Welcome Guest
Sign In | Register

Completely disagree in both cases

Posted on: January 1, 2025 at 18:47:10 CT
BigDave MU
Posts:
8207
Member For:
25.75 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
In both of those hits, the defender was clearly trying to make an intentionally vicious hit in an attempt to stop a WR from making a catch. Both hits were more vicious than was needed to make a tackle, and that is the definition of targeting.

I think you are misreading the rule regarding intention. The intention doesn't have to be an intention to commit a targeting foul. The intent only has to be to make a tackle that goes beyond a normal legal tackle in the game.

Both of these are exactly the kinds of hits they were trying to take out of the game with the rule. With all the inconsistency this year, I expect them to make further clarifications in the off-season of the rule.
Report Message

Please explain why this message is being reported.

REPLY

Handle:
Password:
Subject:

MESSAGE THREAD

Need to be an investigation into that non-targeting call - OntheMark MU - 1/1 16:29:05
     That was the clearest example of targeting all season - Harvey Specter MU - 1/1 17:42:07
     Was definitely targeting! Another bribed NCAA call / no call - Turn2 MU - 1/1 17:16:10
     Investigation .... lmao(nm) - tigerman81 MU - 1/1 16:55:25
     ASU had player sitting out 1st half for questionable - fatrat MU - 1/1 16:46:28
     Here's the rule - BigDave MU - 1/1 16:34:04
          Here’s the core problem, weve had 10 years of the rule being - alwaysright MU - 1/1 16:44:07
               Not true. It specifically addresses targeting against - DHighlander NWMSU - 1/1 17:06:46
                    Targeting means targeting not contacting. - alwaysright MU - 1/1 17:07:55
                         Read the damned rule, it is clearly spelled out(nm) - DHighlander NWMSU - 1/1 17:08:54
                              I know what the rule says, and I clearly stated that the - alwaysright MU - 1/1 17:17:36
                              You are way too emotionally involved in this. Did Sark - tigerman81 MU - 1/1 17:09:49
                                   I was hoping UT would win. It was a horrible call that had - DHighlander NWMSU - 1/1 17:31:15
                                        You say they got it wrong. You aren't the arbiter, they are - tigerman81 MU - 1/1 17:34:14
                                             Their on air rules analysist didn't even hesitate before - DHighlander NWMSU - 1/1 17:56:27
               You're confusing targeting with spearing. (nm) - phrejd KC - 1/1 16:56:13
                    If they hadn’t quit calling spearing, we wouldn’t have a - alwaysright MU - 1/1 17:01:43
                         Correct. Which is different than spearing (nm) - phrejd KC - 1/1 17:07:45
          Could care less who won,objectively,it was obvious targeting - Macgrantt MU - 1/1 16:37:28
               Not obvious targeting. Obvious contact to head but as below - Tiger Max MU - 1/1 17:07:00
                    Would have liked one in Mizzou game other night too but - Tiger Max MU - 1/1 17:19:10
                         Completely disagree in both cases - BigDave MU - 1/1 18:47:10
          It was absolutely targeting. Not sure why they - Outsider MU - 1/1 16:37:24
     RE: Need to be an investigation into that non-targeting call - MOCO SON MU - 1/1 16:33:53
     Just remove targeting as a penalty. It’s not called - MrTruman2U MU - 1/1 16:30:59
          It's a game changing rule which makes it even more important - DHighlander NWMSU - 1/1 16:36:48
               I'd argue that letting a texas player be wide open two - tigerman81 MU - 1/1 16:56:40
                    They get that penalty called and those plays never happen(nm) - DHighlander NWMSU - 1/1 17:04:47
                         The problem is the call was reviewed and allowed to stand - OntheMark MU - 1/1 18:58:21
                         Calls get made and not made all the time. Thats the game - tigerman81 MU - 1/1 17:09:08
          RE: Just remove targeting as a penalty. It’s not called - wtk UT - 1/1 16:34:19
               When it is a defenseless player it does not have to be the - DHighlander NWMSU - 1/1 16:41:55
               Doesn't have to be the crown only. (nm) - Outsider MU - 1/1 16:38:44
                    he didn't even lead with his head, he ran up and hit him, - 90Tiger STL - 1/1 16:54:30
                         he ran up and hit him, head first, in the head(nm) - DHighlander NWMSU - 1/1 17:07:59
                         No (nm) - phrejd KC - 1/1 16:56:51
                              yes (nm) - 90Tiger STL - 1/1 17:39:16
               Yep, after replays I agree. (nm) - Uncle John KC - 1/1 16:36:54
          Agree with this. I think it's because the player will be - XRob MU - 1/1 16:32:37




©2025 Fanboards L.L.C. — Our Privacy Policy   About Tigerboard