Two weeks in a row and two targeting calls. However I completely disagree with this one but what in the hell is he doing? Don’t even get close to someone else’s head.
JD Bertrand
- Thread starter Irishjohn68
- Start date
He made a good play. Nothing he can do about a bad call
This was an especially LOUSY officiating crew. Just flat out incompetent.
Another in line with the Joe Schmidt, Drew White mold at linebacker.
Hopefully we can keep improving our talent there in the coming years.
Hopefully we can keep improving our talent there in the coming years.
Terrible call by the officials but that being said quit playing lazy.
Bend the god damn knees and saw that sum bitch in half.
I know everyone wants to get on ESPN for a highlight hit...well he just got his wish...and another ejection.
Bad call by the official but why leave it to chance. His target needs to be the belt. The color change. Ejection and penalty avoided. Always
Bend the god damn knees and saw that sum bitch in half.
I know everyone wants to get on ESPN for a highlight hit...well he just got his wish...and another ejection.
Bad call by the official but why leave it to chance. His target needs to be the belt. The color change. Ejection and penalty avoided. Always
The targeting rule is an absolute fricking joke. Why the NCAA doesn't fix it is beyond me. Every week we see this
the half suspension is fricking BS. Its quite obvious when a guy is head hunting and its another when hes just trying to make a play.
Yes, fortunately It was added just this season. If a player receives a targeting in the 2nd half if can be appealed during the week so that players doesn’t miss the first half of a game for a bad targeting call. Why this wasn’t an option when targeting first came out years ago blows my mind.
It was a horrible call; definitely not targeting. Good, clean, hard hit? Yes, but targeting? No way.
The idea is to strongly discourage making these sort of hits - whatever the possible motivation. So the punishment is swift and severe. DON'T HIT ANYONE IN THE HEAD FOR ANY REASON. Intentionally or otherwise.
Do you even grasp that? Do you even grasp the concept of deterrence? Because it sounds like you don't. Sounds like you consider the rule to be merely a nuisance. As if CBT is just some made-up nonsense by corrupt doctors....
It's not about intent, it's about discouraging and hopefully eradicating head hits for any reason....
Obviously you have never played football let alone defense. You cannot play timid and this rule encourages that. I have no oproblem flagging a guy for 15 if its a high hit to the head. I have a real problem when offensive guys duck and the defender cannot stop himself and hits the guy high. The suspension for a half is an absolute joke, its obvious when the defender is head hunting. The rule sucks period, and frankly you are a moron
Go play tennis or pickle ball. Obviously you have never played football in your life. Absolutely clueless..
except there was a blatant spearing in the Ohio State game that wasn't even flagged.
Oh man, you're so beflustered you responded to me twice! In which case, I guess I would say, it is a small mercy that no one in this universe has any thought for what you have a problem with or not, and in that regard you might as well not even exist.
But the point still stands, that the rule exists and was implemented to discourage and prevent any and all hits to the head, intentional or otherwise, and is administered thusly. But I don't mind seeing you guys make a spectacle of yourselves with these spittle-flying retorts where you rail about the way things ought to be, especially when it involves the exalting of a more savage, violent, unenlightened existence that you apparently long to return to. So feel free to add any additional raving....
"Not even close to the receivers head, horrible call."
The targeting call does not mean a hit to the head -- if the defender leads with the crown of the helmet and makes forcible contact to the opponent --
"taking aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball."
that said, I did not think targeting should have been called. Personal foul maybe, but not targeting. But, according to Freeman -- “It’s targeting,” Freeman said, agreeing with the call. “And you can argue all you want, but as I told JD on the field, ‘It's our job to learn from that situation. We have to change or you're going to continue to get targeting penalties, no matter if we agree or disagree.’”
Something else he will need to keep in mind (if the call is held up) - seeing as how this would be his 2nd Targeting foul of the year --
"If a player receives a third Targeting foul within the same season, disqualification for the remainder of the game and that player will receive an automatic one-game suspension in their team’s next scheduled game."
Last edited:
Latest posts
-
Per PFF, the colleges with the most players on current NFL rosters- Latest: Eric Hansen
-
-
