Tiger Board Logo

Donor's Den General Leaderboards TNET coins™ POTD Hall of Fame Map FAQ
search
GIVE AN AWARD
Use your TNET coins™ to grant this post a special award!
W
50
Big Brain
90
Love it!
100
Cheers
100
Helpful
100
Made Me Smile
100
Great Idea!
150
Mind Blown
150
Caring
200
Flammable
200
Hear ye, hear ye
200
Bravo
250
Nom Nom Nom
250
Take My Coins
500
Ooo, Shiny!
700
Treasured Post!
1000
YOUR BALANCE
Refs gonna let Miami get away with targeting twice?
storage This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
Tiger Boards - Clemson Football
add New Topic
Replies: 12
| visibility 1200

Refs gonna let Miami get away with targeting twice?

2
Nov 9, 2024, 1:13 PM

At least they get a review

tnet-military.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: Refs gonna let Miami get away with targeting twice?

1
Nov 9, 2024, 1:14 PM

And the missed facemask on the same play. It just means less. What a conference.🤣

2025 orange level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: Refs gonna let Miami get away with targeting twice?


Nov 9, 2024, 1:14 PM

I just said the same thing, tge refs protecting Miami is passed ridiculous.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Refs gonna let Miami get away with targeting twice?


Nov 9, 2024, 1:14 PM

Still early. I suspect they get away with way more than two. Heck at least their defense is near the ball and making tackles. I’d take it.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Refs gonna let Miami get away with targeting twice?


Nov 9, 2024, 1:17 PM

Yepp

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Refs gonna let Miami get away with targeting twice?


Nov 9, 2024, 1:18 PM

i dont think they consider a RB a defensless player

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/41152488/what-targeting-ncaa-rule-college-football

tnet-military.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I thought the rule was for head protection (CTE)?


Nov 9, 2024, 1:23 PM

so a running back doesn't need head protection, makes sense.

2025 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

what the he11 do you know about football?


Re: I thought the rule was for head protection (CTE)?


Nov 9, 2024, 1:25 PM

i dont see it in the article

tnet-military.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: I thought the rule was for head protection (CTE)?

2
Nov 9, 2024, 1:29 PM [ in reply to I thought the rule was for head protection (CTE)? ]

And protecting the idiot defensive player. Twice the defensive player dropped his head and hit with the crown. Soon, it’ll be a spinal injury.

2025 orange level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: I thought the rule was for head protection (CTE)?


Nov 9, 2024, 1:37 PM

This! The rule is to protect stupid tackling as much as ball carriers.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

An even stricter targeting rule would be awful


Nov 9, 2024, 1:30 PM [ in reply to I thought the rule was for head protection (CTE)? ]

Ball carrier is not a defenseless player under the current rules.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Refs gonna let Miami get away with targeting twice?

2
Nov 9, 2024, 1:19 PM

Zero chance the ACC refs let Miami lose this game.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I didn't see the 2nd one but thought they made

1
Nov 9, 2024, 1:26 PM

the right call on the 1st one.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Replies: 12
| visibility 1200
📰 E-Mail News Alerts

TigerBoard POTD

Hill Watch...110 days!!!

by O.J.

Tiger Boards - Clemson Football
add New Topic