Peach Bowl - Georgia vs Ohio State

#1,051
#1,051
DaddyChad said:
If that’s a flag I’m not sure how a DB is supposed to do their job on a ball that’s thrown up in the endzone? It was a hard hit but it wasn’t helmet to helmet, defender hit him as the ball got there. That’s textbook how you’re taught to do it. Hate that Harrison got hurt, hate that Georgia won but I’m not going to act like it’s an illegal hit bc things didn’t go my way.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t watching live when it happened but when I go back and see the replays it does look like the UGA player launched at Harrison. I really don’t care either way. Ohio State had their chance to win and blew it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vols40
#1,052
#1,052
vols40 said:
This call is made more difficult by the fact it took out a player. I get the tough hit point and quite frankly miss those hits. Targeting if it's here to stay needs to be less controversial. To me and just my opinion whatever targeting is to be this play last night has to be called targeting. It was way more in the realm of protecting players than the natural instinct of a defender lowering their head when making a tackle to prevent injury to themselves.
Click to expand...
By rule the hit was legal, so there's no justification for calling targeting as the rulebook now reads.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nooga and dallasga6
#1,053
#1,053
EasternVol said:
By rule the hit was legal, so there's no justification for calling targeting as the rulebook now reads.
Click to expand...


Have to disagree. The ref threw the flag instantly. However the call wound up my contention is that with the absolute inconsistency of how the call is made the last few years that call could have absolutely been upheld.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolMack——————$
#1,054
#1,054
djwes said:
It was a should to shoulder hit - no targeting

You can launch if you do not hit head or neck.
  • Launch — a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area
  • A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground
  • Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
  • Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet
Click to expand...
This right here.
 
#1,057
#1,057
VolMack——————$ said:
And…..No recruit says…………Go SEC…..!!!
Click to expand...
Figuratively speaking, I think they have been. Look at the domination of the SEC in the NFL draft in addition to, I believe, what was a significant factor in Texas and OU moving was because Texas recruits were beginning to swing towards the SEC teams in a big way.
 
#1,059
#1,059
vols40 said:
Have to disagree. The ref threw the flag instantly. However the call wound up my contention is that with the absolute inconsistency of how the call is made the last few years that call could have absolutely been upheld.
Click to expand...
Not to mention it could’ve been called for defenseless player….Not targeting….
 
#1,060
#1,060
VolMack——————$ said:
Texas recruits went LSU way for years especially the Houston area.
Click to expand...
Oh, there were always some and LSU may have led the way, but I saw quotes over the last 6-7 years from recruits specifically mentioning the SEC as a conference and it's domination of the NFL Draft. That was a reason why I was not surprised at all when Texas and OU moved.
 
#1,062
#1,062
VolMack——————$ said:
Not to mention it could’ve been called for defenseless player….Not targeting….
Click to expand...
There is no stand alone infraction in college football for 'defenseless player'. A few people mentioned that already. A player being defenseless is a condition of targeting but that defenseless player must be hit in the head or neck for a penalty (targeting) to apply.
The force of the hit was shoulder pad to shoulder pad. There was no infraction on the play.
 
#1,063
#1,063
EasternVol said:
There is no stand alone infraction in college football for 'defenseless player'. A few people mentioned that already. A player being defenseless is a condition of targeting but that defenseless player must be hit in the head or neck for a penalty (targeting) to apply.
The force of the hit was shoulder pad to shoulder pad. There was no infraction on the play.
Click to expand...
Targeting with the crown of the helmet is totally different than hitting a defenseless player. There are all kinds of ways a player is defenseless.!
 
#1,064
#1,064
VolMack——————$ said:
Targeting with the crown of the helmet is totally different than hitting a defenseless player. There are all kinds of ways a player is defenseless.!
Click to expand...
Yes there are several ways a player can be defenseless. That is included in the rule as written. But without other conditions being met (e.g. leading with the helmet crown, targeting the head or neck) there is no penalty.
There is no penalty called 'hitting a defenseless player'. That's the point.
Read the rule. Listen to the network rules expert's explanation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland and Nooga
#1,065
#1,065
EasternVol said:
Yes there are several ways a player can be defenseless. That is included in the rule as written. But without other conditions being met (e.g. leading with the helmet crown, targeting the head or neck) there is no penalty.
There is no penalty called 'hitting a defenseless player'. That's the point.
Read the rule. Listen to the network rules expert's explanation.
Click to expand...
I’m not arguing with this BS it gets called alll the dam time…F the rule bs to justify the means….bye now !
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top