Is this targeting?

[Northeast Stinger]

Currently reviewing a targeting call in Texas & Texas AM game. Not nearly as obvious or egregious but at least taking it seriously enough to review it. No targeting.

 

[UgaBlows]

A review would have been nice. Still it 100% looked like Efford Targeted last week. I have doubts a review would have done anything. Targeting calls are so inconsistent it’s nuts to try and predict if it is/is not Targeting.

Efford hit with his face-mask, not the crown of his helmet, and he didn’t launch off of his feet

 

[Root4GT]

Efford hit with his face-mask, not the crown of his helmet, and he didn’t launch off of his feet

Sure

 

[takethepoints]

Yes.

This has been another in a series of simple answers to simple questions.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Actually, the ACC refs said that they could not confirm Efford hit with the crown and that it appeared the side of his helmet hit.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Y’all help me with my memory (the older I get the more I erase useless or unused files). Who was the DT we had from Australia a few years ago? I think he made the pros. He was a CPJ recruit.

Anyway, anyone remember the game where he pancaked a QB for a big sack? It looked like a perfectly clean play but he was ejected for targeting. He didn’t launch. He didn’t use the crown of his helmet. Or any part of his helmet. He kept his head up and didn’t even lower his shoulder. But, apparently, when he hit the QB, he was too close to the neck area. And, because it was the QB, it was considered a hit on a defenseless or vulnerable player. That call that ejected our top DL cost Tech the game.

All that is to say two things. First, it’s hard for me to find any consistency in how the rule is applied. Second, the Tech DL was ejected almost immediately and the uga player’s helmet shot was not reviewed or even discussed by the announcers.

Perhaps I’m a little OCD, but inconsistent rules bug me. Everything else in life is so uncertain and unpredictable it feels like something as simple as a game shouldn’t have so much chaos connected to it.

 

[IslandsofGaunilo]

Y’all help me with my memory (the older I get the more I erase useless or unused files). Who was the DT we had from Australia a few years ago? I think he made the pros. He was a CPJ recruit.

Anyway, anyone remember the game where he pancaked a QB for a big sack? It looked like a perfectly clean play but he was ejected for targeting. He didn’t launch. He didn’t use the crown of his helmet. Or any part of his helmet. He kept his head up and didn’t even lower his shoulder. But, apparently, when he hit the QB, he was too close to the neck area. And, because it was the QB, it was considered a hit on a defenseless or vulnerable player. That call that ejected our top DL cost Tech the game.

All that is to say two things. First, it’s hard for me to find any consistency in how the rule is applied. Second, the Tech DL was ejected almost immediately and the uga player’s helmet shot was not reviewed or even discussed by the announcers.

Perhaps I’m a little OCD, but inconsistent rules bug me. Everything else in life is so uncertain and unpredictable it feels like something as simple as a game shouldn’t have so much chaos connected to it.

Adam Gotsis in 2015 against UNC, I believe.

 

[Bogey]

Y’all help me with my memory (the older I get the more I erase useless or unused files). Who was the DT we had from Australia a few years ago? I think he made the pros. He was a CPJ recruit.

Anyway, anyone remember the game where he pancaked a QB for a big sack? It looked like a perfectly clean play but he was ejected for targeting. He didn’t launch. He didn’t use the crown of his helmet. Or any part of his helmet. He kept his head up and didn’t even lower his shoulder. But, apparently, when he hit the QB, he was too close to the neck area. And, because it was the QB, it was considered a hit on a defenseless or vulnerable player. That call that ejected our top DL cost Tech the game.

All that is to say two things. First, it’s hard for me to find any consistency in how the rule is applied. Second, the Tech DL was ejected almost immediately and the uga player’s helmet shot was not reviewed or even discussed by the announcers.

Perhaps I’m a little OCD, but inconsistent rules bug me. Everything else in life is so uncertain and unpredictable it feels like something as simple as a game shouldn’t have so much chaos connected to it.

Adam Gotsi

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Adam Gotsi

Thanks! That’s him.

 

[forensicbuzz]

So are you saying it was or wasn’t targeting?

Targeting on uga player. Textbook. Efford was not targeting.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Y’all help me with my memory (the older I get the more I erase useless or unused files). Who was the DT we had from Australia a few years ago? I think he made the pros. He was a CPJ recruit.

Anyway, anyone remember the game where he pancaked a QB for a big sack? It looked like a perfectly clean play but he was ejected for targeting. He didn’t launch. He didn’t use the crown of his helmet. Or any part of his helmet. He kept his head up and didn’t even lower his shoulder. But, apparently, when he hit the QB, he was too close to the neck area. And, because it was the QB, it was considered a hit on a defenseless or vulnerable player. That call that ejected our top DL cost Tech the game.

All that is to say two things. First, it’s hard for me to find any consistency in how the rule is applied. Second, the Tech DL was ejected almost immediately and the uga player’s helmet shot was not reviewed or even discussed by the announcers.

Perhaps I’m a little OCD, but inconsistent rules bug me. Everything else in life is so uncertain and unpredictable it feels like something as simple as a game shouldn’t have so much chaos connected to it.

Rules were different back then. That type of play is why they changed to rule to essentially spearing at the head or neck-area. Gotsis planted his facemask in the sternum, wrapped his arms, and squeezed. That‘s textbook tackling. The problem is that he was 6 inches taller and his facemask slid up into the helmet of the QB. By definition at the time, that was targeting.

 

[Bogey]

Rules were different back then. That type of play is why they changed to rule to essentially spearing at the head or neck-area. Gotsis planted his facemask in the sternum, wrapped his arms, and squeezed. That‘s textbook tackling. The problem is that he was 6 inches taller and his facemask slid up into the helmet of the QB. By definition at the time, that was targeting.

Yep, that was text book tackling back in the days. My son was taught that technique when he played and made that type tackle on a big running back in an open field. My son received a concussion, his 3rd concussion playing football. After consultation with his doctor, I did not let him play again. He was heart broken at the time but is thankful as an adult.

 

[Richland County]

I’ve looked at r/cfb and secrant this morning, there is a very universal opinion by neutral fans (even non-dwag sec fans) that the refs screwed us last night hard.

Comes with territory unfortunately. Tech has to really kick their tails if they want to win. It's always been 11 vs 13 or 14 when playing those arse hats.

 

[Richland County]

So when is the next home and home contract with them negotiated? We need to insist on ACC refs in Athens again instead of own conference refs at home.

ACC refs hate us as much as the pound scum refs do.

 

[bke1984]

Bottom line - It was intentionally overlooked to “not end a game that way with the playoffs on the line for an SEC team.”

 

[davesbrain]

Bottom line - It was intentionally overlooked to “not end a game that way with the playoffs on the line for an SEC team.”

Good point and sadly accurate.
The cesspool deserved the penalty for an undisciplined play, reflective of their undisciplined coach who spent the game violating the sideline rules

 

[iceeater1969]

Comes with territory unfortunately. Tech has to really kick their tails if they want to win. It's always been 11 vs 13 or 14 when playing those arse hats.

Screw job that mattered = 4th and goal PI call on short crossing route - gt db right with wr the side field official called pass int on gt from angle distance away that he could not see the hand fighting. The referee that was 2 yards away, called incomplete and had much better view should have over ruled. Gt should have gotton a goal line stand and 0 points for uga.


Coaching that mattered - going to the 3 2 6 softer coversge with 14 point lead gave the uga qb / wr too much room. They got in sync and gashed us. We had a bunch of injured DB and uga - with more time, isolated the replacments. Should have dialed up more 7 man line with 3 dropping in coversge.

That said I am so proud of every gt player and coach that played in that game.

The Vietnam memorial on tech green says something like - For the ones that fought in the battle, those are the ones that life is much sweeter.
On the side line during the OT Caberra said "We are watching history". Batt was right there with all of their families. In that game Gt represented what is best about Gt and football.

Kings Dad (who is as usual coaching an underdog longview team into hs playoffs) responded to me my text about game and said "they played thier asses off".

 

[stinger78]

Yes, it was a horrible non-call (the targeting). The PI and the hold were bad, too.

However, we had at least 3 chances to win that game after those all occurred.

Were those non-calls/calls consequential? Absolutely.

Did they lose us the game? Not really. We lost it by failing to attempt or complete a 2-point conversion 3-4 times.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Yes, it was a horrible non-call (the targeting). The PI and the hold were bad, too.

However, we had at least 3 chances to win that game after those all occurred.

Were those non-calls/calls consequential? Absolutely.

Did they lose us the game? Not really. We lost it by failing to attempt or complete a 2-point conversion 3-4 times.

As the physically lesser team, there are only so many arrows in the quiver. If you keep giving the more physically gifted team opportunities, they’ll eventually win. That is what happened.

It’s like walks and errors in baseball. You can’t give your opponent baserunners and extra outs and expect to win. When the umps make bad calls to extend the inning, bad things usually happen. Yes, the other team can still win, but it’s that much harder.

 

[bke1984]

Yes, it was a horrible non-call (the targeting). The PI and the hold were bad, too.

However, we had at least 3 chances to win that game after those all occurred.

Were those non-calls/calls consequential? Absolutely.

Did they lose us the game? Not really. We lost it by failing to attempt or complete a 2-point conversion 3-4 times.

I mean several of those calls extended a game that was essentially over. The PI in the end zone was on 4th down. They won’t have time to tie. The non call on targeting extended the game when we would have run the clock out. Did we have many other chances to win, sure…but how many times do you have to win a game to win a game? Thats the thing with the refs. Everything they did was simply to give georgia another chance when they were done…and they were knowingly doing it. College football used to be the most pure sport out there, but the fact at the conference politics and money works now these conferences have their refs tip the scales to their teams intentionally. It’s just bull****, but no one really cares because they all do it. So nothing will change.