- 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 7:39 pm to White Tiger
Posted on 1/1/25 at 7:39 pm to White Tiger
quote:
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?
No.
1
Posted on 1/1/25 at 7:40 pm to Tigers4Lyfe
Exactly! Some of these guys are real idiots with their conspiracy theories. If the refs were really trying to give Texas the game, why didn’t they call targeting on ASU when it was blatantly obvious. The ASU player left his feet and went straight for the head. At least the Texas player was straight up. Get over the hate or just shut up so you don’t sound stupid. Both teams tried to give it away. Texas haters can take some solace in the fact they will probably lose the next one. They don’t seem any better than us.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 8:06 pm to QB
Not afan of either team, but I thought it was not targeting because no launching, and crown of helmet not used.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 8:52 pm to QB
Gamblers.
Posted on 1/1/25 at 9:00 pm to GetmorewithLes
Targeting" means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:
Launch-a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area
A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground
Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet
Clearly it was targeting because he did lead with the helmet into the head or neck area. That’s indisputable. You DON’T NEED INTENT
Launch-a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area
A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground
Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet
Clearly it was targeting because he did lead with the helmet into the head or neck area. That’s indisputable. You DON’T NEED INTENT
Posted on 1/2/25 at 3:53 am to Evolve
Fear.
Targeting is a kind of a bad penalty. I don't really like it. Too many people have to sit out a half for something that isn't controllable. Flipside, its purpose is to protect players from getting knocked the frick out when they can't defend themselves.
And Stovall was laid out on the ground for a minute there. If you're making penalties to keep people from head injuries, like... Call the ones that cause head injuries.
Targeting is a kind of a bad penalty. I don't really like it. Too many people have to sit out a half for something that isn't controllable. Flipside, its purpose is to protect players from getting knocked the frick out when they can't defend themselves.
And Stovall was laid out on the ground for a minute there. If you're making penalties to keep people from head injuries, like... Call the ones that cause head injuries.
This post was edited on 1/2/25 at 3:59 am
Posted on 1/2/25 at 4:34 am to QB
It was truly unbelievable the no call in that situation. It was VERY CLEARLY textbook targeting. If it had been LSU, this board would be going nuts. Defenseless player, with a defender who launched into him helment to helment. Even the supposed replay officials commentator believed that it was targeting, and they often go overboard to support whatever the officials call.
It very, very likely cost Arizona State the game. I think they would have had a first down around the Texas 35 yard line.
It very, very likely cost Arizona State the game. I think they would have had a first down around the Texas 35 yard line.
This post was edited on 1/2/25 at 4:57 am
Posted on 1/2/25 at 4:37 am to GetmorewithLes
quote:
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
Just because "you can say it" doesn't make it correct. It was VERY CLEAR targeting, textbook. Not even a doubt.
I still believe that College Football/SEC, wants Texas to be successful and will do anything they can to assist. From the SEC, hard to find an easier SEC schedule than what they had this year and next.
Posted on 1/2/25 at 4:39 am 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.
LMAO...either a troll or just stupid. So now refs are supposed to be able to determine intent. LOL
Posted on 1/2/25 at 4:40 am to Nix to Twillie
quote:
Nix to Twillie
quote:
That simple
Why do stupid people keep saying this?
oh the irony
Posted on 1/2/25 at 4:45 am to mmcgrath
quote:
They didn't call it on Arizona State on the interception when their player actually left the ground hitting helmet to helmet. Since they didn't there, they had to be consistent.
would have still been a turnover as the interception happened BEFORE the hit you are speaking of. It was the second defender that hit the receiver after the interception had been made, just barely, but still after.
Posted on 1/2/25 at 4:51 am to JeffSpartan85
quote:
Get over the hate or just shut up so you don’t sound stupid. Both teams tried to give it away. Texas haters can take some solace in the fact they will probably lose the next one. They don’t seem any better than us.
I disagree with everything that you say here, other than they will likely lose the next game. The truth is that the SEC just isn't that good this year, and it is pretty obvious. Ga is even way down compared to normal. Texas is not great, as you said, they were just gifted about as easy of an SEC Schedule that you can possibly get.
Posted on 1/2/25 at 5:50 am to 4EverATiger12345
quote:No he didn't. He made face mask to helmet contact. Granted, in doing so, he did hit the receiver in the head, but he neither lowered his head, nor led with the crown. It certainly was not a "dirty" play. If that hit was targeting, as most here imply it was, then the rules need to be changed.
Clearly it was targeting because he did lead with the helmet into the head or neck area.
Posted on 1/2/25 at 5:54 am to NC_Tigah
For a defenseless receiver you only need to make forcible contact to the head or neck area not lower the crown of helmet. It was definitely targeting.
Posted on 1/2/25 at 6:01 am to HighRoller
quote:Like I said, if that's the rule, it needs to be changed.
For a defenseless receiver you only need to make forcible contact to the head or neck area not lower the crown of helmet. It was definitely targeting.
Posted on 1/2/25 at 6:04 am to QB
I thought it was clear targeting by the rules. But I also think the targeting rules need an update - if the ball carrier lowers his head immediately before the defense tackles , unless it’s spearing it should not be targeting. Defender is flying in full speed and can’t adjust to what ball carriers always do.
Posted on 1/2/25 at 6:56 am to QB
Seems to me; as hard as they tried not to determine outcome of game, they did.
Posted on 1/2/25 at 7:44 am to MFn GIMP
quote:t.
Targeting by definition requires intent. It was a good no call and the rule needs to change to require actual inten
wrong. no intent is required when you go after a defenseless player, which the receiver was. it was a crown ot the helmet hit to the helmet of a defenseless player. targeting. we understand that in the old days this was just part of football, but the targeting rule s there to stop this type of dangerous hit. the receiver was laid out with the hit. it was dangerous. it is required of the defenders to make sure they don't hit a defenseless player like this.
heck, LSU has been the victim of these calls, but it's the rule.
Posted on 1/2/25 at 7:51 am to QB
quote:
We all know that could have bee called either way
That’s a targeting call 99% of the time.
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News