All tackles lead with the head

Wait. The tackler is leading with his head.
Why did they give Stanford a turnover to help secure the game? Why didn’t ND get 15 yards and a fresh set of downs? Why wasn’t this player ejected?

917561EB-8DCE-4403-8CAC-497F36E239D0.jpegLMAO. THIS RULE IS TRASH AND YOU MAKING EXCUSES FOR IT IS LAUGHABLE.
 
DERP

times a lot.

I don't care, listen to Mike Patton stuff.
 
ELTEXAN said:
Wait. The tackler is leading with his head.
Why did they give Stanford a turnover to help secure the game? Why didn’t ND get 15 yards and a fresh set of downs? Why wasn’t this player ejected?

View attachment 88443LMAO. THIS RULE IS TRASH AND YOU MAKING EXCUSES FOR IT IS LAUGHABLE.
Click to expand...


Is there helmet to helmet there?
Is the ND player defenseless?

You have a mental disorder.
 
Red_Alert said:
Is there helmet to helmet there?
Is the ND player defenseless?

You have a mental disorder.
Click to expand...
Lmao. That’s my entire point, dunce. The rule does not need helmet to helmet or defenselessness. That’s the whole point.
He did the exact thing that supposedly according to y’all and the rule is illegal
 
this wasn’t called today
1665888611126.jpeg
 
ralphiewvu said:
this wasn’t called today
View attachment 88444
Click to expand...
That doesn’t show anything.
Get a better pic.

I see a guy making a standard tackle at the height one wants someone to make a tackle. Tummy level.

Y’all want a guy to stay high and keep his head up. Which is the exact thing you don’t want: going at head level.

THIS RULE IS FUCKING STUPID ON ITS FACE
 
ELTEXAN said:
That doesn’t show anything.
Get a better pic.

I see a guy making a standard tackle at the height one wants someone to make a tackle. Tummy level.

Y’all want a guy to stay high and keep his head up. Which is the exact thing you don’t want: going at head level.

THIS RULE IS FUCKING STUPID ON ITS FACE
Click to expand...
canadian omg GIF by CBC
 
ralphiewvu said:
canadian omg GIF by CBC
Click to expand...
The tackler is horizontal. The head is first. The crown is exposed toward the runner.

This is textbook what the rule admonishes and the thing y’all always say should not be done.

So why wasn’t this penalized? Because reason? Because the runner didn’t happen to duck lower at the impact time?

Do you understand?

The tackler did the EXACT ACTIONS that y’all call out per this rule as “dangerous”

And yet it was a game winning play instead of a targeting call.

THE EXACT SAME ACTION THAT IS RULED TARGETING IN EVERY INSTANCE THE FLAG IS THROWN.
 
ELTEXAN said:
Lmao. That’s my entire point, dunce. The rule does not need helmet to helmet or defenselessness. That’s the whole point.
He did the exact thing that supposedly according to y’all and the rule is illegal
Click to expand...

Yes it does.

There are requirements to meet "targeting".
 
Red_Alert said:
Yes it does.

There are requirements to meet "targeting".
Click to expand...
Incorrect. And you know it, dunce.
Targeting has been called on an open field sack when the tackler hit the QB’s tummy with his helmet. It’s literally in this thread
 
ELTEXAN said:
The tackler is horizontal. The head is first. The crown is exposed toward the runner.

This is textbook what the rule admonishes and the thing y’all always say should not be done.

So why wasn’t this penalized? Because reason? Because the runner didn’t happen to duck lower at the impact time?

Do you understand?

The tackler did the EXACT ACTIONS that y’all call out per this rule as “dangerous”

And yet it was a game winning play instead of a targeting call.

THE EXACT SAME ACTION THAT IS RULED TARGETING IN EVERY INSTANCE THE FLAG IS THROWN.
Click to expand...

Because the runner's not defenseless.
 
ELTEXAN said:
The tackler is horizontal. The head is first. The crown is exposed toward the runner.

This is textbook what the rule admonishes and the thing y’all always say should not be done.

So why wasn’t this penalized? Because reason? Because the runner didn’t happen to duck lower at the impact time?

Do you understand?

The tackler did the EXACT ACTIONS that y’all call out per this rule as “dangerous”

And yet it was a game winning play instead of a targeting call.

THE EXACT SAME ACTION THAT IS RULED TARGETING IN EVERY INSTANCE THE FLAG IS THROWN.
Click to expand...
It’s head to head contact. Leading with the crown of the helmet.

I’ll be the first one to say I hate the rule. But Jesus Christ if it’s going to be called, this is text book example of what not to do.

Don’t ever say Texas never benefited from a call. (not saying you did, just don’t do it)
 
ralphiewvu said:
It’s head to head contact. Leading with the crown of the helmet.

I’ll be the first one to say I hate the rule. But Jesus Christ if it’s going to be called, this is text book example of what not to do.

Don’t ever say Texas never benefited from a call. (not saying you did, just don’t do it)
Click to expand...
I always say we benefit from calls. We’re a blue blood. That’s just the way it is.

We got payed back in 2015 @ OKST, the worst lopsided reffed game in the history of cfb.
 
Red_Alert said:
You have a mental disorder.
Click to expand...
Literally in this thread. Your ad hominem attacks with no substance don’t enhance your NON arguments
 
ELTEXAN said:
I didn’t say he was defenseless. You have a reading comprehension problem. You’re stupid. Dumb. A dunce.
Click to expand...

It's not targeting because he's NOT "defenseless".

I'd draw you a picture, but we already have one of a guy making a tackle on a runner.

You have a mental disorder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top