- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: How was that not targeting on Miami.
Posted on 12/20/25 at 3:42 pm to KosmoCramer
Posted on 12/20/25 at 3:42 pm to KosmoCramer
quote:
Point to the rule that makes that distinction
the key word is "forcible."
It wasnt forceable. It was incidental. Forceable means it goes beyond making a regular play on the ball, its in the rule that YOU posted.
2
Posted on 12/20/25 at 3:44 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
the key word is "forcible."
It wasnt forceable.
This is a laughably bad take.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. Posted on 12/20/25 at 3:46 pm to KosmoCramer
quote:
This is a laughably bad take.
If you dont understand basic definitions. Which you apparently dont.
Helmet to helmet isnt necessarily targeting no matter how much you think it is.
This post was edited on 12/20/25 at 3:48 pm
Posted on 12/20/25 at 3:48 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Nah, incidental. good no call
Incidental contact doesn’t knock a player out
Posted on 12/20/25 at 3:49 pm to KosmoCramer
It was targeting but targeting is gay and I am glad they didn’t call it
Refs knew A&M was going to piss down their leg no matter what so don’t suspend a player for the next half
Refs knew A&M was going to piss down their leg no matter what so don’t suspend a player for the next half
Posted on 12/20/25 at 3:50 pm to Dire Wolf
quote:
It was targeting but targeting is gay and I am glad they didn’t call it
This is the correct take.
Posted on 12/20/25 at 3:50 pm to MikeD
quote:
Incidental contact doesn’t knock a player out
Sure it can. Happens quite often on the field. More so than "forcible" contact.
Posted on 12/20/25 at 3:51 pm to Dire Wolf
It wasn’t targeting. Hitting someone in the head after initially hitting them in the chest or side is not targeting.
Posted on 12/20/25 at 3:52 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
the key word is "forcible." It wasnt forceable. It was incidental. Forceable means it goes beyond making a regular play on the ball, its in the rule that YOU posted.
The defender was literally on the ground not moving from his helmet colliding with the defenseless WR. How is that not forcible?
Posted on 12/20/25 at 3:53 pm to Geauxgurt
quote:
It wasn’t targeting. Hitting someone in the head after initially hitting them in the chest or side is not targeting
Watch the video above and tell me the defender's helmet wasn't the first thing to contact directly to the head of the defenseless WR.
Posted on 12/20/25 at 3:54 pm to MikeD
quote:
The defender was literally on the ground not moving from his helmet colliding
Yes.
That doesnt mean its a penalty. I've posted how its called in this very thread.
Head/head isnt necessarily targeting, no matter how much you want it to
Posted on 12/20/25 at 3:57 pm to KosmoCramer
quote:
Watch the video above and tell me the defender's helmet wasn't the first thing to contact directly to the head of the defenseless WR.
I did and it wasn’t.
Posted on 12/20/25 at 3:58 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Yes.
That doesnt mean its a penalty. I've posted how its called in this very thread.
Head/head isnt necessarily targeting, no matter how much you want it to
Leaving the incidental claim aside, was it forcible?
Posted on 12/20/25 at 4:02 pm to KosmoCramer
quote:
Watch the video above and tell me the defender's helmet wasn't the first thing to contact directly to the head of the defenseless WR.
It wasn’t crown of the helmet, he really isn’t leading with his helmet. The DB is just trying to make a play on the ball
Defenseless WR is a dumb concept in situations like this. He is running up the middle and Reed throws across his body Teeing him.
Posted on 12/20/25 at 4:04 pm to Dire Wolf
quote:
It wasn’t crown of the helmet, he really isn’t leading with his helmet.
That doesn't matter.
Targeting is dumb AF. By the rule, that's clearly targeting.
Posted on 12/20/25 at 4:06 pm to ItTakesAThief
No crown.
Posted on 12/20/25 at 4:11 pm to KosmoCramer
quote:
Targeting is dumb AF. By the rule, that's clearly targeting.
It’s probably called in any other situation
That said, it wasn’t dirty. I am glad the refs let them play.
Posted on 12/20/25 at 4:24 pm to KosmoCramer
quote:
Leaving the incidental claim aside, was it forcible?
Not in my opinion. Side of helmet to side of helmet while making a play. No call is the right call.
Its a call you can make early in the game, it would still be controversial. But not at the end of the game.
Posted on 12/20/25 at 6:39 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Not in my opinion. Side of helmet to side of helmet while making a play. No call is the right call.
Its a call you can make early in the game, it would still be controversial. But not at the end of the game.
So you're telling me that a hit, that led with the helmet, of a defenseless receiver (by rule), wasn't forcible, when a dude was literally knocked unconscious, wasnt forcible, in your opinion?
This post was edited on 12/20/25 at 6:40 pm
Posted on 12/20/25 at 6:42 pm to KosmoCramer
Stop looking like a tard. Wasn't targeting.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News