Is this targeting?

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
11,174
There is but the defensive player is not allowed to lead with the crown of his helmet like that. That is automatic
Long before the rule was tightened, you already had a rule against spearing. At the very LEAST that was a classic spearing tackled using the helmet as a weapon.

Strange that there was zero discussion by the announcers. Oh, wait, it was sec network.
 

wvGT11

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,354
Saw this one this morning as well. These refs owe us an apology
 

Attachments

  • IMG_7945.jpeg
    IMG_7945.jpeg
    333 KB · Views: 53

GTJackets

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
831
Location
Moncks Corner, South Carolina
The play was reviewed. The ref came on after the TV TO and said the ruling of a Georgia recovery stands. The defender put his helmet into the ball. That is legal. Tough break for GT and it turned the game.

They reviewed the play. The fumble was clear and obvious.

Come on, man. I get that you love to argue and stick to the devil's advocate "realistic" fan persona all the time and I applaud you for your commitment to it. But you correctly quote the official as saying the ruling of a Georgia recovery stands when they returned from the commercial. Never was targeting mentioned despite the fact that the officials typically announce "the previous play is under review for targeting" even if it wasn't flagged on the field and then return with an announcement about whether targeting occurred or not. And we also know that every turnover is supposed to be reviewed regardless of how obvious it may have been.

Are you now trying to say that we should assume that they reviewed for targeting even though there was never a mention of the possibility from either the officials or the commentary team because the fumble was obvious? And you still believe that this wasn't targeting because he "put his helmet into the ball"? I'm just trying to figure out if you're serious or just having fun trolling on the internet?

There were absolutely multiple opportunities for us to pull this game out. For example, the redo after PI in OT6 sure looked like they sold out to stop King and either Jamal or Singleton could have scored fairly easily on the perimeter. We still had opportunities to win even though they missed what appeared to be (to everyone I've talked to except you including Dwag fans) a completely ignored targeting that would have extended our clock killing drive for the win. We still could have won even with the missed call, but let's not pretend it didn't happen (like the refs did).
 

33jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,694
Location
Georgia
Something has to be done to correct officiating. Robots, incentives for correct calls, etc. Games are being affected more than ever before.
This is by design. Its all control. Refs now have an immediate radio in their ears under the guise of quick reviews. The reality is its all control; of outcomes, to make sure where the big money is keeps making money for that investment

Its not officiating is the worst it is. Its officiating is now more rigged than ever before.

Imagine sinking billions into something only to have a bunch of 3-4 loss SEC teams; only 3 viable big ten teams leaving the playoffs with 7 teams from less heralded conferences. Nfw. Its all control of the narrative
 

shockwaveGT

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
163
Per Chat GPT....


A reasonable estimate for ABC’s potential loss if the University of Georgia (UGA) didn't make the College Football Playoff might range between $10 million and $20 million. Here's how this is calculated:

1. Advertising Revenue Per Game:
Each College Football Playoff game generates significant ad revenue, often around $20 million to $30 million. If UGA's absence leads to a viewership drop of 10-20% (typical for losing a marquee team), ad rates and revenue could decline proportionally. This would amount to $2 million to $6 million per game for two semifinal games and the championship.


2. Additional Losses:

Merchandising and Sponsorship: Reduced fan engagement could mean lower merchandise sales and weaker sponsor activations tied to the event, potentially a $3 million to $5 million impact.

Ancillary Programming: Pre- and post-game shows, which also sell ad slots, would see lower revenues, possibly adding another $1 million to $2 million in losses.



3. Overall Impact:
Combining these, the total financial hit could be in the $10-$20 million range, depending on the extent of the viewership decline and associated revenues tied to UGA’s pa
rticipation.
 
Top