Texas A&M Football
Sponsored by

Helmet to Helmet

20,398 Views | 167 Replies | Last: 3 mo ago by AWP 97
Logos Stick
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RARay said:

allenb said:

RARay said:

Definitely targeting, but also appears that it would have changed nothing.


Ball on the 1 and 1st down


And? We weren't going to run the ball with no timeouts. The interception was thrown on third down. Nothing changes with a couple more yards.


We had 30+ seconds. We could have run the ball.
FobTies
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Head and neck area of a defenseless receiver?

***add this gif to OP***
Eliminatus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TexasRebel said:

Needed the clock. He was going downfield as best he could, but had to aim for the corner.

Aye. Watching back now and I didn't notice the far outside CB also peeling back and going in and would have made contact with KC before the goalline. Figured he might have had a shot with his momentum against the two others that were flatfooted, just plowing in.

Nah. KC made the right move for sure. Hindsight included.

I'm just trying to pick at the last few plays and ignore the rest of the disaster of the game honestly. Ugliest CFP game I can remember.....ever?
LB12Diamond
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Funny part about them NOT calling it targeting. The rules are in place for safety of the tacklers/defenders. Defender gets hurt bc of helmet to helmet. No call.
Gig ‘Em Baby!
Mathguy64
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Meh. It's the BDF. They were just doing what BDF crews always do at Kyle Field.
Onionman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Initially I thought we would get the call.

Looked like targeting to me and the defender gets freakin hurt!

If our guy was the one hurt, we definitely get the call, IMO.
LB12Diamond
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
KC did have a shot. I wish he had tried. It's was already a 1st so clock was going to stop anyway.

I'm not mad at what he did. Just wish he had tried to score bc of how it ended.
Gig ‘Em Baby!
Eliminatus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
FobTies said:



Head and neck area of a defenseless receiver?

***add this gif to OP***

Yeah, ticks every box of the defenseless player ruling. Just as bad as that no call on the late sideline hit we took in the 1st half. Which was also on a 3rd down iirc?
Angry Jonathan Zaludek
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Onionman said:

Initially I thought we would get the call.

Looked like targeting to me and the defender gets freakin hurt!

If our guy was the one hurt, we definitely get the call, IMO.


Eugene Semko in the replay booth, zero chance A&M gets the call.
Onionman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eliminatus said:

FobTies said:



Head and neck area of a defenseless receiver?

***add this gif to OP***

Yeah, ticks every box of the defenseless player ruling. Just as bad as that no call on the late sideline hit we took in the 1st half. Which was also on a 3rd down iirc?

Thanks for continuing to review and coming to the dark side.

TexasRebel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Elmer Dobkins said:

Onionman said:

Initially I thought we would get the call.

Looked like targeting to me and the defender gets freakin hurt!

If our guy was the one hurt, we definitely get the call, IMO.


Eugene Semko in the replay booth, zero chance A&M gets the call.


Did have to "get" the call.

They just have to call it correctly. This wasn't a borderline event.
Onionman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Elmer Dobkins said:

Onionman said:

Initially I thought we would get the call.

Looked like targeting to me and the defender gets freakin hurt!

If our guy was the one hurt, we definitely get the call, IMO.


Eugene Semko in the replay booth, zero chance A&M gets the call.

WTF do we have sip graduates in the booth in our games???
Aggie_buster
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Eliminatus said:

TexasRebel said:

If we're two yards closer, he doesn't throw.

Concepcion going out at the 4 is completely fine, but man, in hindsight of course, fighting for the plane I think he had a chance. Maybe.


This. I knew once he didn't score, it was trouble. I think the hit on the punt rattled him cause he wasn't fighting for extra yardage after the catch like he did all season. I think that was on the fence for kick catch interference too.
FriendlyAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
its absolutely wild that wasn't called.
Tramp96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FobTies said:



Head and neck area of a defenseless receiver?

***add this gif to OP***


That by definition is NOT targeting. The defender was standing straight up. They will never call targeting in that situation. Never. Sorry.
zephyr88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This was worse than the 2013 horse collar
Onionman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Elmer Dobkins said:

Onionman said:

Initially I thought we would get the call.

Looked like targeting to me and the defender gets freakin hurt!

If our guy was the one hurt, we definitely get the call, IMO.


Eugene Semko in the replay booth, zero chance A&M gets the call.

Wasn't he the one when Cougar high clearly had a first down against sips and could win the game and he called it not a 1st down?
TexasRebel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Aggie_buster said:

Eliminatus said:

TexasRebel said:

If we're two yards closer, he doesn't throw.

Concepcion going out at the 4 is completely fine, but man, in hindsight of course, fighting for the plane I think he had a chance. Maybe.


This. I knew once he didn't score, it was trouble. I think the hit on the punt rattled him cause he wasn't fighting for extra yardage after the catch like he did all season. I think that was on the fence for kick catch interference too.


That one wasn't. KCI, but targeting also. He was defenseless.

The following kick was KCI on the fair catch. …no call.
IslanderAg04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasRebel said:

If we're two yards closer, he doesn't throw.


You magically think klien would have called a run play when it made sense? You give him too much credit.
TexasRebel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Tramp96 said:

FobTies said:



Head and neck area of a defenseless receiver?

***add this gif to OP***


That by definition is NOT targeting. The defender was standing straight up. They will never call targeting in that situation. Never. Sorry.


That defender was unconscious after forcibly using the crown of the helmet upwardly against the head/neck area of a defenseless receiver.

Which part of that isn't targeting?
TexasRebel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
IslanderAg04 said:

TexasRebel said:

If we're two yards closer, he doesn't throw.


You magically think klien would have called a run play when it made sense? You give him too much credit.


No. Reed would have scrambled.
Onionman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Tramp96 said:

FobTies said:



Head and neck area of a defenseless receiver?

***add this gif to OP***


That by definition is NOT targeting. The defender was standing straight up. They will never call targeting in that situation. Never. Sorry.

BS! The hit made him stand straight up.

And I have seen much less called so your Never comment is absurd.
Onionman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Tramp96 said:

FobTies said:



Head and neck area of a defenseless receiver?

***add this gif to OP***


That by definition is NOT targeting. The defender was standing straight up. They will never call targeting in that situation. Never. Sorry.

Never....lol.

I mean this was called targeting.

Eliminatus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Onionman said:

Eliminatus said:

Fob said:


Head and neck area of a defenseless receiver?

***add this gif to OP***

Yeah, ticks every box of the defenseless player ruling. Just as bad as that no call on the late sideline hit we took in the 1st half. Which was also on a 3rd down iirc?

Thanks for continuing to review and coming to the dark side.



Zero problems calling out my own BS and mistakes. I am but human.
Onionman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I try to do the same.
Showstopper
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Tramp96 said:

FobTies said:



Head and neck area of a defenseless receiver?

***add this gif to OP***


That by definition is NOT targeting. The defender was standing straight up. They will never call targeting in that situation. Never. Sorry.
You can't see his feet; he had launched into the tackle. But thank you for the Tech Tard analysis. Now get on the road, those pizzas aren't going to deliver themselves.
LB12Diamond
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Helmet to helmet can easily be called.

Also his crown hit the temple of our RB. Which can cause the very worse concussions.
Gig ‘Em Baby!
Onionman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If that is a sip receiver that 100% gets called by Eugene Semko!
Tramp96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
He didn't leave his feet.

Whoever said it's crown to crown is on crack. It's not.

It's not targeting. Period. Don't know what else to tell you, but THAT is NOT targeting.
LB12Diamond
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It does not have to be crown to crown. So you are defecting.
Gig ‘Em Baby!
FobTies
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Tramp96 said:

FobTies said:



Head and neck area of a defenseless receiver?

***add this gif to OP***


That by definition is NOT targeting. The defender was standing straight up. They will never call targeting in that situation. Never. Sorry.


When the player to be penalized is laying unconscious on the ground, correct, unlikey to be called. If the receiver is laying on the ground unconscious, its almost a 100% certainty a flag is thrown. But neither of those scenarios is relevant to the rule, nor is "standing straight up".

The receiver's physical position and concentration made him vulnerable to injury. Just like any punt receiver looking up, while "standing straight up", is also vulnerable to injury.

We have all seen much less egregious targeting get called and be upheld after review.

TexasRebel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It doesn't have to be crown to crown.

It doesn't even have to include the crown, but it does. Straight to the head/neck area. In an upward motion, even. Against a receiver who is in the act of catching a pass.
Tramp96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LB12Diamond said:

It does not have to be crown to crown. So you are defecting.


Did you read what I actually said? I was responding to those in this thread who mentioned crown to crown.

And just because someone got hurt doesn't make it targeting. Those insisting it is aren't being honest, they are being biased. It's not targeting. Sorry. It simply isn't.
Onionman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Tramp96 said:

He didn't leave his feet.

Whoever said it's crown to crown is on crack. It's not.

It's not targeting. Period. Don't know what else to tell you, but THAT is NOT targeting.

Why do you even spend time here?

If Tech is involved in a similar play and there is a no call you will be crying your @ss off.
TexasRebel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Isn't that tech a few gifs up?
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.