Targeting...An object in motion......

JoeMoma

Platinum Member
Nov 22, 2014
22,845
10,542
950
tends to stay in motion.

Watching the Clemson Louisville game, a Clemson player is ejected for targeting. I guess I have to agree with the refs that technically what happened meets the definition of targeting, but it's a shame that happen because the Louisville player was falling such that the heads of the players collided. It was clear the "targeting was unintentional.
 
tends to stay in motion.

Watching the Clemson Louisville game, a Clemson player is ejected for targeting. I guess I have to agree with the refs that technically what happened meets the definition of targeting, but it's a shame that happen because the Louisville player was falling such that the heads of the players collided. It was clear the "targeting was unintentional.
Intentions are not something that is observable.
 
tends to stay in motion.

Watching the Clemson Louisville game, a Clemson player is ejected for targeting. I guess I have to agree with the refs that technically what happened meets the definition of targeting, but it's a shame that happen because the Louisville player was falling such that the heads of the players collided. It was clear the "targeting was unintentional.
Intentions are not something that is observable.
But physics is observable. When the Louisville player started falling due to another clemson player tackling him, the Clemson player that was ejected was in motion an too close to the hit to change direction to avoid the targeting call. An object in motion tends to stay in motion. That being said, the ref made the call per the rules. All I'm saying, sometimes the "targeting" is incidental and unavoidable.
 
I think football has become so pussified even from when I was a kid, I think targeting and all these roughing the passer penalties are bullshit. It's football, roughing the passer should be a requirement, not a penalty.
 
tends to stay in motion.

Watching the Clemson Louisville game, a Clemson player is ejected for targeting. I guess I have to agree with the refs that technically what happened meets the definition of targeting, but it's a shame that happen because the Louisville player was falling such that the heads of the players collided. It was clear the "targeting was unintentional.
Intentions are not something that is observable.
But physics is observable. When the Louisville player started falling due to another clemson player tackling him, the Clemson player that was ejected was in motion an too close to the hit to change direction to avoid the targeting call. An object in motion tends to stay in motion. That being said, the ref made the call per the rules. All I'm saying, sometimes the "targeting" is incidental and unavoidable.

I believe if they had pictures to show what is meant by targeting they could use the foul in the Clemson game, there is not doubt it was targeting.

Why this Clemson hit on Lamar Jackson meant a targeting ejection
 
tends to stay in motion.

Watching the Clemson Louisville game, a Clemson player is ejected for targeting. I guess I have to agree with the refs that technically what happened meets the definition of targeting, but it's a shame that happen because the Louisville player was falling such that the heads of the players collided. It was clear the "targeting was unintentional.
Intentions are not something that is observable.
But physics is observable. When the Louisville player started falling due to another clemson player tackling him, the Clemson player that was ejected was in motion an too close to the hit to change direction to avoid the targeting call. An object in motion tends to stay in motion. That being said, the ref made the call per the rules. All I'm saying, sometimes the "targeting" is incidental and unavoidable.

I believe if they had pictures to show what is meant by targeting they could use the foul in the Clemson game, there is not doubt it was targeting.

Why this Clemson hit on Lamar Jackson meant a targeting ejection
Yes, and I said the ref made the call per the rules. No one here is saying it wasn't targeting (per the rules).
 
I think football has become so pussified even from when I was a kid, I think targeting and all these roughing the passer penalties are bullshit. It's football, roughing the passer should be a requirement, not a penalty.
With the size and speed of a player in the NFL, and college, I think that the roughing calls are needed.
 
tends to stay in motion.

Watching the Clemson Louisville game, a Clemson player is ejected for targeting. I guess I have to agree with the refs that technically what happened meets the definition of targeting, but it's a shame that happen because the Louisville player was falling such that the heads of the players collided. It was clear the "targeting was unintentional.
Intentions are not something that is observable.
But physics is observable. When the Louisville player started falling due to another clemson player tackling him, the Clemson player that was ejected was in motion an too close to the hit to change direction to avoid the targeting call. An object in motion tends to stay in motion. That being said, the ref made the call per the rules. All I'm saying, sometimes the "targeting" is incidental and unavoidable.

I believe if they had pictures to show what is meant by targeting they could use the foul in the Clemson game, there is not doubt it was targeting.

Why this Clemson hit on Lamar Jackson meant a targeting ejection
Yes, and I said the ref made the call per the rules. No one here is saying it wasn't targeting (per the rules).
You seem to want to dismiss the hit as an accident, what I see in the clip provided does not look like an accident.
 
tends to stay in motion.

Watching the Clemson Louisville game, a Clemson player is ejected for targeting. I guess I have to agree with the refs that technically what happened meets the definition of targeting, but it's a shame that happen because the Louisville player was falling such that the heads of the players collided. It was clear the "targeting was unintentional.
Intentions are not something that is observable.
But physics is observable. When the Louisville player started falling due to another clemson player tackling him, the Clemson player that was ejected was in motion an too close to the hit to change direction to avoid the targeting call. An object in motion tends to stay in motion. That being said, the ref made the call per the rules. All I'm saying, sometimes the "targeting" is incidental and unavoidable.

I believe if they had pictures to show what is meant by targeting they could use the foul in the Clemson game, there is not doubt it was targeting.

Why this Clemson hit on Lamar Jackson meant a targeting ejection
Yes, and I said the ref made the call per the rules. No one here is saying it wasn't targeting (per the rules).
You seem to want to dismiss the hit as an accident, what I see in the clip provided does not look like an accident.
The hit was not an accident. But I do believe the way the hit played out such that it resulted in targeting was accidental. But that's just my opinion.
 
Why have a targeting penalty if it being "an accident" means its dismissed? Every player in the NFL would just say "it was an accident" and the refs would have to pick up the flag.
 
Why have a targeting penalty if it being "an accident" means its dismissed? Every player in the NFL would just say "it was an accident" and the refs would have to pick up the flag.
I agree, which is why I said the ref made the call per the rules. Sometime life and football isn't fair. That being said, my tigers are winning anyway.
 
Geeze, I was going to tell you to aim a little ahead of the moving object and shoot when it is in front of the bead... :eusa_doh:
Instead:
GqtBhsc.jpg
 
I don't think Jackson is getting the Heisman this year.
 
Yep, aren't the bulldogs the most common? I didn't read your link but I think I recall that from memory.
 

Forum List

Back
Top