Recruiting Forum Football Talk VI

[Enki_Amenra]

I remember losing the Peach Bowl to an unranked Clemson team in 2004 and losing that same bowl game to Maryland the year before or after. To me, that signaled our official downfall. Hopefully, with this Orange Bowl win, it signals our rise back up to the top.

We beat 3 out of the last 4 national champions…LSU, Bama, and Clemson. Never would’ve thought that would happen in year two.

The way things had gone before Heupel, I had no faith we could beat 3 of 4 former champs in a decade.

 

[LadyVolette]

It made me think back to the Peach Bowl against them. That was just a 13 pt loss, but it was pretty embarrassing at the time as #6 vs an unranked.

Though looking back, Clemson had upset #3 FSU the month before, before thrashing Duke and USCjr. Guess something clicked for them, but it was a crappy loss. Didn't even know who Clemson was or where they were located back then. They were absolute nobodies across college sports.

I always think it’s weird how UT and FSU seem to either do well at the same time or bomb at the same time.. weird story but my boss when I lived (in Louisiana)was an FSU alumnus and I went to UTK obviously and we had very similar stories and timelines lol

 

[Orange.]

 

[LadyVolette]

Shoulder to shoulder was the primary contact.

Not going to argue with my compadre Vol fans, love all y’all.. but it sure looked and sounded helmet to helmet with a thwack then a splat in the ground

 

[UTMVol76]

Not going to argue with my compadre Vol fans, love all y’all.. but it sure looked and sounded helmet to helmet with a thwack then a splat in the ground

Watch the slow motion version.

 

[Orangeredblooded]

Zed's dead baby

Did he still approve his message after the game? Almost wants me to read Twitter to see the slam.

 

[OrangenSC]

Shoulder to shoulder was the primary contact.

Primary contact is irrelevant for targeting to be called. It's not in the rules.

For a defenseless player, which he was by definition, all that's needed is forcible, not primary, contact above the shoulders.

Was the contact to the head forcible? Thats a fair debate.

Bottom line to me is i dont think they wanted to disqualify a player from such a huge game. Or maybe they just didn't see the angle I've seen that seems to show forcible contact to the head.

This link provides a really good explanation, at least as the SEC calls it.

Targeting: College football's hard-to-define penalty.

 

[LadyVolette]

Watch the slow motion version.

hmm were would one find this? Watching it live it sure looked and sounded helmet to helmet (not that it was even our game lol)

 

[BigSteve09]

Good stuff. But it's not just adding transfers. It's adding the right ones. Iirc, Michigan St made headlines for adding a ton of transfers, but it didn't work out for them.

it did one year, then not the next

 

[jave36]

Primary contact is irrelevant for targeting to be called. It's not in the rules.

For a defenseless player, which he was by definition, all that's needed is forcible, not primary, contact above the shoulders.

Was the contact to the head forcible? Thats a fair debate.

Bottom line to me is i dont think they wanted to disqualify a player from such a huge game. Or maybe they just didn't see the angle I've seen that seems to show forcible contact to the head.

This link provides a really good explanation, at least as the SEC calls it.

Targeting: College football's hard-to-define penalty.

I've heard the on air rules experts say many times that primary contact is what they're looking at.

 

[Glitch]

Tell ‘‘em all to STFU and be patient. Everyone deserves time off.

Time off! I need the Orange Bowl replay!

 

[BigSteve09]

RIP Gangsta Boo

Memphis, TN legend

 

[Scvol7906]

Time off! I need the Orange Bowl replay!
View attachment 528479

It comes on SEC Network at 8 est

 

[Glitch]

Damn, talk about southern hospitality!! Recruiting CO named Destiny?!?! What could go wrong there?

Meanwhile, at an LSU recruiting event....

"All right fellas! Now coming to the main stage....give it up for... Destiny!"

 

[VOL608]

RIP Gangsta Boo

Memphis, TN legend

Southern gangster rap Three Six Mafia will always be one of my favorites and I’m not really a rap person.

 

[Enki_Amenra]

RIP Gangsta Boo

Memphis, TN legend

Queen of Memphis

 

[Nash_Vol97]

Welp. In the end the Burrow or Fields decision didn’t matter because my team laid an absolute stinker today. Oh well, made it to the championship at least.

 

[GUNTERSVOL]

I think so too. People are focusing on the "crown of the helmet" part of the infraction, but there's more to it than that.

Well, the following screenshot will eliminate him launching, crouch with upward thrust, or initiating contact with the crown of the helmet since his head is clearly in front of the facemask and it is his earhole, not the crown. That leaves the following of the required indicators...

Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area.

Did he lead with contact to the head or the shoulder/arm area where the ball was and then with additional contact by their heads.

But above all the wording of the rule is...

“Targeting” means that a player takes 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. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:



Another view showing the defenders trajectory which I think does not support targeting due to attacking the ball not the head and neck area.



So should replay have decided there was a required indicator since the initial contact was on the shoulder pads? Not a no-brainer.

 

[Volnut]

“I like my burger medium rare with everything on it.”View attachment 528376

You win post of the day

 

[Orange_Crush]

Primary contact is irrelevant for targeting to be called. It's not in the rules.

For a defenseless player, which he was by definition, all that's needed is forcible, not primary, contact above the shoulders.

Was the contact to the head forcible? Thats a fair debate.

Bottom line to me is i dont think they wanted to disqualify a player from such a huge game. Or maybe they just didn't see the angle I've seen that seems to show forcible contact to the head.

This link provides a really good explanation, at least as the SEC calls it.

Targeting: College football's hard-to-define penalty.

WTH is "primary contact"? If you guys are using that as a synonym for "forcible contact" then you are incorrect. It''s in the rules.

College football targeting, explained: How controversial rule works, from penalty yardage to ejections.

ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder.

If you guys are using "primary contact" in its literal form, it's still in the rule:

• Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area

Most appropriately of note to this conversation, the call is "targeting", meaning that the forcible contact is deemed to be intentional--i.e. aiming, i.e. targeting.

Note 1: "Targeting" means that a player takes 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.

As mentioned already, the UGA defender literally turned his head/face/crown away from the receiver trying to PREVENT helmet to helmet contact. The play was the exact opposite of targeting. It was... attempted preventing.

 

[all_volz]

I read somewhere Kirby was getting a sex change operation.

Guess he wants to be one of those "NEW" women, the kind with breast and a penis.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Guess he wants to be one of those "NEW" women, the kind with breast and a penis.

 

[Volosaurus rex]

Primary contact is irrelevant for targeting to be called. It's not in the rules.

For a defenseless player, which he was by definition, all that's needed is forcible, not primary, contact above the shoulders.

Was the contact to the head forcible? Thats a fair debate.

Bottom line to me is i dont think they wanted to disqualify a player from such a huge game. Or maybe they just didn't see the angle I've seen that seems to show forcible contact to the head.

This link provides a really good explanation, at least as the SEC calls it.

Targeting: College football's hard-to-define penalty.

As this article indicates, the subjectivity of its interpretation makes targeting calls a progressively muddy process. Originally, you could tell rather clearly and easily when it occurred. Was there helmet-to-helmet contact and did the defender "launch" or, in other words, did he deliberately leave his feet to make contact? If so, targeting was called.

To me personally, the emphasis on the crown of the helmet per se should not be a major criteria. And, above all else, they have got to eliminate these targeting calls where the quarterback begins his slide way too late and the defender, who was in position to hit center mass, has no way of avoiding contact with the quarterback's helmet.

 

[clt_tiger]

Time off! I need the Orange Bowl replay!
View attachment 528479

That’s like people that make a New Year’s resolution to stay off Volnation.

 

[all_volz]

He’s been perfectly fine except for being tired. Appointment is Tuesday so hoping we can get some answers. TY for asking!

Praying for you and your husband