|
Replies: 17
| visibility 1
|
CU Guru [1277]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1850
Joined: 6/4/15
|
Targeting is ruining this sport
Sep 4, 2021, 4:24 PM
|
|
99% of ejections are not players with bad intentions. I know immediately if something is dirty…
NCAA needs to fix this bs
|
|
|
|
 |
CU Medallion [58376]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46312
Joined: 4/23/00
|
You beat me to it!***
Sep 4, 2021, 4:27 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1277]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1850
Joined: 6/4/15
|
Re: You beat me to it!***
Sep 4, 2021, 4:28 PM
|
|
Lol… just posted in your thread saying the same
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22381]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 31279
Joined: 11/30/98
|
No it's not. The inconsistent enforcement of the rule is
Sep 4, 2021, 4:28 PM
|
|
not helping, but I don't like seeing what we saw Thursday night when the Minnesota receiver was defenseless and he got knocked out in mid air with a crown of the helmet to the side of the head and the refs reviewed it and said it was a fumble only - no targeting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1277]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1850
Joined: 6/4/15
|
Re: No it's not. The inconsistent enforcement of the rule is
Sep 4, 2021, 4:29 PM
|
|
You’re 1000% wrong. It is ruining the sport no question about it
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22381]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 31279
Joined: 11/30/98
|
You're being ridiculous, of course. You may not like some
Sep 4, 2021, 4:31 PM
|
|
of the calls and no calls, but college football is hugely popular and we're all sitting around watching it and commenting on it. So, it seems to be doing just fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58376]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46312
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Because it's a rule that's impossible to enforce
Sep 4, 2021, 4:33 PM
[ in reply to No it's not. The inconsistent enforcement of the rule is ] |
|
consistently, at least as written. It's total BS nonsense. Two big, fast, athletic guys moving at a high rate of speed and twisting and ducking and dodging and colliding in a violent sport just might get hurt. The intent of the rule was to elininate intentional use of the helmet to injure; it's gone waaaaaaay beyond that, and it's time for somebody to swallow some pride, grow a pair, step up and say so and do something about this joke of a rule.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22381]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 31279
Joined: 11/30/98
|
You guys are in the minority on this. It's not perfect. It
Sep 4, 2021, 4:36 PM
|
|
needs to be altered, though I'm not sure how, but it has definitely helped improve the safety of football and enhance it's popularity. They will never eliminate the rule.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1277]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1850
Joined: 6/4/15
|
Re: You guys are in the minority on this. It's not perfect. It
Sep 4, 2021, 4:44 PM
|
|
You sound like a left wing pusssyy…
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22381]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 31279
Joined: 11/30/98
|
So, we disagree on something and your reaction is
Sep 4, 2021, 4:59 PM
|
|
this.
It is the world we live in today, I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2695]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1819
Joined: 6/30/13
|
Re: You guys are in the minority on this. It's not perfect. It
Sep 4, 2021, 5:01 PM
[ in reply to You guys are in the minority on this. It's not perfect. It ] |
|
needs to be altered, though I'm not sure how, but it has definitely helped improve the safety of football and enhance it's popularity. They will never eliminate the rule.
I think a simple fix to the rule would be to make it that a player is only ejected for multiple targeting fouls.
I'm not a big fan of the subjectivity behind the call because, like a lot of fans, I've seen more inconsistency when it comes to LEGIT targeting vs a could go either way take but they toss the player anyhow.
The penalty isnt bad in theory but it does drive me crazy with the inconsistent calls.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2663]
TigerPulse: 76%
Posts: 4303
Joined: 1/4/07
|
Re: Because it's a rule that's impossible to enforce
Sep 4, 2021, 4:52 PM
[ in reply to Because it's a rule that's impossible to enforce ] |
|
consistently, at least as written. It's total BS nonsense. Two big, fast, athletic guys moving at a high rate of speed and twisting and ducking and dodging and colliding in a violent sport just might get hurt. The intent of the rule was to elininate intentional use of the helmet to injure; it's gone waaaaaaay beyond that, and it's time for somebody to swallow some pride, grow a pair, step up and say so and do something about this joke of a rule.
consistently, at least as written. It's total BS nonsense. Two big, fast, athletic guys moving at a high rate of speed and twisting and ducking and dodging and colliding in a violent sport just might get hurt. The intent of the rule was to elininate intentional use of the helmet to injure; it's gone waaaaaaay beyond that, and it's time for somebody to swallow some pride, grow a pair, step up and say so and do something about this joke of a rule.
Look, the penn state player and Miami player went out of their way to lower their helmets. Not difficult calls.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58376]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46312
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Maybe, but it's an absurd rule because it's physically
Sep 4, 2021, 7:52 PM
|
|
impossible to lower the shoulder to tackle without lowering the head/helmet along with it. I always hear blabbering idiots say "lower the shoulder, but gotta heep the head up!" ... BWAHAHAHAHAHA ... they're just parrotting nonsense, because that's totally unnatural, counterintuitive, and only possible up to a point; if you bend far enough, you will make contact with the crown of the helmet. I'm all for a rule that protects players from injury caused by other dirty players who use their hemets as weapons, and would fully support any rule that effectively does that without penalizing, good, sound football tackles, but the current rule is not it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2663]
TigerPulse: 76%
Posts: 4303
Joined: 1/4/07
|
Re: Because it's a rule that's impossible to enforce
Sep 4, 2021, 4:52 PM
[ in reply to Because it's a rule that's impossible to enforce ] |
|
consistently, at least as written. It's total BS nonsense. Two big, fast, athletic guys moving at a high rate of speed and twisting and ducking and dodging and colliding in a violent sport just might get hurt. The intent of the rule was to elininate intentional use of the helmet to injure; it's gone waaaaaaay beyond that, and it's time for somebody to swallow some pride, grow a pair, step up and say so and do something about this joke of a rule.
consistently, at least as written. It's total BS nonsense. Two big, fast, athletic guys moving at a high rate of speed and twisting and ducking and dodging and colliding in a violent sport just might get hurt. The intent of the rule was to elininate intentional use of the helmet to injure; it's gone waaaaaaay beyond that, and it's time for somebody to swallow some pride, grow a pair, step up and say so and do something about this joke of a rule.
Look, the penn state player and Miami player went out of their way to lower their helmets. Not difficult calls.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [-99]
TigerPulse: 68%
Posts: 3740
Joined: 9/5/20
|
Just like with your ridiculous progressive takes
Sep 4, 2021, 5:07 PM
[ in reply to No it's not. The inconsistent enforcement of the rule is ] |
|
Your comment is completely out of context. No one has a problem with that carol. .
You’re pointing out an exception that everyone agrees with. That targeting is why the rule was put in. It’s all the other BS targeting calls and the inconsistency in the officiating that is in fact hurting football.
Skalski last year against Fields never should’ve been called for targeting.. Granted, he did not have his head up, but he dipped it right before he got there because he was going to nail Fields in the midsection with his shoulder and wrap up and drive him back. Had he had his head up it would’ve been a perfect old-school form tackle. The only reason they threw that flag, which came in very late, was because Fields was laying on the the ground hurt. Had he jumped up fairly quickly that flag never would’ve been thrown. The only reason Skalski’s helmet hit Fields was because Fields did something dumb that he has done as long as I’ve been watching him, which is spin to take contact in the back. That is incredibly dumb because it exposes your kidneys and your spine. But he does it all the time!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13036]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22353
Joined: 4/24/04
|
This is a weird time to rage about targeting because
Sep 4, 2021, 4:58 PM
|
|
that was 100% targeting on Bolden and also 100% unnecessary. The Bama RB was already going down (may have already been on the ground even), and there was absolutely no reason to come in that low with the helmet.
There are times i feel bad for the defender, but this isn't one of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2695]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1819
Joined: 6/30/13
|
Re: This is a weird time to rage about targeting because
Sep 4, 2021, 5:06 PM
|
|
that was 100% targeting on Bolden and also 100% unnecessary. The Bama RB was already going down (may have already been on the ground even), and there was absolutely no reason to come in that low with the helmet.
There are times i feel bad for the defender, but this isn't one of them.
I think the argument here for the Miami player is that, you don't know for sure the player is 100% going down (we've seen QBs fake slide to get extra yards and guess what...if the defenders DOESN'T respect that, they get flagged for trying to tackle a definite defenseless player who's sliding).
Personally it looked like there was more shoulder contact with minimal helmet contact than absolute targeting with the helmet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3571]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4500
Joined: 11/9/03
|
I don’t have a problem with rule. I have problem w ejection.
Sep 4, 2021, 5:06 PM
|
|
Make it a personal foul. RB can lower head to start contact but a DB/LB do same thing and it’s targeting.
Makes little sense in some regards
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 17
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
