- 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
that no targeting call clearly show us just how officiating can determine a national title
Posted on 1/1/25 at 3:45 pm
Posted on 1/1/25 at 3:45 pm
We all know that could have bee called either way, if called against Texas, ASU would clearly have had an opportunity to make a relative easy game winning FG.
40
Posted on 1/1/25 at 3:46 pm to QB
Amen and it was targeting by the rules
Posted on 1/1/25 at 3:46 pm to QB
I still don’t understand how that was not targeting. Even the rules expert on the call was expecting it to be called
Posted on 1/1/25 at 3:46 pm to QB
It was a political no call.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 3:47 pm to QB
I was sure it was targeting, crazy
Posted on 1/1/25 at 3:47 pm to QB
Was targeting.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 3:47 pm to QB
They were scared to affect the game with the call. But it did affect the game.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 3:49 pm to QB
Would love to hear the reason for not targeting. Looked text book targeting to me.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 3:54 pm to Oleman10
quote:
Amen and it was targeting by the rules
By what rules? I did not see targeting. In no form of CFB should that have been targeting. I can see that because I got no dog in this hunt
Posted on 1/1/25 at 3:54 pm to jmaclsu
quote:
They were scared to affect the game with the call. But it did affect the game.
Exactly. This logic is terrible every time someone uses it. The refs are absolutely affecting the game negatively when they fail to make calls when an infraction happens.
Also, it makes no difference at what point in the game the infraction happened. A foul is a foul.
This post was edited on 1/2/25 at 8:03 am
Posted on 1/1/25 at 3:58 pm to QB
No money if ASU wins
That simple
That simple
Posted on 1/1/25 at 4:01 pm to Oleman10
100%
Posted on 1/1/25 at 4:19 pm to slinger1
It was clearly targeting….but UT brings a lot bigger audience and more money than ASU. It’s a business.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 4:21 pm to QB
I say we hold these clowns accountable. I want records of all calls with post game analysis.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 4:21 pm to Oleman10
quote:
Amen and it was targeting by the rules
Targeting by definition requires intent. It was a good no call and the rule needs to change to require actual intent.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 4:26 pm to MFn GIMP
His intent was to lead with his head to make the tackle. It’s targeting. He made no effort to get his head out of the way. That Taafe dude is dirty. He pulled off Skat’s helmet earlier in the game and tried to trip an ASU receiver on one of their TDs.
This post was edited on 1/1/25 at 4:27 pm
Posted on 1/1/25 at 4:27 pm to doubleb
quote:
It was a political no call.
Yeah, Texas with their one national championship this century is always getting the benefit of the doubt.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 4:27 pm to Oleman10
quote:
Amen and it was targeting by the rules
The kid was knocked out.
That wasn’t a marginal call.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 4:28 pm to SOCAL TIGER
quote:
That simple
Why do stupid people keep saying this?
Posted on 1/1/25 at 4:34 pm to QB
I was driving so I didn't see it, but everybody on the radio broadcast was sure it was targeting.
Page 1 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News