Cuse Postgame

[Northeast Stinger]

It's all bowl sh*t. How does one ever see "evidence of targeting". It's a judgment call that is totally subjective. The initial explanation makes no sense on its face.

I see no path back to logic. Only more word spaghetti until the sane party throws their hands up in disgust then walks away.

You know, if we were not utterly convinced of the absolute pristine integrity of the immaculately honest Tobacco Road front office people in Charlotte, we might be tempted to speculate that this call was part of some evil pattern to stack the deck against Tech.

 

[stech81]

the dog is optional.....football and booze isn't. Get rid of the dog.

I can't do that I taught her to growl at anyone wearing a red uga shirt.

 

[stinger78]

I hate to say it but that was my feeling, too. If all I've seen called targeting this season is targeting, there is no way that one was not. The only other option is they just weren't going to approve it.

 

[LargeFO]

Good things happen when 11 gets the rock! (Yea I know he fumbled once)

 

[Randy Carson]

Last night's game was so pivotal I didn't even want to mention it beforehand. I don't want to think about where we'd be right now had we lost.
It was an incredibly crucial win. A big sigh of relief for everyone involved with the program, from Brent Key and J. Batt down to the fans.

Yeah...I honestly felt like this game posed a genuine existential threat. A true fork in the road. Lose that game and I'm not sure we recover. EVER.

As it is, the sun is peaking out from behind the clouds, birds have begun chirping, and we all feel like singing.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

The only thing I can think of is that they felt it looked more like incidental contact. He lowered his head a bit but didn't hit exactly with the crown of the helmet, but rather the "forehead" of it for lack of a better term. In my view, though, consistency required it to be called targeting, though I did think it was somewhat in a gray area. That being said, I thought we got more breaks from the refs than went the other way. On their TD that got called back, I thought surely somebody was going to get tagged for unnecessary roughness (or a late hit) in the end zone up around the helmet area, but the p.f. went against Syracuse.

The color guy on TV called it targeting as soon as he saw it. He mentioned QB in protected area, in a vulnerable position, helmet to helmet, and also, the fact that one player went low (knee area) while the other player went to the face and neck area.

A lot to sort through but what confused me was that in the past, see Gotsis being thrown out of a game, targeting was said to have nothing to do with intention, only impact. A player “launching” is obvious but when not launching all the other rules should come into play.

 

[Randy Carson]

I can't do that I taught her to growl at anyone wearing a red uga shirt.

Dog stays.

 

[Buzztheirazz]

Missing that obvious a** call in the first place was only surpassed by reviewing it, in slow motion, and still getting it wrong AF.

One would almost have to be trying to get it wrong.

Didn’t they say there was forcible contact to the head or neck but it wasn’t targeting?

 

[awbuzz]

At 24-22, I was thinking, "Oh, no...a last-minute field goal wins it for the Orange."

I want less stress next season. Seriously.

Any GT fan that doesn't admit to that thought is probably lying!!!

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Didn’t they say there was forcible contact to the head or neck but it wasn’t targeting?

Yes. The ACC review team in Charlotte said that.

 

[Buzztheirazz]

I bet you don't get happy when the McRib comes back either.

I don’t either. That thing is ****ing disgusting

 

[Dinner_Jacket]

My gosh that was CPJ kind of painful except in reverse (against us).
It felt like they could just fall forward and gain 4 yards. I nearly wore my seat out leaning and pushing trying to stop Syracuse!
I’m worn out!
Not hard now to understand how stressed out opposing teams and fans had to be facing the triple option!

 

[Ramble1885]

We did it. December football is back on the flats!

 

[bobongo]

The color guy on TV called it targeting as soon as he saw it. He mentioned QB in protected area, in a vulnerable position, helmet to helmet, and also, the fact that one player went low (knee area) while the other player went to the face and neck area.

A lot to sort through but what confused me was that in the past, see Gotsis being thrown out of a game, targeting was said to have nothing to do with intention, only impact. A player “launching” is obvious but when not launching all the other rules should come into play.

One quibble - helmet to helmet isn't necessarily targeting. It could be seen as incidental contact. It's the crown of the helmet that is important. This was close to the crown, but not squarely. I do lean toward targeting, but I don't see it as black and white. I thought it would be ruled targeting, but it was 80% - 20% in my mind. There was room for it to go the other way.

 

[awbuzz]

The only thing I can think of is that they felt it looked more like incidental contact. He lowered his head a bit but didn't hit exactly with the crown of the helmet, but rather the "forehead" of it for lack of a better term. In my view, though, consistency required it to be called targeting, though I did think it was somewhat in a gray area. That being said, I thought we got more breaks from the refs than went the other way. On their TD that got called back, I thought surely somebody was going to get tagged for unnecessary roughness (or a late hit) in the end zone up around the helmet area, but the p.f. went against Syracuse.

I agree, was the only one in my area saying let it go. He didn't appear to me to launch, lead with the crown, etc.
I took thought hit with facemask or forehead, only questionable portion being above the shoulder pads, by that King was also going down all in a split second.

 

[bobongo]

Yeah...I honestly felt like this game posed a genuine existential threat. A true fork in the road. Lose that game and I'm not sure we recover. EVER.

As it is, the sun is peaking out from behind the clouds, birds have begun chirping, and we all feel like singing.

I love that song. Describes my feeling this morning exactly.

 

[Root4GT]

That’s true, I haven’t posted in a while and I was curious to see the reaction after tonight’s game. Needless to say I was a bit surprised. I know Collins did a number on our fan base but I didnt think it was this bad. We barely beat a bad team playing a TE at QB to get to an 6-6 record and people are over the moon joyful. I honestly wish I could have that same mindset.

Just go back in your hole! You won't be missed!

 

[Northeast Stinger]

OK, I just read the NCAA targeting rule. The play in question was definitely targeting.

Hit doesn’t have to be with crown of helmet if player is in a defenseless position. Main example is a QB having thrown a pass. ANY contact in head or neck area of a vulnerable player is targeting.

Also, a player does not even have to leave his feet for it to be called a launch. Any tackle that “springs” toward face, head, or neck constitutes a launch.

 

[cpf2001]

all this game did was make me realize how torturous it must have been for opposing fan bases to watch GT vs their team in the CPJ era. My god....no wonder everyone hated him and us.

And that was without it going for 300+ yards and breaking a few 40+ yard TDs too!

 

[Buzztheirazz]

That seems to be the consensus prescription. I think the way to beat that is for King to tuck it and run - make them pay for their commitment to rush him. I'd also like to see some (real) screens and draws. That's the old-fashioned way to beat a blitz.

I posted this a couple weeks ago. Why can’t we run a traditional screen?!?!