- 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: Wilson vs White hits side by side (We should NOT let up on this!)
Posted on 10/22/18 at 11:32 am to HollierThanThou
Posted on 10/22/18 at 11:32 am to HollierThanThou
quote:
Problem is Wilson's targeting was overturned and White's was upheld.
Almost positive he wasn't flagged for it. I didn't see the Wilson hit live, but I did see Bama was flagged for targeting at another point in the game (Safety Deionte Thompson) which was overturned (which was the right call). So people may be getting those confused.
This post was edited on 10/22/18 at 1:12 pm
0
Posted on 10/22/18 at 11:33 am to bigosports
Looks like the led w helmet and hit the NECK. but what do I know I am not a 'Bama graduate.
Posted on 10/22/18 at 11:36 am to bigosports
quote:
Wilson hit him in the chest not the neck or head area.
jagsfan
Posted on 10/22/18 at 11:38 am to LSUStar
quote:
Looks like the led w helmet and hit the NECK. but what do I know I am not a 'Bama graduate.
Let's make this really clear. When you lead with the crown of the helmet it is targeting, regardless of where you make contact. You can hit the guy in the ankle, it is still targeting.
Posted on 10/22/18 at 11:39 am to Lsuchampnj
I can't believe the Tenn QB wasn't suspended for targeting his neck area against the poor Alabama players helmet crown.
Posted on 10/22/18 at 11:41 am to RJL2
quote:
Was the Wilson hit called on the field and reviewed further then confirmed not targeting? Could have just been a missed call on the field.
It was missed on the field. And if we are to believe screenshots of rules posted on twitter... the SEC has the ability to review the play after the game to impose a penalty for a missed call. I don't think it allows a targeting to be reversed after the game, but they could certainly penalize Wilson for his hit. Something tells me they won't.
Posted on 10/22/18 at 11:41 am to Lsuchampnj
The issue is not that the Alabama hit should have been called, it's that neither should have been called. Even if White's little push was technically targeting based on the rule. There's a major issue with the way the rule defined. A player can hit a guy in the head a knock him unconscious or do what White did and the punishment is the same. THAT'S the real issue here.
I think a lot of people talking conspiracy theories and bias are focusing on the wrong thing. You can't prove any of that so other fan bases will laugh it off and call us delusional. You have to focus on the real black and white issues. The punishment does not fit the offense if there even was one.
I think a lot of people talking conspiracy theories and bias are focusing on the wrong thing. You can't prove any of that so other fan bases will laugh it off and call us delusional. You have to focus on the real black and white issues. The punishment does not fit the offense if there even was one.
This post was edited on 10/22/18 at 11:44 am
Posted on 10/22/18 at 11:46 am to notbilly
Absolutely- we need to get 1 “best angle” of each - side by side and get this shite going viral . Calls to the SEC will do nothing. The fact that some on this board haven’t seen the Wilson hit is a perfect example of the fact that we are not doing near enough.
Posted on 10/22/18 at 11:46 am to abellsujr
quote:
The issue is not that the Alabama hit should have been called, it's that neither should have been called.
Wilson initiated forceful contact with the crown of the helmet. I am linking the rule again. It does not require a hit to the head or neck when you lead with the crown of the helmet. How is Wilson's hit not targeting?
SB Nation Targeting Explanation 8/30/18
Posted on 10/22/18 at 11:49 am to Macavity92
Or call both and eject both even if after the fact. Consistency is the issue
Posted on 10/22/18 at 11:49 am to Macavity92
I'm saying neither one SHOULD be called. The rule needs to be changed. It's a shite rule.
Or the punishment needs to be changed. I think that's the real issue here.
Or the punishment needs to be changed. I think that's the real issue here.
This post was edited on 10/22/18 at 11:53 am
Posted on 10/22/18 at 11:53 am to bigosports
Wilson lead with the crown of his helmet
Posted on 10/22/18 at 11:55 am to Lsuchampnj
Everyone keeps referencing the Wilson hit but did nobody see the Auburn safety called for targeting that was overturned following the review?
It was by the book definition of targeting.
It was by the book definition of targeting.
Posted on 10/22/18 at 11:55 am to Lsuchampnj
Never let it go. If they do nothing about, fester on your hate come kickoff.
Posted on 10/22/18 at 11:57 am to Mrs. Amaro
Posted on 10/22/18 at 11:58 am to tgr4ever
quote:
By definition, targeting is leading with the crown of your helmet. Nothing to do with where you hit the player.
Wilson is a clean player. Never been questioned about hits that were never called by officials before. Oh wait, except A&M where the officials didn’t call a penalty on that hit either (until after review and he was never ejected).
Bama v. A&M
This post was edited on 10/22/18 at 12:05 pm
Posted on 10/22/18 at 12:00 pm to bigosports
How you do not consider the Wilson hit in the neck area boggles the mind?
Posted on 10/22/18 at 12:03 pm to abellsujr
quote:
I'm saying neither one SHOULD be called.
And I am asking you why Wilson should not have been called if it fits the textbook definition of targeting?
This post was edited on 10/22/18 at 12:04 pm
Posted on 10/22/18 at 12:03 pm to Mrs. Amaro
Wilson's hit was vicious while leading with his helmet. it was high but I can't say it was to the neck. but he put his head down and led with the crown.
if that's not targeting then white's hit was definitely not targeting.
also, alabama's DB who got his targeting overturned. it was clear the DB had no intent to target. he was trying to make a shoulder tackle but he put his head down and made forcible contact with the crown of his helmet. he wasn't responsible for the receiver going low as well. but he wasn't looking, either. I've seen this upheld because the point of the penalty is to stop defenders for putting their heads down, period. I don't think it should be targeting but it was. so in that game you had 2 possible targeting calls but neither went against alabama. the call against white was b.s. and should have been overturned.
if that's not targeting then white's hit was definitely not targeting.
also, alabama's DB who got his targeting overturned. it was clear the DB had no intent to target. he was trying to make a shoulder tackle but he put his head down and made forcible contact with the crown of his helmet. he wasn't responsible for the receiver going low as well. but he wasn't looking, either. I've seen this upheld because the point of the penalty is to stop defenders for putting their heads down, period. I don't think it should be targeting but it was. so in that game you had 2 possible targeting calls but neither went against alabama. the call against white was b.s. and should have been overturned.
Posted on 10/22/18 at 12:03 pm to RJL2
Wilson's hit was not called targeting. Although the Tenn. QB had to be helped up and shake the cobwebs out of his head afterwards Fitzgerald was asked to leave by the refs and didn't want to go to the sideline. He honestly didn't know why the refs were making him leave! 
This post was edited on 10/22/18 at 12:08 pm
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News