|
Replies: 8
| visibility 50
|
Paw Master [16181]
TigerPulse: 98%
51
Posts: 18742
Joined: 2009
|
Last night was another example of the targeting rule needing fixed.
Sep 3, 2021, 10:20 AM
|
|
That was textbook targeting of a defenseless player.
But that was also a football tackle and the WR dipped his head right before the hit.
Throw a flag, but do not kick a player out of a game for that. It would've been stupid for them to eject over that play... But that's the rule. It's just an awful rule.
|
|
|
|
 |
TigerNet Elite [76654]
TigerPulse: 100%
61
Posts: 119386
Joined: 1998
|
Re: Last night was another example of the targeting rule needing fixed.
Sep 3, 2021, 10:23 AM
|
|
that is what gets me. D cant use their helmet- ok fine. Why can the O use theirs then? Same with pass interference. O grabs or shoves D to get open is usually not called. Yet if D does the same its PI
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [63666]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 48663
Joined: 2000
|
D grabbing the O wasn't PI last night. Ohio St DB assaulted
Sep 3, 2021, 10:43 AM
|
|
the Minn WR several times, grabbing, hacking, pulling, practically tackling, well before the ball arrived, like 4-5 seconds, very clearly, and the ref choked on his whistle repeatedly. It was blatant, an intentional act of desperation by the DBs as they were beat long, but the refs failed miserably. These failures are unacceptable, because they are likely game altering. Refs know they will get a pass (obviously they do, because this has become a worsening trend in recent years in pass coverage) so they lose their ####### in these situations. Amazingly, on a rule like targeting, where there is such tremendous focus, they usually rip out the flag immediately on anything that looks like it could possibly be interpreted as targeting. It's all about what they decide to call and what they decide to let go. Rules are not enforced equally - look at holding - you see it on every play, but rarely a flag. There is some kind of silent, unspoken agreement to ease up or ignore certain rules,, and that's not right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet Elite [76654]
TigerPulse: 100%
61
Posts: 119386
Joined: 1998
|
Re: D grabbing the O wasn't PI last night. Ohio St DB assaulted
Sep 3, 2021, 11:14 AM
|
|
I was speaking generally. Not specific to last night.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [63666]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 48663
Joined: 2000
|
I understand - just making a general point myself, that refs
Sep 3, 2021, 11:49 AM
|
|
let too much of that shid go on both ways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Day Hero [4241]
TigerPulse: 100%
36
|
Re: Last night was another example of the targeting rule needing fixed.
Sep 3, 2021, 10:37 AM
|
|
It’s a simple fix to protect both the offensive and defensive player.
If a player leads with the crown of the helmet it is a personal foul and 15 yard penalty.
If a player leads with the crown of the helmet in a head to head impact, 15 yard penalty and player is ejected for half of a game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1690]
TigerPulse: 100%
31
|
Re: Last night was another example of the targeting rule needing fixed.
Sep 3, 2021, 10:54 AM
|
|
Maybe I'm nuts, but last night that looked like classic targeting to the head. And it appears that the refs did not even consider that call. Very strange that it would not even be looked at or considered in my opinion. Having said that, that may not have changed the outcome of the game one way or the other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recruit [76]
TigerPulse: 100%
8
|
Re: Last night was another example of the targeting rule needing fixed.
Sep 3, 2021, 11:54 AM
|
|
The play met all the criteria:
Player was defenseless
He launched
He lead with his helmet
There was helmet-to-helmet contact
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [3676]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
I fully expect the B1G will acknowledge the mistake...
Sep 3, 2021, 12:00 PM
|
|
in a few days.
Maybe the replay folks were concerned about the out of conference game against Oregon next week.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 8
| visibility 50
|
|
|
50
