Replies: 30
| visibility 1
|
Commissioner [953]
TigerPulse: 53%
Posts: 1494
Joined: 6/24/17
|
BS Targeting on Skalski
Jan 14, 2020, 12:43 AM
|
|
Am I the only one that feels like it all started going downhill for us after the bogus targeting call on Skalski??? I feel like that was the turning point for LSU.....
|
|
|
|
Standout [347]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 1062
Joined: 7/1/19
|
If you don’t know the rules, don’t complain about officiating.
Jan 14, 2020, 12:45 AM
|
|
Better to not let others see what a moron you are.
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [480]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 582
Joined: 11/20/17
|
Re: BS Targeting on Skalski
Jan 14, 2020, 12:45 AM
|
|
By rule it was legit, the problem is LSU got away with one just as blatant.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2862]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2698
Joined: 10/29/03
|
Re: BS Targeting on Skalski
Jan 14, 2020, 12:45 AM
|
|
Agree that it went downhill faster after that, but it was a correct call. Needed to watch his target, not lower the crown. Not sure how you argue otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16207]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13076
Joined: 11/30/98
|
U R wrong...read the rule book.
Jan 14, 2020, 12:46 AM
|
|
It wasn't any one thing or person. LSU was better.
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10640]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9267
Joined: 12/29/06
|
Re: BS Targeting on Skalski
Jan 14, 2020, 12:47 AM
|
|
By the rules, it was targeting ..... not much argument on that one.
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [768]
TigerPulse: 73%
Posts: 1741
Joined: 1/12/19
|
Re: BS Targeting on Skalski
Jan 14, 2020, 6:06 PM
|
|
Go to the NCAA wesite on rules and look up the targeting rule and the associated utube videos showing what bad is and what is OK...then do the same with blind side blocking and see if you and the NCAA still agree....Skalski led with his shoulder...1st contact...while another was also engaged in the tackle...Higgins targeting was not at all blindside blocking...the player was looking at Higgins before he was hit and Higgins didn't put everything in the block...just made sufficient contact to keep him out of the play...watch the video..it's free..then you decide!
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [51]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 42
Joined: 1/3/20
|
Re: BS Targeting on Skalski
Jan 14, 2020, 12:47 AM
|
|
It was targeting. It doesn’t matter if it was intentional or not. I understand you’re upset, we all are, but don’t be like butthurt bucknuts.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58448]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46333
Joined: 4/23/00
|
You need to read the rule; it was clearly targeting.
Jan 14, 2020, 12:47 AM
|
|
I don't like the rule either, but the way the rule is written, it was definitely targeting. Lowered his head and made forcible contact with the crown of the helmet. That's all that is required, nothing more.
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [489]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 520
Joined: 9/27/14
|
Re: BS Targeting on Skalski
Jan 14, 2020, 12:50 AM
|
|
I hate the call but by the rule book, it is targeting because he lead with the crown of the helmet.
You always were taught to tackle with your helmet on the football. It is unfortunate that the rules are what they are.
Maybe we can have a different discussion about the rules and why some are called and other are not.
I do not believe it made a difference in the game.
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12260]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5400
Joined: 9/12/04
|
The targeting rule overall sux, but by the letter of the law
Jan 14, 2020, 12:50 AM
|
|
it was targeting. Hate it for Skalski as it was a bang/bang play (watch it in real time) and not a malicious hit with him trying to hurt a guy.
Quite frankly, those Burrow bombs to Chase kicked our teeth in. Sometimes it just ain't your night - it wasn't ours and LSU did what they had to do to win.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4820]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6169
Joined: 9/16/06
|
It was targeting
Jan 14, 2020, 12:51 AM
|
|
Unintentional and Sucks, but it was.
I hate that they miss a helmet to helmet hit on TL late in the game.
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [953]
TigerPulse: 53%
Posts: 1494
Joined: 6/24/17
|
Re: It was targeting
Jan 14, 2020, 1:00 AM
|
|
I agree that it was a correct call but Skalski was EATING up their line and getting to Burrow almost every play. I’m not saying they won because he got kicked out but You’d have to think with him in the game it could have been at least closer.
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [3]
TigerPulse: 17%
Posts: 37
Joined: 12/30/19
|
Re: BS Targeting on Skalski
Jan 14, 2020, 1:02 AM
|
|
BS Targeting on Skalski Posted: Jan 14, 2020 12:43 AM
Am I the only one that feels like it all started going downhill for us after the bogus targeting call on Skalski??? I feel like that was the turning point for LSU.....
I hate the rule, but according to the rule, it was the right call.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2861]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4312
Joined: 8/30/08
|
Re: BS Targeting on Skalski
Jan 14, 2020, 1:15 AM
|
|
It unfortunately was going downhill before that. I just wish things would have been called consistently.
Not that it would have made a difference. LSU was far superior tonight. BUT:
1. No quick review of the hand on the ground vs clock stopped immediately for the Tee catch. 2. PI call was absolutely garbage. 3. Targeting on Skalski, but 2 others were clear and missed the other way. Not to mention the defenseless receiver hit on Amari. 4. Offensive push off on AJ on the long bomb. Slight but it does not take much when you are running full speed.
Just be consistent. Not so much tonight. Not mind you that it would have made a difference.
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13360]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9886
Joined: 1/23/06
|
Re: BS Targeting on Skalski
Jan 14, 2020, 1:04 AM
|
|
It’s a bad rule.
It was a good call.
The rule should have been changed years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [110]
TigerPulse: 68%
Posts: 147
Joined: 12/22/19
|
Re: BS Targeting on Skalski
Jan 14, 2020, 5:57 AM
|
|
My issue with this bs rule is it causes rugby tackles to be flagged and eject players. Rugby tackling is actually safer because they aim for the side of the hip, make contact with shoulder, and wrap up to tackle.
But when the target lowers his silhouette, it causes head to head contact that was not intended.
This rule was ment to keep out the plays where defenders are "laying out" defensless players. Yet due to technicality it is ejecting players for hits that should be clean and allowing soke players to get layed out because the defendef kept his head up. need to at the very least remove the player ejection if the contact was incidental..
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13360]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9886
Joined: 1/23/06
|
He lead with the crown of his helmet.
Jan 14, 2020, 7:21 AM
|
|
That’s all you need to get ejected.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1712]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1982
Joined: 6/12/02
|
What game were you watching?
Jan 14, 2020, 1:05 AM
|
|
Take your bias out of it.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1660]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1827
Joined: 12/9/15
|
Re: BS Targeting on Skalski
Jan 14, 2020, 3:36 AM
|
|
Will post here too, this is the rule, make your own conclusions on "head and neck" .... was at the game so we only saw one replay angle one time.
The verbiage "attack" is initiate contact. Defenseless player is not very well described.
Here is the rule from the book: ARTICLE 5 a. The replay official shall review all targeting fouls, Rules 9-1-3 and 9-1-4. For a player to be disqualified and the Targeting foul to be enforced, all elements of a Targeting foul must be confirmed by the Instant Replay Official. There is no option for stands as a part of a Targeting review. If any element of Targeting cannot be confirmed, then the Replay Official shall overturn the targeting foul. Targeting elements include: 1. Rule 9-1-3: (a) A player takes aim at an opponent for the purposes of attacking with forcible contact with the crown of the helmet. (b) An indicator of targeting is present. 2. Rule 9-1-4: (a) A defenseless opponent (Rule 2-27-14). (b) A player takes aim at a defenseless opponent for the purposes of attacking with forcible contact to the head or neck area. (c) An indicator of targeting is present.
b. The replay official may create a targeting foul from the booth when the targeting action is clear and obvious and the foul is not called by the officials on the field. Such a review may not be initiated by a coach’s challenge.
Message was edited by: JPF16®
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [110]
TigerPulse: 68%
Posts: 147
Joined: 12/22/19
|
Re: BS Targeting on Skalski
Jan 14, 2020, 6:00 AM
|
|
We know what the rule is but when it is incidental, the rule is bs. When it isnt called on the field but found in review, the rule is bs. Penalties should NOT be reviewable if no flag was thrown.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1514]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 2317
Joined: 1/14/05
|
Re: BS Targeting on Skalski
Jan 14, 2020, 6:45 AM
[ in reply to Re: BS Targeting on Skalski ] |
|
I appreciate the reference to the rule. I was unaware of (b) which helps me understands last nights events more clearly.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1020]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1188
Joined: 1/3/19
|
It was targeting
Jan 14, 2020, 5:18 AM
|
|
Launched, lef with the crown of his helmet.
Too bad, but it didn't matter. LSU was just too good tonight.
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [110]
TigerPulse: 68%
Posts: 147
Joined: 12/22/19
|
Re: BS Targeting on Skalski
Jan 14, 2020, 5:38 AM
|
|
Hey i will protest this bs rule with you.. the fact that a player draws 15 yard penalty AND ejected from game for accidental helmet to helmet is BS
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27366]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 26233
Joined: 9/19/11
|
It was a stupid mistake. Lowered his head all the way and
Jan 14, 2020, 7:22 AM
|
|
lunged right at him.
But it was going "down hill" long before that play.
It just "sealed the deal."
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [931]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 844
Joined: 1/2/18
|
Re: BS Targeting on Skalski
Jan 14, 2020, 2:01 PM
|
|
Actually things started going down hill when LSU stormed back with 21 points in the second period. Outside of that spurt we had in the third period when we came within three points our Tigers had no chance...
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10822]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9006
Joined: 12/8/02
|
No that’s what OSU said. Almost the exact quote actually
Jan 14, 2020, 2:06 PM
|
|
You trollin’ bro?
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1237]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 945
Joined: 9/19/16
|
Re: BS Targeting on Skalski
Jan 14, 2020, 2:10 PM
|
|
It started going downhill when our DBs could not stay with their receivers and TL kept throwing high - almost seemed like he was jinxed or something.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16160]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 26454
Joined: 11/18/03
|
Textbook call***
Jan 14, 2020, 2:30 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10901]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15072
Joined: 8/6/10
|
rEaD tHe RuLeBoOk YoU mOrOn!
Jan 14, 2020, 2:32 PM
|
|
just kidding. Subjective call that could be called 0 times or 20 times per game. Complete nonsense and should not have been called.
|
|
|
|
|
MVP [508]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 893
Joined: 3/26/13
|
Re: BS Targeting on Skalski
Jan 14, 2020, 2:35 PM
|
|
Was definitely targeting and he knows better than that! Read the rule. Real question here was where was Chad Smith all night?
|
|
|
|
Replies: 30
| visibility 1
|
|
|