Targeting

Sioux_Per_Cy

Active Member
Mar 31, 2006
153
41
28
I have not seen the targeting cal where they picked up the flag mentioned here. It sure looked like targeting to me
 
If there was any helmet to helmet contact it should have been targeting. I thought I saw the helmets touch on the replay. Maybe not though.
 
Contact was made with chest before head. Was not targeting.
I agree with this, but I also think that is the reason that there is an automatic review. Call it on the field and let someone with more angles take a look at it.
 
I would've liked it to have been called and then reviewed.

Don't think that it would've stood, but who knows. Maybe the review official knew he ****ed up in the first half and would've given us an "I'm sorry" penalty.
 
If that play was on defense instead of blocking it would have been targeting, double standard here IMO.
 
Probably not a penalty based on the current rule but the play was exactly what the rule is trying to eliminate. It was an unnecessarily violent okay on a defenseless opponent.
 
I have not seen the targeting cal where they picked up the flag mentioned here. It sure looked like targeting to me

Not to me. However, I agree with those who say it does seem odd that another official on the field had it waived off, instead of letting it go to a booth review. Esp. at the beginning of the season, they made a big deal about being able to over turn both the penalty itself and the ejection component.
 

Help Support Us

Become a patron