Replies: 33
| visibility 17
|
110%er [6162]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6944
Joined: 11/30/98
|
How was hit on TL not targeting? Similar to hit by OSU
Sep 29, 2018, 10:40 PM
|
|
just now.
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14921]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12314
Joined: 3/28/06
|
I've seen it about 8 times now and I want someone to explain
Sep 29, 2018, 10:41 PM
|
|
it as well. The guy went right for his head with his shoulder. If that's not targeting, I don't know what is.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [39020]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 51623
Joined: 11/20/04
|
Shoulder to helmet contact is not targeting
Sep 29, 2018, 10:43 PM
|
|
unless the player is defenseless. A QB (or anyone) running forward with full possession is not defenseless. The only angle I've seen, he did not hit him with the crown of the helmet, therefore a no call is correct.
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14921]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12314
Joined: 3/28/06
|
Arguably he was giving himself up since he was going down on
Sep 29, 2018, 10:46 PM
|
|
the sideline, which would make him "defenseless," but they really need to re-write the rule if a hit like Stephone Anthony had on Dylan Thompson a few years ago can result in an ejection but a malicious hit aimed at a player's head does not.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [39020]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 51623
Joined: 11/20/04
|
The call on Anthony was objectively terrible.***
Sep 29, 2018, 10:54 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6162]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6944
Joined: 11/30/98
|
it doesn’t have to be with helmet. TL was stumbling and can
Sep 29, 2018, 10:49 PM
[ in reply to Shoulder to helmet contact is not targeting ] |
|
easily argue he was defenseless. OSU defender hit the PSU WR with his shoulder and got flagged - reviewed and upheld.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [39020]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 51623
Joined: 11/20/04
|
Yes, a WR still in the process of making a catch
Sep 29, 2018, 10:55 PM
|
|
and going to the ground is well established as a defenseless player. You can make an argument for the TL hit, but a no call is fine IMO.
The better argument is he stepped out three yards before he got hit.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1714]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 2040
Joined: 6/27/13
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11934]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16363
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [39020]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 51623
Joined: 11/20/04
|
That wasn't a player running forward with the ball
Sep 29, 2018, 10:56 PM
|
|
in full possession. It was a WR going to the ground still in the process of making a catch. Nowhere near the same call.
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11934]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16363
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: That wasn't a player running forward with the ball
Sep 30, 2018, 12:02 AM
|
|
He was in the air going forward and his forward progress was halted abruptly by a shoulder to the head, same as with the stumbling TL who had already gone out of bounds and was not going to make another yard if not hit (way short of the first down) ...
Both should have been targeting or else neither should.
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10972]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9432
Joined: 12/29/06
|
Targeting does not have to involve the crown of the helmet
Sep 29, 2018, 11:01 PM
[ in reply to Shoulder to helmet contact is not targeting ] |
|
Shots to the head with a shoulder, defenseless player or not is targeting.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [39020]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 51623
Joined: 11/20/04
|
The second part of that statement is definitely wrong.
Sep 29, 2018, 11:03 PM
|
|
As Dave Kattai or however you spell it just explained on the Penn State game.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1714]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 2040
Joined: 6/27/13
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5022]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 5293
Joined: 6/2/03
|
Re: Targeting does not have to involve the crown of the helmet
Sep 30, 2018, 8:24 AM
[ in reply to Targeting does not have to involve the crown of the helmet ] |
|
It's just like selling access to your private server to the Chinese is a violation of the Espionage Act even though you didn't intend to get caught.
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [56]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 76
Joined: 11/14/16
|
Re: I've seen it about 8 times now and I want someone to explain
Sep 29, 2018, 10:45 PM
[ in reply to I've seen it about 8 times now and I want someone to explain ] |
|
I think they(refs ) were looking at the rally cats. Because Trevor was hit while going down(defenseless) with forcable contact to the head...
WTH
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [56]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 76
Joined: 11/14/16
|
Re: I've seen it about 8 times now and I want someone to explain
Sep 29, 2018, 10:45 PM
[ in reply to I've seen it about 8 times now and I want someone to explain ] |
|
I think they(refs ) were looking at the rally cats. Because Trevor was hit while going down(defenseless) with forcable contact to the head...
WTH
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [56]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 76
Joined: 11/14/16
|
Re: How was hit on TL not targeting? Similar to hit by OSU
Sep 29, 2018, 10:43 PM
|
|
I was thinking the same. And then with the P.I . In the end zone. It looked a lot like what happen to Amari
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12549
Joined: 9/23/06
|
Re: How was hit on TL not targeting? Similar to hit by OSU
Sep 29, 2018, 10:48 PM
|
|
The no call for Amari was correct. Amari had his hand back creating separation, it got pinned back . The cb did not hold it or anything... good no call.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7169]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4003
Joined: 9/17/14
|
ACC refs sux.
Sep 29, 2018, 10:45 PM
|
|
.
But seriously because for whatever reason Targetting is the most inconsistantly called penalty in football today. One would think with it being a reviewable penalty it would be more consistant.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12549
Joined: 9/23/06
|
Re: How was hit on TL not targeting? Similar to hit by OSU
Sep 29, 2018, 10:46 PM
|
|
He was a runner and going forward. I hate it fro TL, but I am glad it wasn't called. The defender went low... about the only way to have hit trevor was where he got hit. It would have been a stupid call... I think that intent should have a lot to do with it. The worst is when a receiver is going down and a safety hits him about 4 ft off the ground but since the receiver was duckong/falling, its targeting.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6162]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6944
Joined: 11/30/98
|
no different than the call in OSU game. TL was tripped up
Sep 29, 2018, 10:51 PM
|
|
and going down and defenseless.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12549
Joined: 9/23/06
|
Re: no different than the call in OSU game. TL was tripped up
Sep 30, 2018, 12:36 AM
|
|
Didn't see osu game. Just commenting on ours. I think it was a good no call. There is much about that penalty I do not like.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20264]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16823
Joined: 11/28/00
|
Re: How was hit on TL not targeting? Similar to hit by OSU
Sep 30, 2018, 12:41 AM
[ in reply to Re: How was hit on TL not targeting? Similar to hit by OSU ] |
|
NO HITS TO THE TOP OF A PLAYERS HEAD SHOULD BE LEGAL under any circumstances!
Those type blows cause spinal compression and can result in paralysis. If the intent is to protect players from serious injury, THERE SHOULD BE NO DEBATE ABOUT THIS!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4036]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5409
Joined: 1/3/14
|
Re: How was hit on TL not targeting? Similar to hit by OSU
Sep 30, 2018, 12:33 AM
|
|
You can coach your players to hit the QB's head but not break the rule.
|
|
|
|
|
Trainer [30]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 31
Joined: 9/19/18
|
Re: How was hit on TL not targeting? Similar to hit by OSU
Sep 30, 2018, 3:54 AM
|
|
It was targeting. He needs to get out of bounds are slide IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [471]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 742
Joined: 11/16/08
|
Re: How was hit on TL not targeting? Similar to hit by OSU
Sep 30, 2018, 4:05 AM
|
|
Actually most people missed it because of the look of his fall but he was 'defenseless' because he was tripping forward and not in control of his momentum, not diving forward like most people think.
But it was just a a really deceptive looking play in live action for the refs to let go as a no call and unfortunately they can't review a play to ADD a flag, even if the missed flag was targeting, at least as I understand it.
But I had to run the play back 3 times or so to really see what happened, so it's not like they would have most likely even reviewed it if they could have, because it initially looked like he both intended to dive forward and also stay in bounds doing so when in actuality he tripped forward parallel to the line which kept him in bounds and gave his fall the appearance of non-defenseless player fighting for extra yardage.
It was just bad luck all around. But he probably should have just chucked it way down field out of bounds as soon as he saw it was 3 on 1 instead of trying to run for a small gain. Definitely a learning experience for a very talented young player adjusting to the next level of the game.
But yeah, no matter what anybody says (hard to admit you're wrong when you've made a post claiming it was a 'clean hit' already), it was a dirty and completely unnecessary hit. As much so as the late hit on a helmetless ET.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2425]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2472
Joined: 3/26/07
|
Re: How was hit on TL not targeting? Similar to hit by OSU
Sep 30, 2018, 5:55 AM
|
|
It was targeting if the Kentucky player was targeting on the usc player on the block on the interception, then that was targeting! Besides he was out of bounds and the least it should be a personally foul for a late hit.
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94448]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95627
Joined: 12/25/09
|
I think the ACC official review board will have...
Sep 30, 2018, 6:11 AM
|
|
an opportunity to review the hit and take measures to make sure to send a message to players who foolishly endanger others with intentional hits to the head.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16913]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9398
Joined: 11/1/14
|
If fault lies anywhere for
Sep 30, 2018, 8:09 AM
|
|
TL's injury, it's on the side judge for not whistling when he stepped out of bounds. He must have swallowed the darn thing. So much for using the whistle to protect the players.
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [120]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 196
Joined: 5/24/15
|
Re: If fault lies anywhere for
Sep 30, 2018, 8:29 AM
|
|
TL's injury, it's on the side judge for not whistling when he stepped out of bounds. He must have swallowed the darn thing. So much for using the whistle to protect the players.
^^This^^. Should have been a penalty for hitting after he stepped out of bounds.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2234]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 5888
Joined: 1/28/12
|
how was holding a receivers arm in the end zone
Sep 30, 2018, 8:22 AM
|
|
not pass intercerence
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20264]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16823
Joined: 11/28/00
|
Re: how was holding a receivers arm in the end zone
Sep 30, 2018, 8:31 AM
|
|
Look at it again and you’ll see he clearly pulled his jersey with his back hand too on the PI no-call.
But the real issue is the way Officials have SHOWN A PATTERN of clearly allowing opposing teams to headhunt Clemson Quarterbacks!
TIME FOR THE ACC TO STAND UP!!!
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6272]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7290
Joined: 9/21/03
|
Syracuse were
Sep 30, 2018, 8:46 AM
|
|
Some dirty Sumbi+ches !!
That and the one where the guy basically tried to ride our runner to the ground holding his facemask. They did call a Facemask penalty, but he should’ve been ejected. Accidentally grabbing the facemask then letting it go is one thing. Holding on and pulling and holding on so that you rip their freakin helmet off!?!? Come on!!!
If our game had been an NFL game, their would have been so many fines and ejections and people missing coming games for Syracuse. Crazy!
As tough and bada$$ as our guys are, we don’t come into a game with intentions to play dirty. It was like we showed up to a gunfight with a butter knife.
We started bringing the reciprocal heat in the 2nd half, but still we weren’t dirty.
Cant remember the names or numbers, but I think that’s how are Defensive guy got slammed into from behind by our 2 guys. Our 2 were trying to drive their guy with the ball a foot into the ground, and “wham!!” We hurt ourselves.
It was such a bizarre surreal game honestly. It was as if Karma had a vendetta against, then we won anyway. ?? ????
|
|
|
|
Replies: 33
| visibility 17
|
|
|