Tiger Board Logo

Donor's Den General Leaderboards TNET coins™ POTD Hall of Fame Map FAQ
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
Why so little said about helmet-to-helmet hit on Trevor ?
storage This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
Archives - Tiger Boards Archive
add New Topic
Replies: 19
| visibility 1

Why so little said about helmet-to-helmet hit on Trevor ?


Jan 9, 2019, 4:25 PM

After all the vicious head shots on Deshaun two years ago, i thought that the officials would do more to eliminate these Bama intimidation tactics this time around.

Why did the let that one pass?

The booth crew showed it again and mentioned it very briefly ... but then nothing.

And it was absolutely obvious.

Just a case of no harm, no foul? That stinks!

Time to either get some consistency in this rule or get rid of it.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

It can be an offensive foul too. Both were leading with


Jan 9, 2019, 4:35 PM

Their helmets i guess. Only logic i can see. pretty blatant to me.

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

No harm no foul is exactly why no one's talking about it***


Jan 9, 2019, 4:35 PM



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


It was absolutely targeting...


Jan 9, 2019, 4:38 PM

and everyone in the stands wearing orange were screaming for the call.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Sometimes good things fall apart so better things can fall together.


I thought it was offsetting. Both led with the crown.***


Jan 9, 2019, 4:53 PM



2024 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: I thought it was offsetting. Both led with the crown.***


Jan 9, 2019, 6:25 PM

The people watching with me had a discussion about that . After watching a replay , they convinced me it was incidental and unavoidable as Trevor lowered his head at the last second .

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

Re: Why so little said about helmet-to-helmet hit on Trevor ?


Jan 9, 2019, 4:57 PM

Dabo was in hurry up in that drive and didnt want to wait and see if the replay both would/wouldnt start a review.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Because it was a nothing burger. TL didn't react.


Jan 9, 2019, 5:31 PM

We don't want that crapola called on the good guys.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Because it was a nothing burger. TL didn't react.


Jan 9, 2019, 6:16 PM

Tigers lucky one wasn't called on Muse when he hit Tua on the 4th down stop. Neither one was malicious or full speed helmet rockets. Other than not calling holding on Bama O Line, it really wasnt a bad officiated game.

2024 white level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Why so little said about helmet-to-helmet hit on Trevor ?


Jan 9, 2019, 6:27 PM

Get rid of it. IMO it is the worst rule recently added to college football. Half of the time the refs on the field miss the call or they call it incorrectly. You would think the guys in the replay review booth could get the call right 90% of the time. But they are just as bad and just as inconsistent as the refs on field. They missed 2 obvious targeting calls Monday night.

And I am not in favor of a rule that could end up costing a seniors his last play in competition football. They should amend punishment for targeting in bowl games. Don’t let a targeting call be a guys last play of his college career. Most of these guys don’t go on to the NFL.

Another problem with this rule relates to gambling. With so much money being bet on games refs can be pressured or paid to affect a point spread or influence the outcome of a game. Targeting is one of those calls I have seen called incorrectly to many times for it to be coincidental. PI is another penalty to often missed or incorrectly called. Maybe they have changed the rules. I always thought riding the receivers back , holding the receivers jersey, holding his arm or facing guarding a receiver were PI penalties. I guess it depends on the team and the HC as to who gets the breaks!!

Bama and Clemson played 8 quarters of football against in 2017 and 2018. With Clemson’s awesome pass rush, how many times did the refs call holing against the Bama? I think it was 2 or 3 times maybe. I know they did not call any this past Monday night. I saw one on our DE’s actually tackled at the line of scrimmage in front of the officials. Several times I saw hands to the face and hands outside of what is legal use of the hands by the Oline against the best 4 Defensive lineman in college football. And not 1 time do I remember holding being called. It’s pathetic to have officials that incompetent or that dishonest.

This game should be reviewed frame by frame by whoever is responsible for the officials. Then review other games to see if there are tendencies and trends of missed calls. Then see how it affected the outcome of that game. Then decide whether those officials need to be investigated.

Congrats to the NEW King of the Hill; Clemson Tigers!! 2016 National Champions, 2018 National Champions! Clemson 44 - Bama 16!


Message was edited by: wueagle86®


2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Targeting I and Targeting II


Jan 9, 2019, 6:34 PM

wueagle86® I think the rule is a good one personally; but I don't agree with the ejection piece. I think if it's blatant or particularly violent it should be a Targeting I - which would be exactly what the rule is now!

Targeting II - you get the penalty yards but not the ejection. This should be adopted b/c often the offensive player lowers his target area. The defender wasn't aiming for it; but still should be penalized b/c they did not keep their heads up. Or if it's nothing that would cause a concussion. . . don't call it! The ejection piece on a player who positioned himself to hit the midsection is just wrong and needs to be changed.

2024 purple level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Targeting I and Targeting II


Jan 9, 2019, 6:43 PM

If they would make some changes regarding ejecting the player I would be ok with parts of the rule. I know it’s neefed to protect players but as it is currently called and enforced, I don’t like it. I saw to seniors ejected from bowl games in the first half which ended their college career. They were not NFL prospects so their competitive football careers ended on a targeting call. That sucks!

But I respect your opinions and your post.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


To be fair, Muse got away with a helmet-to-helmet on that 4th down


Jan 9, 2019, 6:28 PM

stop.

But we won.

SO WHO CARES!?!?!!!


Message was edited by: ATL PAW MAN®


2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg2016_nascar_champ.gif flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


TL is 1 inch shorter because of that play.


Jan 9, 2019, 6:34 PM

I agree with you...but Muse got away with one...the refs overall did a great job because they let the boys play the game without mucking it up with yellow flags. Both teams got away with stuff and from what I could tell it was about 50-50. In the end, the refs didn't change the game.

badge-donor-15yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


That one play is a text book


Jan 9, 2019, 7:12 PM

Study in why the rule, as currently written, is so wrong and overly punitive. I'm glad it was 'ignored', although at the moment, I was '###', until I saw the replay. Let's face it, why is the offensive player less obligated to keep his head up more than the defender? Had Trevor not dropped his head, there's no discussion.

Yet, more than anything, aside from being 'clumsy' for both players, it would be quite a stretch to suggest intent. It was a good 'no call', IMO.

2024 orange level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: That one play is a text book


Jan 9, 2019, 7:41 PM

The NFL Refs called it once this year on RB Ezekiel Elliott of Dallas because he initiated the helmet to helmet on a DB. The NFL penalizes 15 yards but does not eject a player. They have also said incidental contact helmet to helmet will not be called.

2024 white level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Why so little said about helmet-to-helmet hit on Trevor ?


Jan 9, 2019, 7:37 PM

There were numerous posts about that no-call. They posted on t-net during the game, so you had to be on t-net at the time, or maybe do searches. Plenty was said about it. I made at least 2 posts about it myself, and I'm just one fan.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Why so little said about helmet-to-helmet hit on Trevor ?


Jan 9, 2019, 7:39 PM

I forgot to mention that I did not hear the announcers discuss it, probably because I was mad as **(^*&, so I falsely accused the ESPN of ignoring the no-call. My bad, and I was wrong about that. My apologies to the ESPN team. They're okay.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I thought it was targeting at first


Jan 9, 2019, 7:53 PM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

It was obvious that these refs were told to keep their flags to a minimum


Jan 9, 2019, 10:02 PM

There were a lot of holds, PI’s, etc that weren’t called. I just kept saying “as long as u don’t call it on us I’m good with it.” They pretty kept that promise. If it wasn’t blatant they weren’t going to call it.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Replies: 19
| visibility 1
Archives - Tiger Boards Archive
add New Topic