'Rique's Targeting Call

[85Escape]

I'm actually not complaining about the officiating. It went both ways and was generally okay I thought. I am clearly not smart enough to understand why 'Rique's lowering of his head was targeting and the CU back's lowering of the head was 'bracing for impact.' Huh? Oh well, whatever. Next game.

 

[slugboy]

This one was a pretty easy and correct call. As others have mentioned there were other calls that seemed alot worse.

FWIW, just like many of the GT fans the Clemson fans are complaining bitterly about the officiating. In particular they feel the GT OL was holding all night long and the refs weren't calling any of them.

 

[forensicbuzz]

The Targeting rule is in place to protect the defender as well. The fact that it was dangerous for Carpenter isn’t helping your case.

The rule says crown of the helmet. He didn't use the crown of the helmet. Not sure what you're missing here. I don't have a case, I have the rules. He hit with his helmet in front of the ball carrier, striking the runner with his right shoulder. This is how you're taught to tackle. The ball carrier lowered his helmet into Carpenter's, not the other way around. No penalty by the rules and by tackle football. The refs got it wrong. PERIOD.

 

[forensicbuzz]

It was dangerous for him because he lowered and lead with his head.

NO. This is incorrect. He didn't lead with his head, he shoulder tackled the runner, as he's supposed to do.

 

[forensicbuzz]

This one was a pretty easy and correct call. As others have mentioned there were other calls that seemed alot worse.

FWIW, just like many of the GT fans the Clemson fans are complaining bitterly about the officiating. In particular they feel the GT OL was holding all night long and the refs weren't calling any of them.

Have to disagree with you. His shoulder made contact before the helmet. Not targeting. Bad call. Yes, it's a high tackle, but no, it's not targeting (in my opinion).

 

[BleedGoldNWhite21]

The rule says crown of the helmet. He didn't use the crown of the helmet. Not sure what you're missing here. I don't have a case, I have the rules. He hit with his helmet in front of the ball carrier, striking the runner with his right shoulder. This is how you're taught to tackle. The ball carrier lowered his helmet into Carpenter's, not the other way around. No penalty by the rules and by tackle football. The refs got it wrong. PERIOD.

NO. This is incorrect. He didn't lead with his head, he shoulder tackled the runner, as he's supposed to do.

Maybe yelling bad call to every poster you disagree with will eventually work.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Maybe yelling bad call to every poster you disagree with will eventually work.

Yeah, because this comment makes so much sense.

 

[Lotta Booze]

This is how you're taught to tackle.

No it is not. No coach teaches you to shoulder block someone that high.

 

[forensicbuzz]

No it is not. No coach teaches you to shoulder block someone that high.

Agreed. I commented on that later on when I saw stills. It's proper technique, just too high. It's still not targeting in my opinion. He didn't lead with the crown of his helmet, he led with his shoulder.

However, I've commented on this enough now. I think everyone knows my opinion.

 

[yeti92]

Agreed. I commented on that later on when I saw stills. It's proper technique, just too high. It's still not targeting in my opinion. He didn't lead with the crown of his helmet, he led with his shoulder.

However, I've commented on this enough now. I think everyone knows my opinion.

Did you have a hard night?

 

[augustabuzz]

No it is not. No coach teaches you to shoulder block someone that high.

He was aiming for his hip. The ball carrier dropped that much.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Did you have a hard night?

Nah. Just in a feisty mood.

 

[g0lftime]

and like they weren't? happens on every play now by all the OL's. They all grab jersey's near the shoulder pads. isn't called anymore.

 

[85Escape]

and like they weren't? happens on every play now by all the OL's. They all grab jersey's near the shoulder pads. isn't called anymore.

It's why I don't like to see us in white jersey's even though I like the look. White gloves are hard to spot on white jerseys, but stand out more against other colors. If I was a defensive back I'd try to match my gloves to the opponents jersey color every game. Every little edge counts!

 

[augustabuzz]

It's why I don't like to see us in white jersey's even though I like the look. White gloves are hard to spot on white jerseys, but stand out more against other colors. If I was a defensive back I'd try to match my gloves to the opponents jersey color every game. Every little edge counts!

I think there is a rule against that.

 

[85Escape]

I think there is a rule against that.

Huh? Really? I see opponents wearing white gloves versus us all the time! Must be a 'rule' kind of like holding is a 'rule'!

 

[bobongo]

The targeting rule:

ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1- 4-I-VI)

Copied from Augusta Jacket's post in another thread.

 

[forensicbuzz]

The targeting rule:

ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1- 4-I-VI)

Copied from Augusta Jacket's post in another thread.

Damn. I said I was done.

Look at the replay. Forcible contact was made with the shoulder into the shoulder of the runner first. The forcible contact was not initiated with the helmet. To me, it wasn't a question. Others are entitled to their opinion.

Besides, a running back is not considered a defenseless opponent, so this portion of the rule doesn't even apply. Wide receivers catching and QB's in the act of throwing are considered defenseless opponents.