AUwent 3,778 Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 I'm actually kinda hoping FL wins because I don't want Vandy to improve much before next year...remember we have to play them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTiger 3,928 Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Florida with a sack but flagged for targeting. Play is under review. This targeting is text book and should be upheld. 15 yard penalty and player will be disqualified. Great call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURealist 2,185 Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 QB was dropping down. Man, how I hate that rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU64 10,122 Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 But the ESPN announcers "saw nothing"....nothing.... Meanwhile, Vandy with the worst QB in college football Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FHeal 4 Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 targeting yes - just didn't look intentional Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Potatooooooes!! 1,375 Posted November 7, 2015 Author Share Posted November 7, 2015 Florida might Vanderbilt this one away at this point... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maverick.AU 13,281 Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 QB was dropping down. Man, how I hate that rule. Yep, I'm pulling for Vandy but I hate the rule. Really wish it would be taken out or at very least heavily revised Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURealist 2,185 Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 targeting yes - just didn't look intentional They need to change that rule. Make the intentional 15 and ejection. Add a 10 yd penalty for unintentional with no ejection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,136 Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Damn lucky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU64 10,122 Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Florida wins the SEC east? Wow.....that game in Atlanta is likely to be really ugly no matter which SEC west team is there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURealist 2,185 Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 One last thought: Coach McElwain looks like a beaver. Just sayin'... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTiger 3,928 Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 targeting yes - just didn't look intentional They need to change that rule. Make the intentional 15 and ejection. Add a 10 yd penalty for unintentional with no ejection. That wouldn't at all be realistic. You are then asking officials to read a players mind in regards to intent. That will never work and its never going to be that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Potatooooooes!! 1,375 Posted November 7, 2015 Author Share Posted November 7, 2015 targeting yes - just didn't look intentional They need to change that rule. Make the intentional 15 and ejection. Add a 10 yd penalty for unintentional with no ejection. To me, targeting is intentional by nature. The rule should reflect that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCTiger2011 1,297 Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Oh, if the SEC West could form its own league. The SEC East would struggle in The SunBelt these past few years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FHeal 4 Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 targeting yes - just didn't look intentional They need to change that rule. Make the intentional 15 and ejection. Add a 10 yd penalty for unintentional with no ejection. That wouldn't at all be realistic. You are then asking officials to read a players mind in regards to intent. That will never work and its never going to be that way. intent as in a face-mask type call Where it can be incidental (yes- better word) or not. In this case defender was as much slamming into the QB's shoulder and chest as anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURealist 2,185 Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 targeting yes - just didn't look intentional They need to change that rule. Make the intentional 15 and ejection. Add a 10 yd penalty for unintentional with no ejection. That wouldn't at all be realistic. You are then asking officials to read a players mind in regards to intent. That will never work and its never going to be that way. intent as in a face-mask type call Where it can be incidental (yes- better word) or not. In this case defender was as much slamming into the QB's shoulder and chest as anything else. Yes. I bet there's another push this off-season to change it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTiger 3,928 Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 targeting yes - just didn't look intentional They need to change that rule. Make the intentional 15 and ejection. Add a 10 yd penalty for unintentional with no ejection. That wouldn't at all be realistic. You are then asking officials to read a players mind in regards to intent. That will never work and its never going to be that way. intent as in a face-mask type call That may be relevant if there was such a thing as an incidental facemask in college football. There isn't. All facemask penalties are 15 yards. Where it can be incidental (yes- better word) or not. In this case defender was as much slamming into the QB's shoulder and chest as anything else. Need to watch the play again. He led with his helmet and the crown of his helmet hit the QB in the helmet. However, where he hits him in that situation is immaterial. He led with the crown of his helmet. That's textbook targeting regardless of where the contact happens. Leading with the crown of the helmet is a penalty regardless of where he contacts the opponent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FHeal 4 Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 targeting yes - just didn't look intentional They need to change that rule. Make the intentional 15 and ejection. Add a 10 yd penalty for unintentional with no ejection. That wouldn't at all be realistic. You are then asking officials to read a players mind in regards to intent. That will never work and its never going to be that way. intent as in a face-mask type call That may be relevant if there was such a thing as an incidental facemask in college football. There isn't. All facemask penalties are 15 yards. Where it can be incidental (yes- better word) or not. In this case defender was as much slamming into the QB's shoulder and chest as anything else. Need to watch the play again. He led with his helmet and the crown of his helmet hit the QB in the helmet. However, where he hits him in that situation is immaterial. He led with the crown of his helmet. That's textbook targeting regardless of where the contact happens. Leading with the crown of the helmet is a penalty regardless of where he contacts the opponent. and why i'm here on the couch thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auburn4ever 1,266 Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 A 2 point win (9-7) over Vandy at Florida Field will not help the Gators in the Polls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strychnine 1,804 Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 A 2 point win (9-7) over Vandy at Florida Field will not help the Gators in the Polls. The polls are irrelevant. If Florida beats South Carolina, FSU, and wins the SEC Championship Game, they will be in the playoff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.