|
Replies: 14
| visibility 1
|
All-Conference [449]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 286
Joined: 11/26/11
|
What a typical response from the Tobacco Road pumping ACC.
Nov 7, 2014, 1:46 PM
|
|
I don't care that the NCAA doesn't allow a review after the game is over. The fact of the matter is that everyone in the stadium, including the ACC official who was in the booth with the commentators, and everyone watching on television KNEW that it was a clean hit and should not have been allowed to stand as targeting. EVERYONE KNEW IT! Except for the incompetent replay official. How convenient.
So TYPICAL from a conference that has always hated Clemson and endeavored in every possible way to stifle its success! I am so sick and tired of ACC referees and the fraud of a commissioner that is John Swofford. It's because of his Tobacco Road bias that ACC refs have been able to get by with these shenanigans for years.
SOMETHING HAS GOT TO BE DONE TO STOP THIS INJUSTICE FROM CONTINUING!
|
|
|
|
 |
All-TigerNet [13359]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9885
Joined: 1/23/06
|
Re: What a typical response from the Tobacco Road pumping ACC.
Nov 7, 2014, 1:48 PM
|
|
its not the ncaa that doesnt allow it, its the ACC!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Wonder how Clemson fans would feel...
Nov 7, 2014, 1:49 PM
|
|
if it were a North Carolina player who got suspended on a questionable call, and the ACC office attempted to subvert an NCAA rule to get him reinstated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Conference [449]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 286
Joined: 11/26/11
|
That's exactly what the ACC office would do
Nov 7, 2014, 1:52 PM
|
|
if it were a North Carolina school in this situation. But let's get this straight. Upon watching the replay, it was not a questionable call. It was an obvious call. Yet the replay official still got it wrong. Again I say HOW CONVENIENT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5249]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7625
Joined: 3/5/12
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
I wouldn't call it targeting.***
Nov 7, 2014, 1:52 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
According to the letter of the rule, anyway.***
Nov 7, 2014, 1:53 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5249]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7625
Joined: 3/5/12
|
But it is in spirit?
Nov 7, 2014, 1:59 PM
|
|
It was a missed call. If it had been a UNC player, I won't say I'd have a problem with him being ejected, but I wouldn't agree with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
No, I was just saying that, the word "targeting"
Nov 7, 2014, 2:00 PM
|
|
can be used in a lot of ways. I mean I don't believe it was "targeting," as defined as an NCAA football penalty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5249]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7625
Joined: 3/5/12
|
That's all anyone has to go on
Nov 7, 2014, 2:02 PM
|
|
So as far as I can see, most people had the proper reaction in wondering why it was upheld after a review, regardless of team.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Well, I said it was my opinion that it was not targeting...
Nov 7, 2014, 2:04 PM
|
|
The replay official obviously had a different opinion. I can see where he might have thought the location of the hit might be defined as "head or neck area". The rule doesn't give specific dimensions, after all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5249]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7625
Joined: 3/5/12
|
The rule is in place to prevent a particular kind of injury
Nov 7, 2014, 2:12 PM
|
|
The receiver wasn't in danger of being hurt in that way. The rule is also there to discourage poor tackling scenarios. Smith displayed what he was supposed to do, which was lead with a shoulder and hit in the chest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
That is why the rule is in place, indeed.
Nov 7, 2014, 2:15 PM
|
|
But the rule doesn't say, and really can't say, anything about the quality of tackling technique or how the player's safety is in danger. That would make it even more subjective than it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [67617]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 115379
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: What a typical response from the Tobacco Road pumping ACC.
Nov 7, 2014, 1:50 PM
|
|
Funny there was no rule allowing CU extra year of probation but found a way to do that. Now they can't right a blatent injustice.
CU NEEDS TO RAIN A STORM OF H TILL THIS IS CHANGED. EMBARRASS ALL OF THEM and undermine everything till this carp stops
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trainer [27]
TigerPulse: 27%
Posts: 112
Joined: 10/15/12
|
Re: What a typical response from the Tobacco Road pumping ACC.
Nov 7, 2014, 3:05 PM
|
|
Right, the first move should be to get the heck out of the low life ACC if ever we have the chance, nothing but a bunch of losers and N. Carolina lovers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 14
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
