Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Officiating Was Terrible
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="BCJacket" data-source="post: 827025" data-attributes="member: 2332"><p>FWIW, I agree. However, the way targeting has been enforced. I've seen it go both ways on plays like either of those. 'Riq's head was lowered (because the blocker shoved him) and there was helmet to helmet contact. That's called targeting more often than not (BS IMHO). The UNC defender absolutely appeared to launch and lead with his helmet. But, to be fair, he went for the upper body, not the head. That is usually called for targeting. But, I'd rather neither of those be called targeting than both. (Or worse, which I'd have expected from those officials, Riq get ejected and UNC get off free.) They were both good hard 'football plays'. </p><p></p><p>The rule was invented to prevent the kind of intentional head-hunting Saints-bountygate kill-the-QB spearings that you used to see. Not to prevent good hard tackles with incidental helmet bumps, which is how it's being enforced too often.</p><p></p><p>'They' really need to figure a way to make that rule more objective or consistent. I'm still salty about Gotsis getting ejected against UNC in 2015. That was a <em>perfect </em>form tackle and the QB lowered his head and bumped helmets. To me, intent or the appearance of intent should be part of the equation. Neither of those hits last night looked like an intentional target. Just a defender making a hard hit in the process of the play.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BCJacket, post: 827025, member: 2332"] FWIW, I agree. However, the way targeting has been enforced. I've seen it go both ways on plays like either of those. 'Riq's head was lowered (because the blocker shoved him) and there was helmet to helmet contact. That's called targeting more often than not (BS IMHO). The UNC defender absolutely appeared to launch and lead with his helmet. But, to be fair, he went for the upper body, not the head. That is usually called for targeting. But, I'd rather neither of those be called targeting than both. (Or worse, which I'd have expected from those officials, Riq get ejected and UNC get off free.) They were both good hard 'football plays'. The rule was invented to prevent the kind of intentional head-hunting Saints-bountygate kill-the-QB spearings that you used to see. Not to prevent good hard tackles with incidental helmet bumps, which is how it's being enforced too often. 'They' really need to figure a way to make that rule more objective or consistent. I'm still salty about Gotsis getting ejected against UNC in 2015. That was a [I]perfect [/I]form tackle and the QB lowered his head and bumped helmets. To me, intent or the appearance of intent should be part of the equation. Neither of those hits last night looked like an intentional target. Just a defender making a hard hit in the process of the play. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What's the good word?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Officiating Was Terrible
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top