- 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
re: that no targeting call clearly show us just how officiating can determine a national title
Posted on 1/1/25 at 6:17 pm to GetmorewithLes
Posted on 1/1/25 at 6:17 pm to GetmorewithLes
You are a moron.


Posted on 1/1/25 at 6:18 pm to MFn GIMP
How TF can anyone determine intent. You are so phucquing stupid. Geesuz H. Khrist!


Posted on 1/1/25 at 6:23 pm to MFn GIMP
quote:
Targeting by definition requires intent. It was a good no call and the rule needs to change to require actual intent.
The receiver was a defenseless player and he was hit in the head or neck area. By rule, that’s targeting.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 6:28 pm to mdomingue
Mr. Domingue,
Why do you think the rule is in place? Is it possible that it add to the ability to manipulate game outcomes? Are millions of dollars riding on the outcomes?
Yes or no.
White Tiger
Why do you think the rule is in place? Is it possible that it add to the ability to manipulate game outcomes? Are millions of dollars riding on the outcomes?
Yes or no.
White Tiger
Posted on 1/1/25 at 6:28 pm to White Tiger
57 DVs and not one explanation of targeting…
I rest my case…
I rest my case…
Posted on 1/1/25 at 6:31 pm to GetmorewithLes
DVs? Explain, jerk off.


Posted on 1/1/25 at 6:35 pm to GetmorewithLes
Back at you, idiot.
:lol:



Posted on 1/1/25 at 6:38 pm to QB
quote:
relative easy game winning FG
Not a thing for that ASU team
But yes that was targeting
This post was edited on 1/1/25 at 6:38 pm
Posted on 1/1/25 at 6:44 pm to QB
It should be called only 1 way- that should have been targeting.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 6:45 pm to MFn GIMP
quote:
Targeting by definition requires intent. It was a good no call and the rule needs to change to require actual intent.
I agree - I saw no evidence at all that there was any intent at all - it looked like normal follow thru on what he thought the ball carrier was going to do.
I don't know how he could have avoided that contact - not if you are playing this thing called football.
You'd have to get into flag football rules to find fault with that collision.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 6:54 pm to Oleman10
He didn't lower his head. That much was clear. And hey, the official agreed.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 6:54 pm to QB
Texas is a Tier 1 Media Darling, ASU is low 2, borderline 3.
UT will bring more money.
This is so obvious yet many still refuse to see it.
UT will bring more money.
This is so obvious yet many still refuse to see it.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 6:54 pm to QB
Not good to go against the braindead hivemind here but that was just a football play. Yeah, by definition, its targeting. It is, and the rule is fricking retarded and needs to be fixed. You can be in the camp of "call the rules", but it's stupid to say it was an intentionally dirty play when it's clearly just fricking football. It'd a regular arse tackle. Really REALLY wish asu won but this ticky tacky targeting trash is such a stain on cfb. Let the downvoted with no response to counterpoint begin.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 6:55 pm to QB
ASU won’t bring in ratings. The networks run it all. Lots of similar handshakes in those crews.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 6:56 pm to Wayne Campbell
quote:Finally someone with sense, and clear vision.
He came in upright. There was no “intent.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 7:18 pm to QB
Refs are stupid. It is what it is.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 7:19 pm to jmaclsu
They were afraid the fans would throw trash at them.
Popular
Back to top
