- 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: CFB various championship & playoff game thread 12/07/24
Posted on 12/8/24 at 12:13 am to tigerfan84
Posted on 12/8/24 at 12:13 am to tigerfan84
4
Posted on 12/8/24 at 12:48 am to MOT
quote:So helmet to helmet is only illegal in the instance of leading with the crown?
Can’t lead with the crown at any time, but he didn’t and the poster I replied to said that didn’t matter.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 1:14 am to Adam Banks
quote:
The conferences stand to lose a TON of money by destroying the conference championship games if bama hops SMU. The commissioners will rally on this one. Even sankey will question defending bama. They need this money.
I really hope you’re right but we’re talking about people who dropped an undefeated FSU b/c they said they stood no chance w/a backup QB right after FSU beat a Louisville team by 10 that same committee ranked at w/said backup QB. Yeah that was a 4 team playoff but they are still the same people who pulled that crap.
This post was edited on 12/8/24 at 1:17 am
Posted on 12/8/24 at 1:14 am to Big Scrub TX
quote:Not sure if you’re trolling at this point as the rules are basic and well established, but if you are serious:
So helmet to helmet is only illegal in the instance of leading with the crown?
Paraphrasing: Targeting is forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless player or leading with the crown of the helmet. A runner is not a defenseless player.
The QB was not a defenseless player since he wa running and the defensive player did not lead with the crown of his helmet. It was obvious in real time that this was not a targeting foul.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 1:15 am to tigerfan84
Posted on 12/8/24 at 5:48 am to tigerfan84
Would they really pass on sending SMU to Texas and Indiana to ND?
Seems like those would be better matchups and could be “justified”.
Seems like those would be better matchups and could be “justified”.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 9:42 am to Epic Cajun
i’m sure Texas doesn’t want to play SMU. same for ND and Indiana
Posted on 12/8/24 at 9:50 am to tigerfan84
It this is the bracket. Boise might make the semifinals.
PSU vs IN is so easy for PSU
Tenn vs OSU will be fun
PSU vs IN is so easy for PSU
Tenn vs OSU will be fun
Posted on 12/8/24 at 9:59 am to Roscoe
quote:
i’m sure Texas doesn’t want to play SMU. same for ND and Indiana
Both need to happen.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 12:35 pm to MOT
quote:I didn't ask about targeting. I asked about helmet to helmet.
Not sure if you’re trolling at this point as the rules are basic and well established, but if you are serious:
Paraphrasing: Targeting is forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless player or leading with the crown of the helmet. A runner is not a defenseless player.
The QB was not a defenseless player since he wa running and the defensive player did not lead with the crown of his helmet. It was obvious in real time that this was not a targeting foul.
I'll re-ask slightly differently: is there any penalty that can be called due to helmet to helmet contact with a non-defenseless player?
Posted on 12/8/24 at 12:50 pm to tigerfan84
quote:
What does Army have to do?
Page 65 of 65
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News