re: Sam’s targeting call is SEC Deep State telling LSU, and the world, their place

I agree that the no targeting call in the Bama game was a horrible call, but I do not buy the deep state, conspiracy stuff. I am sure on some Florida site they are whining that the fix was in on a very close review of a long pass that was ruled complete that got over turned at a critical time. While I thought the ball did move and they made the right call, it was close and I expected the call to stand.

“Deep state” implies to me that SEC officials are in some huge conspiracy involving multiple referees over multiple years to favor one team over another. Yet somehow over all these years, in a plot involving potentially hundreds of referees from different backgrounds, not one has come forward with any proof.

I would wager that if you go to any team website after a close loss, you will find a half dozen threads staying the game was fixed.

That doesnt mean there are not some bad officials that cost teams games. That happens every week. That doesn’t mean there hasnt been a rouge ref now and then taking bribe money to impact the outcome of a game. I am sure that happens more than we might know.

But “deep state”? You can bet the next time Bama loses a game there will be ten threads on their site complaining of a conspiracy among other teams and refs to knock Bama out. I would go so far as to say if you go to the message board of every single big time college team that lost a close game yesterday, there will be a half dozen threads blaming the refs.

quote:

---

...but it doesn’t explain why the law was completely ignored last week.

---

Oh, we know why it was completely ignored last week. I hope Georgia skulldrags Alabama in the SECCG next month.

Dude, really

If this is about true player safety, the ball carrier should have been ejected also

He obviously positioned the top of his helmet lower to initiate contact than the defender did

I mean this call had nothing to do with reviewing a penalty. No flag was thrown. They saw on replay what we all saw and can see. The receiver/ball carrier lowered the crown on his helmet even more than the defender to initiate contact

if a defender lowers his head to make a shoulder tackle and then the offensive player engages by lowering his head to break the tackle (how can you makes a shoulder tackle without lowering your head unless the runner wants to jump up in the air to enable the tackler) and makes helmet to helmet contact...how does one even accurately assess intent much less culpability? How do they assess the tackler wasn't attempting a shoulder tackle, especially when it is the runner who initiates helmet to helmet?

also I did not see offsides on the kickoff, when Fla was tackled at the five

The SEC and the powers that be in the conference got absolutely crucified in the media during the past week over the Turner no call/no review and SEC office response to same. This dressing down of the SEC office from the media and numerous coaches was well deserved.

So, in response they flexed this weekend to show that "player safety" is important to them, which resulted in 2 BS targeting ejections within conference games and in the process made themselves look even more foolish.

Hopefully, the media and coaches will continue to persecute these embarrassments to our conference this coming week.

It’s not “deep state” shite. It is bias. Bias is real. Bias requires no planning. No conspiracy. It just exists in humans and shows itself in these situations.

You don’t have to invoke conspiracy theories to understand that people can be petty and vindictive.

A poster below said this:

quote:

---

The SEC and the powers that be in the conference got absolutely crucified in the media during the past week over the Turner no call/no review and SEC office response to same. This dressing down of the SEC office from the media and numerous coaches was well deserved. So, in response they flexed this weekend to show that "player safety" is important to them, which resulted in 2 BS targeting ejections

---

The rule is not just hitting with crown of helmet. The relevant rule 9.1.3 requires that an indicator of targeting MUST accompany the hit. They define 4 indicators: launch, crouch with upward thrust, attacking head or neck, and “lowering the head before attacking to initiate forcible contact with crown…” I suppose they will say it fulfills the fourth, except that I think no reasonable person would say that he attacked and initiated contact. Rather he absorbed contact from the RB. Still dangerous but not illegal by the letter of the rule. It’s such a strange (mis)application of the rule that either a) they don’t know the rule (unlikely) or b) they were sending a message. B seems more likely.

For the life of me, I cannot understand WHY the rest of the SEC presidents / AD’s continue to allow B’ham (BamaHQ) to be the site for the offices.

Start a movement: MOVE IT TO NASHVILLE!

Send the admin packing, and start over with new staff.

Would be much better to have an entire office of mainly Vanderbilt grads running the show, than Bama fans/grads

Only Bama fans will downvote this, I bet

quote:

---

How fricking crazy are you people?

---

No one is saying that it wasn't technically targeting, just that a ludacris double standard exists