Dart's helmet, which eliminates the question of if Dart was defenseless
I believe the explanation was that Dart actually slid into the contact. Weeks’ feet were stationary and his “tackling motion” would have not created helmet to helmet contact but for Dart actually sliding into it.
I will agree the rule needs tweaking, but if that was upheld as targeting the only option moving forward would be to arm tackle or play flag football. At some point helmets are going to touch each other in this game; it doesn’t always mean it’s targeting.
Posted on 10/13/24 at 8:08 am to CalLSU
It looked debatable but not indisputable video evidence
Posted on 10/13/24 at 8:09 am to KC Tiger
quote:
I will agree the rule needs tweaking, but if that was upheld as targeting the only option moving forward would be to arm tackle or play flag football.
He could have made the tackle without lowering his helmet and his facemask would have made contact with Dart's helmet. Remember "see what you hit"?
Posted on 10/13/24 at 8:11 am to Ponchy Tiger
quote:
Ball can hit the ground if player has control. There was nothing in the video that showed he did not have control. It was called a TD and the rule says there must be indisputable evidence in order to change a on the field call and there wasn't.
There was air between his hands and the ball before it hit the ground. It wasn’t a TD.
Posted on 10/13/24 at 8:12 am to lostinbr
Agreed. Also, you could see where the ref explained to Kiffin that it was not the crown, it was right above the face mask that made contact. They tweaked the crown to be smaller in the offseason.
Posted on 10/13/24 at 8:13 am to CalLSU
That incompletion probably was the best thing that could have happened it allowed time to run down a bit to make scoring more difficult for Ole Miss.
Posted on 10/13/24 at 8:13 am to CalLSU
I don’t think it was a catch, but also don’t think there was enough to overturn it. The comments from Greg McElroy about just deleting the “incontrovertible” part from the replay section of the rule book were spot on. There was nothing incontrovertible about the replay IMO. Yeah the ball hit the ground, and yeah it shifted relative to his body, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t have control with his hands.
It definitely seems like replay officials today are looking at it as a “re-do” of the call on the field rather than deferring to the initial judgement. If they think the replay official’s judgement is more accurate, I get it. It’s probably true for a lot of these scenarios. But that’s not the rule.
It definitely seems like replay officials today are looking at it as a “re-do” of the call on the field rather than deferring to the initial judgement. If they think the replay official’s judgement is more accurate, I get it. It’s probably true for a lot of these scenarios. But that’s not the rule.
Posted on 10/13/24 at 8:14 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Even if Dart wasn't defenseless, Weeks led with the crown into Dart's helmet. How he wasn't ejected I will never know.
I can’t help but wonder how you can make a definitive statement like this and be so wrong. Weeks never launched and the contact was made with his right temple… that’s not the crown in case you were wondering. He was slid into causing him to fall forward. Again it’s just crazy how 100% wrong your argument is.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News