Replies: 39
| visibility 1
|
Walk-On [145]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 342
Joined: 9/26/06
|
SCar friends .. We won because of
Dec 7, 2015, 3:03 PM
|
|
ACC refs ... They "wanted " us to win
|
|
|
|
110%er [6238]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7617
Joined: 11/21/99
|
That totally explains...
Dec 7, 2015, 3:19 PM
|
|
Why they through the flag after UNC recovered. So obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5093]
TigerPulse: 42%
Posts: 17074
Joined: 7/19/05
|
Re: SCar friends .. We won because of
Dec 7, 2015, 3:22 PM
|
|
I think y'all were clearly the better team and deserved to win. But I think it was pretty obvious you guys were getting the benefit of the doubt.
I think the most obvious was the no call on Scott for a clear offensive pass interference.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29036]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 36097
Joined: 8/28/00
|
LOL
Dec 7, 2015, 3:30 PM
|
|
HOnestly, I don't think this game was that poorly called, but in no way did we get the nefit of the doubt throughout. GO back and watch our pass rush and the sheer number of non-called holding penalties.
When a DB has turned the corner and the OL has his hands on both sides of him, it is holding. And it happened on dang near every passing down (hyperbole, but it was a lot) and wasn't called a single time.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29036]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 36097
Joined: 8/28/00
|
BTW
Dec 7, 2015, 3:31 PM
|
|
I agree about the non call on the offensive PI. But that is just never called. Should it be? By rule yes, but it just isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6238]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7617
Joined: 11/21/99
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [105574]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44178
Joined: 12/22/08
|
Did that balance out the several no-calls on
Dec 7, 2015, 3:30 PM
[ in reply to Re: SCar friends .. We won because of ] |
|
obvious defensive pass interference penalties in the first half, or an obvious block in the back on a punt return where UNC was set up with nice field position, or the terrible roughing the passer call on Lawson (I think it was Lawson) where he hit Williams right when the ball was thrown, or the no-calls on obvious holding on UNC's OL against Shaq?
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [32656]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14904
Joined: 6/29/11
|
Are you feeding trolls ?***
Dec 7, 2015, 3:31 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [105574]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44178
Joined: 12/22/08
|
No, just asking for her opinion***
Dec 7, 2015, 3:32 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [108390]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64974
Joined: 2/25/06
|
Go Tigers!***
Dec 7, 2015, 3:34 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24809]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42557
Joined: 7/31/10
|
You taking turns with Jork or is this an epidemic...?***
Dec 7, 2015, 3:44 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [108390]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64974
Joined: 2/25/06
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [32656]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14904
Joined: 6/29/11
|
I concur.***
Dec 7, 2015, 3:39 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [53822]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 43576
Joined: 11/17/03
|
I guess you missed the multiple targeting calls that were
Dec 7, 2015, 3:32 PM
[ in reply to Re: SCar friends .. We won because of ] |
|
not called, the bull crap roughing call on Lawson, the numerous times Lawson was held with no call, all night..........
Anyway, 13 and Oh.......two in a row...........#1.....Mushchamp!
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16629]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6482
Joined: 9/29/12
|
All seriousness here...
Dec 7, 2015, 3:33 PM
[ in reply to Re: SCar friends .. We won because of ] |
|
Did you see the blatant targeting on Watson that was not called?
Did you see the blatant hold down the field on the first UNC touchdown?
Did you see the blatant block in the back on Switzer's long return?
Did you see the blatant targeting on #24 during the onsides kick that was not called?
Did you see the blatant holding of Shaq Lawson on literally every play?
I'm sorry, but it's laughable if you think Clemson was obviously getting the benefit of the doubt with calls in that game.
smdh
|
|
|
|
|
1st Rounder [646]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1527
Joined: 6/22/00
|
Or the botched INT review when you could clearly see the
Dec 7, 2015, 3:40 PM
|
|
nose of the ball hit the ground
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1813]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2419
Joined: 9/24/07
|
I rarely see this one brought up. So crazy!
Dec 7, 2015, 4:07 PM
|
|
The ball obviously hit the ground on the reply and definitely "aided in his catch". He fell on it for goodness' sake. How the heck did they not overturn that one?!
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5093]
TigerPulse: 42%
Posts: 17074
Joined: 7/19/05
|
Re: I rarely see this one brought up. So crazy!
Dec 7, 2015, 4:10 PM
|
|
You guys can keep posting the rules but you're not understanding them.
Not to mention the defender was going in with his shoulder to Watson's shoulder and it was the crouch by Watson that led to incidental helmet to helmet.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5287]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6929
Joined: 11/5/12
|
Re: I rarely see this one brought up. So crazy!
Dec 7, 2015, 4:47 PM
|
|
hmm..sounds a lot like the play that TJ Greene got kicked out for, minus the defenseless player. The rules are simply stated...I think you're the one not understanding them.
If you lower the head and do not go in head up, and use the crown of the helmet to hit the helmet, it is targeting. The UNC player was head up initially (look at the .gif), and as he came in, he lowered the helmet and contacted with the crown on the side of Watson's helmet. Helmet hits before the shoulder does. There is no way around that. Targeting is not limited to just defenseless players. They added rules for defenseless players, but it can be a foul to ball carriers too. No where in the rules does it state targeting is limited to only defenseless players.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6662]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9535
Joined: 1/16/99
|
Re: I rarely see this one brought up. So crazy!
Dec 7, 2015, 4:53 PM
|
|
You can't discuss anything rational with a coot, why try. The most OBVIOUS MISSED call was the targeting on Brooks on the first kick. If you're following the ball you'd have to be blind NOT to see it. 13-0 and on the to 15-0. Suck it coots.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5287]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6929
Joined: 11/5/12
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4378]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 4849
Joined: 5/22/15
|
Re: I rarely see this one brought up. So crazy!
Dec 7, 2015, 5:02 PM
|
|
Can't be any clearer than that. But I'm sure that moron will still try to argue it. Why wouldn't he, he's an ignorant shamecock.
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [65]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 89
Joined: 11/1/15
|
Re: I rarely see this one brought up. So crazy!
Dec 7, 2015, 5:09 PM
|
|
Classof09 why are you even here??? To back to that hell hole fgf and never return......GO TIGERS!!
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1813]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2419
Joined: 9/24/07
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [53822]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 43576
Joined: 11/17/03
|
Kind of like the crouch Switzer went into when TJ Green
Dec 8, 2015, 7:11 PM
[ in reply to Re: I rarely see this one brought up. So crazy! ] |
|
drilled him? Or, like the shoulder Robert Smith put into the Wake guy last year. Or, the two handed touch Stephon put on Dillon last year. Or.......
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [64593]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 88998
Joined: 3/27/01
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22965]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 25005
Joined: 6/24/99
|
lol***
Dec 7, 2015, 3:45 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5287]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6929
Joined: 11/5/12
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9735]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9842
Joined: 9/16/15
|
Re: SCar friends .. We won because of
Dec 7, 2015, 3:48 PM
|
|
Hey btw I didn't notice watching live. Doesn't it look like the unc defender almost knocked himself out.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5287]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6929
Joined: 11/5/12
|
Re: SCar friends .. We won because of
Dec 7, 2015, 3:51 PM
|
|
It's probably not good for the neck to lower your head and ram into a helmet. Should have been knocked out...of the game.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5093]
TigerPulse: 42%
Posts: 17074
Joined: 7/19/05
|
Re: SCar friends .. We won because of
Dec 7, 2015, 3:52 PM
[ in reply to Re: SCar friends .. We won because of ] |
|
I actually agree with you on the first one. But the one on Watson wasn't. He was clearly a runner and no longer defenseless.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5287]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6929
Joined: 11/5/12
|
Re: SCar friends .. We won because of
Dec 7, 2015, 3:55 PM
|
|
Defenseless doesn't matter...targeting rule states if you lower the head and lead with the crown, it's targeting.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5287]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6929
Joined: 11/5/12
|
Re: SCar friends .. We won because of
Dec 7, 2015, 3:57 PM
|
|
pointed this out in another post: 1) He lowered his head before the contact 2) He lead with the crown of the helmet
http://newsok.com/article/3863261 College football: A closer look at the NCAA's targeting rules, Berry Tramel breaks down targeting and the details of the NCAA's rules on targeting.http://newsok.com/college-football-a-closer-look-at-the-ncaas-targeting-rules/article/3863261
"Rule 9-1-3: Targeting and initiating contact with the crown of the helmet. No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul."
"WHEN TARGETING OCCURS
Ninety-eight percent of target fouls occur on four types of plays:
1. Hits on receivers. College football: Ejection will put some teeth in NCAA's targeting policy
2. Roughing the passer penalties.
3. Hits to the ball carrier, either the quarterback or a runner, in one of two positions, upright or going to the ground. <--I don't think that was changed.
"HIGH INDICATORS
Risk of a targeting penalty is high with one or more of these actions:
* Strike: Leading with the helmet, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with contact at the head or neck area. “Not necessarily launching or thrusting upward, but intentionally attacking the head and neck area,” Anderson said. “You're not trying to block the pass. You're trying to get the quarterback out of the game. Your six seconds of glory are either going to cost you this game or the first half of the next game.” Check
* Crown: Lowering the head before attacking by initiating contact with the crown of the helmet. “Rather than go head up, he lowers the head,” Anderson said." Check
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5287]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6929
Joined: 11/5/12
|
Re: SCar friends .. We won because of
Dec 7, 2015, 4:05 PM
|
|
Here's the official 2015 NCAA rules: http://www.ncfafootball.com/resources/Rules/FR15.pdf
It's on page 91, stating the same thing.
Notes to Articles 9-1-3 and 9-1-4 Note 1 : “Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball
Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to: • Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make contact in the head or neck area • A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground • Leading with helmet, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with contact at the head or neck area • Lowering the head before attacking by initiating contact with the crown of the helmet
|
|
|
|
|
1st Rounder [641]
TigerPulse: 66%
Posts: 634
Joined: 3/14/04
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2112]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 3058
Joined: 6/19/10
|
Re: SCar friends .. We won because of
Dec 7, 2015, 4:01 PM
[ in reply to Re: SCar friends .. We won because of ] |
|
Targeting and Initiating Contact With the Crown of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3)
No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [53822]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 43576
Joined: 11/17/03
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [145]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 342
Joined: 9/26/06
|
They are
Dec 7, 2015, 3:49 PM
|
|
So jealous !! No congrats .. Nothing .. Crickets .. Blame refs for citadel loss .blah ha ha
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5093]
TigerPulse: 42%
Posts: 17074
Joined: 7/19/05
|
Re: They are
Dec 7, 2015, 3:53 PM
|
|
Actually I think the refs made the right call in the citadel game.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [53822]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 43576
Joined: 11/17/03
|
SO did The Citadel. Fullback up the middle. Repeat.***
Dec 8, 2015, 7:13 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 39
| visibility 1
|
|
|