Was that targeting by the TX DBack?
- Thread starter uihawk82
- Start date
I have seen way less called targeting. That was a blue blood call.
They sent that review into Bristol.
If that isn’t targeting, wtf is targeting?
The kid was hit in the head and knocked out. Had to be carried off the field. Defenseless when hit.
Not targeting. What a joke
Not targeting. What a joke
Yes. Helmet to Helmet. Defenseless receiver. That would have been called targeting in any other moment of the game but not with a minute left.
No clue. The kid got knocked out but apparently the ref thought he was asking for it.
And not against the SEC. 🙄
gutless call by the refs- clearly targeting
Absolutely should have been called
That, to me, was the very definition of targeting.
I dont like it when the player lowers his head and gets hit. The defender cant control that, granted a great form tackle would have been around the waist and legs
Yes. Helmet to Helmet. Defenseless receiver. The review both is a joke…
Would only be targeting if done to Texas receiver,
Sincerely,
ESPN an SEC subsidiary.
Sincerely,
ESPN an SEC subsidiary.
Typical Texas call.
It was textbook targeting.
Because they didn’t want to decide the game on a penalty like that with a game of this magnitude. It’s wrong.
It was wrong not to call it. So penalties are only penalties depending on the time and situation?
If it’s a penalty, it’s a penalty. First play of the game or last play. Officials should not be deciding when to make calls and when not to.
Hit to the head on a defenseless player. Textbook targeting.
But, they were afraid to make the call.
But, they were afraid to make the call.
The receiver did not lower his head. Go back and rewatch the video. He got drilled directly in the head and was knocked out. If you don’t call that targeting, I can’t help you.
It might be the worst non call I've ever seen given the magnitude and the time it took to review with the injured player lying on the field.
There is no logical explanation for it beyond some sort of corruption...none.
There is no logical explanation for it beyond some sort of corruption...none.
some of you all understand the rule is not called "helmet to helmet" right? they apply "targeting" (the actual name of the penalty) differently based on if you are deemed a "defenseless player" (and don't get me started on how much I hate that term) but I am stating the current rule. If a "defenseless player" is hit in the head or neck area forcibly (with anything) it is a flag for targeting...meaning if that tx db hit that dude in the facemask with his shoulder it is still targeting. helmet to helmet contact is not required to still be a foul.
Last edited:
Officials were Big 10.
How could they allow the replay official anywhere near a football game again.
I’m guessing it was the same dude who blew the iowa minny game
Last edited:
Probably.the guy that doesn't know what a fair catch looks like
Anyone else makes that bang bang hit like that regardless of head position 15 flags are on the field right away. The fact that no flag was thrown before the review alone is a joke.
CB had every opportunity to go down and actually tackle him in the numbers/waist area. Chose to hit high in helmet and neck. Definitely what the rule was designed to prevent.
Lots of snowflakes in this thread. Watch it without your hate for Texas. The receiver turn around right after catching it and they were face mask to face mask. WTF else do you want a defender to do? There was no malicious intent, just 2 guys playing clean football. Stop being pussies
Targeting doesn’t require “malicious intent.” Talking about people being snowflakes and pussies when a player was lying senseless on the field is laughable
The rule was designed to prevent exactly what happened on this play.
I always thought pussies were people who talked like that on an anonymous message board..lol
If it’s a ticky tack BS holding call twenty yards across the field that has no bearing on the play……… I get it. This was a typical BIG Ref screw up. Whether it’s the 59th min or the 35th min. someone taking a shot to his grill by the helmet of the defender should garner a yellow flag. JMO.
I heard a further explanation on this. The head ref said that "had the receiver's head popped off and been rolling around on the turf, targeting would have definitely been called."
I hope that clarifies things for everyone.
I hope that clarifies things for everyone.
