CU Guru [1954]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1230
Joined: 9/7/13
|
Jan 9, 2017 - Targeting was NOT called
[3]
Posted: Jan 10, 2020, 8:57 PM
|
|
3 years ago in Tampa. CU vs Bama in the Natty. 3:40 left in 3rd QRT. Tigers at their own 25; 3rd down & needing to reach the 40. DW4 decides to run & gets 14 - - then is hit low by R. Foster & high by Minkah Fitzpatrick at the 39. Foster's low hit wouldn't have stopped the 1st down - but Fitzpatrick's launching high hit to Watson's facemask turned DW4 into a spinning helicopter blade, & he crashed at the 39. It was TARGETING by Fitz; should have been called; was NOT & wasn't even reviewed.
But - we won anyway!! So there!
|
|
|
|
 |
CU Guru [1752]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1611
Joined: 11/8/14
|
There were at least 3 hits in that game
[2]
Posted: Jan 10, 2020, 9:04 PM
|
|
that should have been flagged for Targeting. How many calls were there? None. No targeting calls.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Rounder [645]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 1221
Joined: 6/4/12
|
Re: There were at least 3 hits in that game
[1]
Posted: Jan 10, 2020, 9:15 PM
|
|
Had Trevor not stayed down they would not have called targeting vs OSU. There was a targeting call that should’ve been made earlier ON THAT SAME DRIVE.
Remember, once he stayed down the refs went “uh oh”, maybe we’ll review to cover our a$$es. I think if the earlier targeting was called then the one they actually called never happens. Can’t hardly blame the kid probably thought the refs were allowing it.
Moral of the story, stay down after head to head contact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9710]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 18950
Joined: 4/24/04
|
Just rewatched the play to see if I was misremembering
Posted: Jan 10, 2020, 9:19 PM
|
|
That wasn't targeting. I think it looked worse than it really was because Deshaun tried to jump cut and was in the air when he got hit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Rounder [617]
TigerPulse: 85%
Posts: 898
Joined: 9/8/14
|
Re: Just rewatched the play to see if I was misremembering
Posted: Jan 10, 2020, 9:32 PM
|
|
It definitely was targeting and should have been called.When you lead with helmet and hit helmet it’s targeting regardless if the other person is spinning or going down
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Rounder [617]
TigerPulse: 85%
Posts: 898
Joined: 9/8/14
|
Re: Just rewatched the play to see if I was misremembering
Posted: Jan 10, 2020, 9:33 PM
|
|
It definitely was targeting and should have been called.When you lead with helmet and hit helmet it’s targeting regardless if the other person is spinning or going down
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9710]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 18950
Joined: 4/24/04
|
Didn't look like he led with his helmet to me
Posted: Jan 10, 2020, 9:34 PM
|
|
Shrug
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [53685]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 106359
Joined: 12/1/98
|
Re: Didn't look like he led with his helmet to me
Posted: Jan 10, 2020, 9:37 PM
|
|
sorry you dont understand the rule.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9710]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 18950
Joined: 4/24/04
|
I understand the rule just fine
Posted: Jan 10, 2020, 9:41 PM
|
|
The question is whether he led with his helmet or not which is open for interpretation. I happen to think he dove with his lead up and did not launch and lead with the crown. Where he hit Watson does not matter because Watson was the ball carrier and thus not defenseless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
