Targeting, without a doubt? Jimbo thinks so.

[awbuzz]

Too subjective for sure. The "replay crew" should be able to over ride those those aren't blatant and obvious mal intent. The tossing of a player due to the fact that the person receiving the blow is moving is ridiculous.

 

[awbuzz]

@Bennett you are correct regarding the "technicl" side. However, like Congress, some rules (laws) are passed and have repercussions that there not intended.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Rule sux and needs to go. Period.

Oh yeah...Dumbo Fisher is a p***y and I hope targeting gets called on them every game the rest of the season.

 

[Fatmike91]

Did anyone ask jibmo about all the missed holding calls?

/

 

[jacketup]

When will people understand that when UNC is involved it's not subjective? The call always goes their way. Basketball, football, recruiting, academic progress...choose the subject. Very objective--always in UNC's favor. It's been that way for so many years, I pulled for the Russians when Dean Smith was coaching the Olympic team.

 

[stech81]

If he thought we were targeting, he is going to want Clemson charged with murder.

Rattling a QB's cage is part of the game.

I agree

 

[GlennW]

Did anyone ask jibmo about all the missed holding calls?

/

+++++1

 

[Frenchise]

Can someone get a vine? Was EG throwing during the hit? If not, that's the difference.

 

[GlennW]

Too subjective for sure. The "replay crew" should be able to over ride those those aren't blatant and obvious mal intent. The tossing of a player due to the fact that the person receiving the blow is moving is ridiculous.

Like I said, in the Pitt-Syracuse Game, Targeting was called for a tackle almost identical to that of Adam's, but it was OVERTURNED and ruled a legal sack; Face Mask-to-Face Mask. This type of inconsistency cost US the UNC game and possibly FSU our game if you say that Adam did the same thing again and it wasn't called.

Bottom line is that I think there has to be some leeway, especially when dealing with a mobile QB, and when looking at the fact some players duck, which makes it impossible for defenders to avoid having the helmets to touch if they make a text-book wrapping tackle.

 

[JacketFromUGA]

Can someone get a vine? Was EG throwing during the hit? If not, that's the difference.

Here's the Hit:


Here's the UNC Hit:

 

[augustabuzz]

You may not agree with targeting called on Gotsis but by the definition of the rule it was def targeting against UNC. The hit on Golson prolly should have been targeting too but we got lucky. Gotsis absolutely destroyed him which I didn't see at the game but noticed during the replay at home. The rule is absolute crap but if you read the rule it is exactly what he did in both plays

Facemask in the chest and wrapup is not targeting.

 

[Bennett]

Facemask in the chest and wrapup is not targeting.

With the crown of his helmet to Williams helmet. Go back and watch it. Bull**** rule but it is what it is

 

[GTRX7]

You may not agree with targeting called on Gotsis but by the definition of the rule it was def targeting against UNC. The hit on Golson prolly should have been targeting too but we got lucky. Gotsis absolutely destroyed him which I didn't see at the game but noticed during the replay at home. The rule is absolute crap but if you read the rule it is exactly what he did in both plays

Agreed, but as I said above, if you literally interpreted the rule, you could probably find "targeting" on every third play where a tackler's helmet makes contact with the ball-carrier's helmet.

 

[augustabuzz]

With the crown of his helmet to Williams helmet. Go back and watch it. Bull**** rule but it is what it is

Zero contact from Gotsis' crown of the helmet.

 

[Bennett]

Zero contact from Gotsis' crown of the helmet.

You must not know what the crown of the helmet is

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Imo, the FSU hit looked more like targeting (according to the rule, not intent) than the UNC hit. The helmets definitely collided as you can plainly see Golson's head snap back. It probably wasn't called because Gotsis put his facemask into the upperchest of Golson. The problem is one of size and position. The size of Gotis' helmet means he can't help but contact Golson's helmet when he puts his facemask into the upper chest.

 

[Bennett]

Imo, the FSU hit looked more like targeting (according to the rule, not intent) than the UNC hit. The helmets definitely collided as you can plainly see Golson's head snap back. It probably wasn't called because Gotsis put his facemask into the upperchest of Golson. The problem is one of size and position. The size of Gotis' helmet means he can't help but contact Golson's helmet when he puts his facemask into the upper chest.

I agree. If Gotsis puts his face mask in anybody's chest (unless he's on his knees) he will have helmet to helmet contact and qbs usually get the benefit if the doubt

 

[33jacket]

if UNC was targeting then FSU was. It was like the exact same hit. Exact. Both had helmet to helmet contact....but so what. He didn't lead with the helmet either time and for me he wrapped up and made a nice form tackle. At that point, helmen to helmet contact is allowed and not excessive IMO

So either UNC was not targeting and the officials reviewed the tape again. Or they simply let em play vs FSU.

Either way golston got beat the hell up that game. To be honest I thought we would have knocked him out.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Found this video on line. Heads up tackling. Interesting. The point of contact should be the tackler's chest not his helmet.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

He didn't lead with the helmet either time

What tape are you watching?