Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Just now, DFW Horn said:

I officiated TXHSFB for ten years (by NCAA rules) when the Targeting rule was first introduced.

Truth be told, I wouldn't have called that foul today, seeing it at game speed. But, there were only 5 of us - not 8. We missed a lot of shit we probably should've flagged.

I mean it wasn’t the worst we’ve seen so if it wasn’t called it wouldn’t be a blatant no call. I just want to make sure when we are bitching about the refs it’s for good reason. And there is plenty of good reason in the SEC. Truth be told the expectation should a screw job is headed to Austin in 6 days. 

  • Rage+1 1
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, scramblyn said:

I mean it wasn’t the worst we’ve seen so if it wasn’t called it wouldn’t be a blatant no call. I just want to make sure when we are bitching about the refs it’s for good reason. And there is plenty of good reason in the SEC. Truth be told the expectation should a screw job is headed to Austin in 6 days. 

Maybe, but why would the SEC want to build up A&M at the expense of more tenured members like Bama, UGA, and Ole Miss?

I hope you're wrong, bc that will drive me batshit crazy. 

Edited by DFW Horn
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

Maybe, but why would the SEC want to build up A&M at the expense of more tenured members like Bama and Ole Miss?

I hope you're wrong, bc that will drive me batshit crazy. 

I played golf with a long time SEC alum from a mid program a few weeks ago, he was adamant like matter of fact that the SEC refs protect the higher ranked team, and that newcomers are going to be kept from the title for a while. That last one is suspect besides Texas what newcomer was really good enough, Missouri I guess but they also didn’t win now did they? 

here you have a higher ranked A&M and the newcomer Texas.  
 

I don’t know about cross game tendencies - ref to protect a team not playing. 
 

all of these is pure speculation and opinion but I found it interesting how definitive and emphatic his view was. 

Edited by scramblyn
Posted

Defense needs to work on being disciplined on accounting for late releasing TEs and RBs next week. 
 

Georgia and Ark both gouged the D with those plays. That’s what I would be calling if I was an Off coordinator.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

Maybe, but why would the SEC want to build up A&M at the expense of more tenured members like Bama, UGA, and Ole Miss?

I hope you're wrong, bc that will drive me batshit crazy. 

If the SEC wanted to fix the aggy game, wouldn't they be better off having Texas with a shot for the playoffs and potentially keeping aggy out of the SEC championship game? I mean, no TV audience wants to watch aggy pulling each other's dicks in the CCG.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
Posted

Dammit, I thought this team was a shitty offense with a good defense.  Now it looks like a good offense with a shitty defense? Can we get good on both sides of the ball in the same game?

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Paper_jam said:

Dammit, I thought this team was a shitty offense with a good defense.  Now it looks like a good offense with a shitty defense? Can we get good on both sides of the ball in the same game?

 

 

No

Posted
1 hour ago, scramblyn said:

Y'all are both thinking it has to be some evidence of mental intent, it doesn’t. It’s the way you hit period, that’s it. Read the rule. 

 

57 minutes ago, scramblyn said:

No where does it say, the player seemed extra mean or hit extra hard or the offensive player looks like he coulda gotten hurt. 

The rule defines targeting by hit technique and that’s it. 

I understand the rule. As Twice indicated, the intent is to identify those sorts of forcible contact that go beyond making a normal football tackle. The examples listed as "indicators of targeting" are meant to be objective indicators of that.  I don't think this play qualifies. He didn't lead with his helmet. Contact with the helmet may have been first, but it wasn't because he had his helmet down or out in front such that he was leading with it. His helmet was in a natural position for his body, upright, and his eyes facing forward. If you actually go and look at the NCAA's example books, that sort of play is specifically called out as not targeting. I think the closest indicator the play qualified for is "launching," but even then it wasn't a particular clear example of it. 

Posted
4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

 

I understand the rule. As Twice indicated, the intent is to identify those sorts of forcible contact that go beyond making a normal football tackle. The examples listed as "indicators of targeting" are meant to be objective indicators of that.  I don't think this play qualifies. He didn't lead with his helmet. Contact with the helmet may have been first, but it wasn't because he had his helmet down or out in front such that he was leading with it. His helmet was in a natural position for his body, upright, and his eyes facing forward. If you actually go and look at the NCAA's example books, that sort of play is specifically called out as not targeting. I think the closest indicator the play qualified for is "launching," but even then it wasn't a particular clear example of it. 

Okay.

Posted
34 minutes ago, Paper_jam said:

Dammit, I thought this team was a shitty offense with a good defense.  Now it looks like a good offense with a shitty defense? Can we get good on both sides of the ball in the same game?

 

If that happened, Texas would be undefeated 

Posted
2 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

It's really not. Mateer didn't suck against Texas because of his injury, that's just silly to say. His mistakes were mental. 

this. look at Mateers stats.  objectively Arch is just as good or better than Mateer.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...