I heard one of the radio guys yesterday talking about this. They were hilarious. Wished I could remember them. Stuff like "Get out of the way, you're blocking the path to the library". Gotta love when they can make fun of themselves.
OOTB Carolina football discussion thread
- Thread starter gteeitup
- Start date
I disagree. But even if I agreed, the call on the field was TD. No way there was conclusive evidence through replay to show that it wasn’t.
the video I saw was dark and not perfectly clear because of the dark VT unis, but once I got oriented, it seemed pretty apparent that the ball was loose before the VT player finished contacting the ground. That's another call on the field I would have overturned on review. And it sure ain't because I have a thing for Miami. That's one program that deserves to rot in hell if there ever was one.
It reads like you have a thing for Miami.
With apologies to @bluetoe I too am firmly in the targeting camp. He launched with the crown of his helmet making helmet to helmet contact (admittedly some shoulder pad too). If that isn’t targeting then just say fuk the rule and quit calling it cause that to me is as blatant as it gets.
But what’s REALLY fukked up is the Miami players hi fiving the guy and flexing while the cal player is deciding whether to walk into the light.
But what’s REALLY fukked up is the Miami players hi fiving the guy and flexing while the cal player is deciding whether to walk into the light.
no need to apologize but thanks. So far as the bolded, well, that's Miami. Always has been. You can get Miami away from Luther Campbell, but you can't get the Luther Campbell out of Miami.
What you might not be considering is that in reviewing any other penalty or spot or whatever, the benefit of the doubt goes to the ref. The review has to show the ref to be wrong. But in a targeting review, the benefit of the doubt goes to the player. Review has to show him to be guilty. It's like someone charged with a crime. The player charged with targeting is innocent (even though he was flagged) until proven guilty. Any other review has the ref on trial and he is correct until proven wrong. And as you're smart enough to know, absolute and undeniable proof is not an actual thing in real life. Apparent proof based on the evidence on hand is the best we can do.
So look at the rule. First of all rule out the part pertaining to defenseless players, he was not a defenseless player.
The rule says no launching. But just lowering the head and leading with the helmet is not launching. The player did not launch himself into him, and there is no rule against leading with the helmet. There's a rule against leading with the helmet and making forcible contact USING the crown (the topmost six inch radius circle) of the helmet to initiate the forcible contact.. Many and probably most legal tackles are made with the helmet leading, and very often there is helmet to helmet contact but no targeting happens. I've watched both angles of this play many times and I can not rule out that contact was initiated with the tackler's shoulders. Helmet to helmet contact was made but I can't say that the crown of the tackler's helmet is what made initial contact or that the crown actually made contact at all. or that the helmet contact didn't happen until after the shoulder initiated the tackle.
It's easy to see why targeting was called, it was as close to targeting as you can get without it actually being targeting, if it in fact was not. I think the review official saw it as I did, just not enough evidence to prove targeting by rule.
I'm going to assume Miami will screw it up at some point and show they are a pretender, until they don't. I think the only team in the country that has wasted more talent than UNC is Miami. And Miami is even worse, because they have the historical program status that should at least keep them in the running every year.
