GAME PEACH BOWL (CFP Qu): #5 Texas vs #4 ASU • 12c • ESPN

Brutus said:
The targeting too

In the day and age of targeting, that was the worst non-call I’ve ever seen
Click to expand...
I’m OBVIOUSLY on record for saying that rule is the ultimate suck, but if you’re going to have that rule, how is that not the definition of targeting: defenseless receiver getting hit helmet to helmet.
 
One team came into this game prepared -- the other team looks lost.
 
Did you see how awesome 85 caught that OT pass? Why did he catch his first pass late in the 4th?!?
 
Sark might need to tamper like a mofo for a reliable PK...
 
Thiefery said:
Sark might need to tamper like a mofo for a reliable PK...
Click to expand...
michael-scott-wink.gif
 
If this is true I’m sorry but this is a bitch ass move. Shitty calls or missed calls happen all the time. You don’t file a lawsuit over it.

Nevermind. It’s a parody account.

 
jjc2009 said:
If this is true I’m sorry but this is a bitch ass move. Shitty calls or missed calls happen all the time. You don’t file a lawsuit over it.

Click to expand...

there was a lot of missed calls..holding on scoring plays for both sides.. OL downfield that wasn't called either..

let them sue, if it's even true...

credit to the ASU coach..he was all class at the post game presser..
 
A 4th and 13 and targeting call away from losing to the team picked last in the Big 12.
 
Brutus said:
The targeting too

In the day and age of targeting, that was the worst non-call I’ve ever seen
Click to expand...
ASU had a really similar play not get called earlier in the game. As far I’m concerned, those two plays cancelled each other out. Plus only sissies ever want targeting called
 


Real. Badass. Shit. Here.
I love this mfing game.
“The better team won???”
There was no better team that day. One just had to walk off with the win.
 
jjc2009 said:
If this is true I’m sorry but this is a bitch ass move. Shitty calls or missed calls happen all the time. You don’t file a lawsuit over it.

Nevermind. It’s a parody account.

Click to expand...


It wasn't targetting
 
stakesarehigh said:
It wasn't targetting
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not, but you got have some cringy feelings as an Ohio State fans seeing that call considering it was much worse than some of the targeting calls they have gotten in important games over the years.

Actually, so was the one earlier on Arizona State. Question on that one. Had they called targeting, does the int still count? Hit looked to be after the pick and it wasn't the hit that jarred the ball loose but I've seen college refs do wacky shit before
 
ELTEXAN said:
I’m OBVIOUSLY on record for saying that rule is the ultimate suck, but if you’re going to have that rule, how is that not the definition of targeting: defenseless receiver getting hit helmet to helmet.
Click to expand...

We have been told over and over again it doesn't even matter if the helmet is used on a defenseless player. ANY contact to the head or neck area is targeting. There was helmet to helmet contact, contact was to the head and neck area, AND he was considered defenseless.

This is the biggest problem I have with the dumb rule. The spirit of it is correct but the refs have no fucking clue on how to call it. It is just whatever they feel like at the moment
 
fishinabarrel said:
Maybe, maybe not, but you got have some cringy feelings as an Ohio State fans seeing that call considering it was much worse than some of the targeting calls they have gotten in important games over the years.

Actually, so was the one earlier on Arizona State. Question on that one. Had they called targeting, does the int still count? Hit looked to be after the pick and it wasn't the hit that jarred the ball loose but I've seen college refs do wacky shit before
Click to expand...

The "targetting" on Texas was absolutely nothing compared to what the hit on Harrison was.

They need to do away with the rule altogether it is not applied with any kind of consistency
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top