|
Targeting missed on GT qb!?!?
|
Replies: 22
| visibility 4201
|
Asst Coach [859]
TigerPulse: 93%
23
|
Targeting missed on GT qb!?!?
8
8
Nov 30, 2024, 8:06 AM
|
|
When he fumbled late in game, it was blatant! This rule is BS. There is zero consistency with the rule.
Beat the fuvk outta the dirtpeckers!!!!
|
|
|
|
 |
Orange Blooded [2180]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
Exactly. None of the SEC announcers saw that
4
Nov 30, 2024, 8:13 AM
|
|
I was so obvious helmet to helmet
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1785]
TigerPulse: 100%
31
|
Re: Exactly. None of the SEC announcers saw that
1
Nov 30, 2024, 8:59 AM
|
|
I was so obvious helmet to helmet
It was not helmet to helmet, but it was classic targeting as he buried this helmet, crown first, into the QB - were you watching or just proving you half-a$$ watched the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [5797]
TigerPulse: 100%
39
|
Actually, the OP was correct. It was obvious helmet to helmet.
3
Nov 30, 2024, 9:09 AM
|
|
Watch the replay. Defender hits the QB’s helmet first before any other body part.
Not sure why you’re so rude when you’re so mistaken.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [191]
TigerPulse: 76%
12
|
Re: Exactly. None of the SEC announcers saw that
Nov 30, 2024, 10:17 AM
[ in reply to Re: Exactly. None of the SEC announcers saw that ] |
|
You could see the helmet hit kings face mask it wasn’t blatant helmet to helmet but it was there you just had to rewatch it 4,000 times like I did. And the refs should have done.
Gooooooo Tiiiiiiiiggggggeeeeeeerrrrrrssss!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3265]
TigerPulse: 94%
34
|
He did make helmet contact . . .
Dec 5, 2024, 3:32 PM
[ in reply to Re: Exactly. None of the SEC announcers saw that ] |
|
it was in the facemask area - it was discernible in one of the replays. I can agree that he didn't "aim" at the helmet, primarily. But he did make helmet contact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solid Orange [1302]
TigerPulse: 100%
28
|
Re: Exactly. None of the SEC announcers saw that
Nov 30, 2024, 9:25 AM
[ in reply to Exactly. None of the SEC announcers saw that ] |
|
It was NOT helmet to helmet. He hit him below shoulders in mid section. However he did launch and lead with crown
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3265]
TigerPulse: 94%
34
|
It sure was helmet to helmet ***
Dec 5, 2024, 3:57 PM
|
|
d
|
|
|
|
|
|
Campus Hero [13372]
TigerPulse: 100%
48
Posts: 12953
Joined: 2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3648]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
Re: Targeting missed on GT qb!?!?
3
Nov 30, 2024, 8:34 AM
|
|
You hear many announcers say it’s also to protect the tackler. Then it’s not mentioned unless clearly to head or neck area. Which one is it? Remember Skalskis tackle on Justin Fields? Clearly was not to head or neck area. Calls are too inconsistent. Reminiscent of the terrible halo rule.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [19814]
TigerPulse: 100%
52
Posts: 15946
Joined: 1998
|
ESPN pays both the ACC and SEC officials
3
Nov 30, 2024, 8:39 AM
|
|
Never use to be a “conspiracy “ guy, but the evidence is mounting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [1125]
TigerPulse: 98%
26
|
Re: ESPN pays both the ACC and SEC officials
3
Nov 30, 2024, 9:07 AM
|
|
The same type of targeting call that got Sammy Brown kicked out last game, they just didn’t call this one. Also, forward progress had stopped.
Running QB or not, you still have to protect the player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [184]
TigerPulse: 97%
12
|
Re: ESPN pays both the ACC and SEC officials
1
Nov 30, 2024, 9:14 AM
|
|
Terrible no call. I agree there is no consistency. Unfortunately, it starts in little league where kids aren’t taught the fundamentals. Look at what you’re tackling. Kids are praised for making big hits leading with the crown of the helmet. It’s more dangerous for the tackler than for the tacklee (is that a word?).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fan [38]
TigerPulse: 100%
4
|
Re: ESPN pays both the ACC and SEC officials
1
Nov 30, 2024, 9:17 AM
[ in reply to Re: ESPN pays both the ACC and SEC officials ] |
|
It was pretty obvious that a review should have occurred. Maybe I missed it but I only remember seeing one angle before play quickly resumed. During the game they were also showing views from above which upon review would have easily shown if forward progress was halted prior to the blow.
The major turning point of the entire game and crickets from the booth.
Sad for Tech who outplayed Dawgs and deserved to not face overtime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3331]
TigerPulse: 100%
34
|
Re: Targeting missed on GT qb!?!?
1
Nov 30, 2024, 9:11 AM
|
|
It is definitely why he fumbled. It rattled him for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solid Orange [1382]
TigerPulse: 99%
28
|
Saw that
Nov 30, 2024, 9:23 AM
|
|
|
|
Could not believe they called PI in the engine and not this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solid Orange [1382]
TigerPulse: 99%
28
|
Well, that didnt work
Nov 30, 2024, 9:29 AM
|
|
I’m guessing they do something to the file when attached
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [570]
TigerPulse: 99%
20
|
Re: Targeting missed on GT qb!?!?
Dec 5, 2024, 10:06 AM
|
|
heck, had that been called, georgia loses, the precious sec would have lost its mind because Ga would have been eliminated if they lost to texas giving them 4 losses. or people would say the committee is great if Georgia wins the sec with 3 losses because its so tough, but let clemson win the acc with 3 losses, the boards will light up saturday night how weak the acc is and they are already lobbying for the playoffs to be reevaluated next year not to include conference champs automatically ..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [1169]
TigerPulse: 100%
26
|
Re: Targeting missed on GT qb!?!?
Dec 5, 2024, 3:12 PM
|
|
Not to mention he was hit in the face by a Ga player while laying on his back in front of the referee on third and goal just before their last field goal with no call.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [866]
TigerPulse: 88%
23
|
Re: Targeting missed on GT qb!?!?
Dec 5, 2024, 5:21 PM
|
|
Anyone have a video link?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [866]
TigerPulse: 88%
23
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asst Coach [866]
TigerPulse: 88%
23
|
Re: Targeting missed on GT qb!?!?
Dec 5, 2024, 5:26 PM
|
|
Just posted the link - #### right it was targeting!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [1]
TigerPulse: 54%
1
|
Re: Targeting missed on GT qb!?!?
Dec 5, 2024, 7:10 PM
|
|
Good tackle. No targeting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 22
| visibility 4201
|
|
|
|
50
