BALL DONT LIE
Onionman said:
I don't like the current system.
This game should eliminate tu!
And yet if A&M was in the game and lost you'd be saying the oppositeOnionman said:
I don't like the current system.
This game should eliminate tu!
I think you're right, but it did look bad in real time and even on the replay. But the thing about targeting is it's so subjective and very uneven in it's officiating. I don't like the rule. I'm glad they at least don't have to go off the field anymore.All I do is Nguyen said:
It wasnt targeting. Crown of the helmet never hit just the side. The defender used his shoulder
same dude as last week against us as well. Complete BStandy miller said:
How was that not targeting
Agmaniacmike12 said:
When will ya'll learn that side of the helmet is legal if not forcible contact on a ballcarrier. In this case, not forcible contact as hit was incidental with the QB lowering helmet. I think the whole targeting rule is a farce for the most part, but that was the right call to overturn.
Defender's shoulder made contact and not the crown of the helmet. Yet another example/reason why the rule is poorly written garbage.Onionman said:
How was that not targeting?
Ginormus Ag said:
Eat **** you ****ing cum dumpster ass **** **** face dong licking ****** ass dildo licking ***** dick **** sip **** **** ******* licking monkey **** dick dog **** ***** ass ****sticks.
annie88 said:I think you're right, but it did look bad in real time and even on the replay. But the thing about targeting is it's so subjective and very uneven in its officiating. I don't like the rule. I'm glad they at least don't have to go off the field anymore.All I do is Nguyen said:
It wasnt targeting. Crown of the helmet never hit just the side. The defender used his shoulder
All I do is Nguyen said:
It wasnt targeting. Crown of the helmet never hit just the side. The defender used his shoulder