Tiger Board Logo

Donor's Den General Leaderboards TNET coins™ POTD Hall of Fame Map FAQ
search
GIVE AN AWARD
Use your TNET coins™ to grant this post a special award!
W
50
Big Brain
90
Love it!
100
Cheers
100
Helpful
100
Made Me Smile
100
Great Idea!
150
Mind Blown
150
Caring
200
Flammable
200
Hear ye, hear ye
200
Bravo
250
Nom Nom Nom
250
Take My Coins
500
Ooo, Shiny!
700
Treasured Post!
1000
YOUR BALANCE
Not to bring up old shxt...
storage This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
Archives - Tiger Boards Archive
add New Topic
Replies: 3
| visibility 988

Not to bring up old shxt...


Oct 30, 2016, 1:45 AM

But how was the targeting penalty on the hit against Williams different than the hit on Gallman against NCSt?

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Not to bring up old shxt...


Oct 30, 2016, 1:51 AM

Running backs are considered less "defenseless" than receivers in the air, but it is completely subjective. The refs probably just did not have a good view of the hit on Gallman.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

"defenseless" doesn't matter in either of these cases


Oct 30, 2016, 2:19 AM

In the event where a defender leads with the crown of the helmet, it is considered targeting regardless of whether or not the player is defenseless.

Based upon the NCAA definition of the rule, leading with the crown always supposed to be called targeting no matter what the status of the player.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Not to bring up old shxt...


Oct 30, 2016, 1:53 AM

Answer:

NC State player should have been ejected, ACC officials are ######### who cannot admit when they are wrong

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Replies: 3
| visibility 988
📰 E-Mail News Alerts

TigerBoard POTD

Hey TNet!!! What's for supper???

by MyfavOrange®

Archives - Tiger Boards Archive
add New Topic