The explanation is easy even if you don't like it. It was not unnecessary

Sign up, and you'll be able to customize your font size and more! Sign up

Report problem with this ad

Jan 2, 2025
11:24:22am

rcbyufan All-American

The explanation is easy even if you don't like it. It was not unnecessary

Contact because it was done using proper form while initiating the blow with multiple parts of the body (the most important being the chest of the defender), while his body was straight up. No launching, no leading with the helmet, shoulder, or forearm.

Report problem with this ad

rcbyufan

Bio page: rcbyufan
Joined: Aug 18, 2010
Last login: Jan 4, 2025
Total posts: 33,440 (1,181 FO)

Report problem with this ad

Messages

Author

Time

Gene Steratore says that it was targeting. We need to continue demanding an explanation of the ruling. If that's not

HarlemCoug Intervention Needed

Jan 2, 10:51am

Too bad, so sad. Take that, you Sun Devil punks.

Indy Coug

Jan 2, 10:52am

I got 3 letters for you S-E-C.....

Schrodizzy

Jan 2, 10:56am

The explanation is the logo on the side of 16’s helmet.

Jan 2, 10:58am

The no call when UGA targeted G Tech QB needs the same level of scrutiny.

AeroCoug

Jan 2, 10:59am

IMO, it shouldn't be.

fattycoug

Jan 2, 11:06am

The kid got hurt by a blow to the head. If it's not targeting then it should be and the rule needs to change. We should

HarlemCoug

Jan 2, 11:11am

The explanation is easy even if you don't like it. It was not unnecessary

rcbyufan

Jan 2, 11:24am

It was forceable contact. It knocked the kid out of the game. If it's not against the rules, we need to know why and

HarlemCoug

Jan 2, 11:38am

You can't determine penalty by whether or not someone is injured. Running or

fattycoug

Jan 2, 11:27am

Imagine you could completely remove the ASU player and show the Texas player

rcbyufan

Jan 2, 11:14am

Defenseless with forcible contact to head or neck. Targeting. Otherwise, yes, it was a nice tackle.

mulletino

Jan 2, 11:16am

It was a textbook tackle and exactly what you WANT all players to do. Isn't the

rcbyufan

Jan 2, 11:20am

ok that's fine, but they implemented the rule to protect defenseless players.

cwilke1

Jan 2, 11:25am

I would be surprised if you could find a single instance of a player using a

rcbyufan

Jan 2, 11:40am

I am confident we could find you at least 200 examples from last five seasons of

cwilke1

Jan 2, 11:49am

I await the first one.

rcbyufan

Jan 2, 11:53am

here is an ncaa training video from this season. Discussion of the examples

cwilke1

Jan 2, 12:17pm

I can't tell if you are punking me or not. LOL. Are you being serious here?

rcbyufan

Jan 2, 12:38pm

I am still awaiting the first one of 200 examples.

rcbyufan

Jan 2, 12:39pm

oh right because this is poker and as long as you bluff enough then you get

cwilke1

Jan 2, 12:47pm

Sorry. I'm not trying to be difficult. Neither play 3 or play 4 looked like what

rcbyufan

Jan 2, 1:53pm

how about the Big 12 championship when Az St. defender got ejected for targeting

cwilke1

Jan 2, 3:15pm

and this one is very close, and part of reason why Yormark is publicly asking

cwilke1

Jan 2, 3:24pm

So the best way for this Defender to not hit the players head would be to get

fattycoug

Jan 2, 12:17pm

Minus the head shot.

mulletino

Jan 2, 1:41pm

Agreed 100%. I think the biggest issues with targeting are leading with a body

rcbyufan

Jan 2, 2:00pm

Text book would be head up and to the side of the players head

ATX

Jan 2, 11:17am

He laid the kid out with a blow to the head.

HarlemCoug

Jan 2, 11:17am

I think Gene understands the rule better than anyone on CB. People need to stop defending the no call. It was targeting.

yapacoug

Jan 2, 11:30am

Report problem with this ad

Posting on CougarBoard

In order to post, you will need to either sign up or log in.

Report problem with this ad