WraleighWreck
Jolly Good Fellow
- Messages
- 126
Too damning?Why isn’t the whole play shown from this angle?
spearing is still a penalty.I think it WAS targeting.
I just don’t think review was going to get us the call.
I’m not sure spearing is still a penalty… I think with the refining of the targeting rules, spearing is now encompassed within the realm of targeting. In any case, forceable contact with the crown of the helmet is targeting… this was targeting.
That they call “targeting.”spearing is still a penalty.
No. Targeting is spearing with forcible action to the head or neck area. Spearing is striking with the crown or the helmet and could be to the belly or the buttocks. Spearing is a penalty used to protect the tackler not the tackled.That they call “targeting.”
IDK if this is relevant to the criteria of the penalty but the dwag’s helmet made contact with kings face mask. You could briefly see the back of King’s helmet raise up and that was only from the dwags helmet hitting the lower portion of kings face mask. The old lever thing in action.Does it?
I don’t see that but the head is irrelevant. Forceable contact with the crown is the rule… doesn’t matter if contact is to head, back, chest, etc.
If it had snapped back, that would’ve been a clearer indicator.
I don’t think we were going to get that call, even if it had been called on the field. I’d love to see another angle, but there is a reason why we didn’t…
A. No better angle / inconclusive
B. “They” didn’t want us to see another angle
View attachment 17349
No, Effords force was not applied dead on straight. It was more glancing.While I 100% agree it was a blown call and clearly targeting, I do remember this year us being introduced to this new nuance where a player can make contact with the crown of the helmet, just as long as he doesn’t launch. Supposedly this is what kept Efford from being ejected at the end of the NCSU game. Again, I’m not sure why that has become a thing this year, but I remember it being said a lot during the Miami game and the Efford hit against NCSU.
While it’s pure conjecture at this point, I feel like that phrase would have been how the $ECheatrefs would have explained it away.
No.No. Targeting is spearing with forcible action to the head or neck area. Spearing is striking with the crown or the helmet and could be to the belly or the buttocks. Spearing is a penalty used to protect the tackler not the tackled.
it always seems like the refs side with the higher ranked teams. Especially, when they’re headed to the playoffs.Very good discussion about the officials and replays.
He talks about how the officials did take a look at the targeting play, and the tipped ball. Was told it was "clear" by the conference booth. And he talked about how he could have challenged, but that he knew he would lose the challenge being that they were on the road against opposing conference refs .
On the tipped ball / pi call, he knew right away by looking at the players, it was tipped.
See to me, if coaches even know the odds are stacked to throw a challenge, then we need to fix the bias.
meSomeone else said this, we need to get rid of "conference" refs and go completely neutral.
And I'm not even sure how you do that, because we know there is big money from tv, the conferences to influence the NCAA.
In addition to the tip issue, watching the replay one has to ask...who is pushing who(m) ?One of the announcers said that he thought it was tipped, but he didn’t follow up.
As in, how did our player receive the ball while STANDING....hmmm.Too damning?
I've said for many decades, we have to beat them by 20 to win by 1.We just need to get so good we literally flatten them beyond all recognition so we can squeak out wins every year. We know we need to beat them by at least 17 pts to have any chance of winning. Problem this year is we only beat them by 14, hence the OT debacle.