Targeting

[hawg1]

Yes, I'm sorry that I'm slow to recognize things and struggle to understand the word "attack" in this context. I appreciate your patience with me.

The attack clause is strange. Does it relate to head to head? Or, the way it is contained in the sentence, does it only relate to the hand/forearm? You can read it both ways.

And I see what you did there.

 

[Uncle Ken]

The attack clause is strange. Does it relate to head to head? Or, the way it is contained in the sentence, does it only relate to the hand/forearm? You can read it both ways.

And I see what you did there.

It relates to all of them; that doesn’t feel at all unclear to me.

They needed a verb and they chose “attack”.

I feel as though you’re trying to read something into this that isn’t there. It’s a very straightforward sentence. Have you tried reading it out loud?

 

[hawg1]

It relates to all of them; that doesn’t feel at all unclear to me.

They needed a verb and they chose “attack”.

I feel as though you’re trying to read something into this that isn’t there. It’s a very straightforward sentence. Have you tried reading it out loud?

I’m done. You are as ass.

 

[Uncle Ken]

I’m done. You are as ass.

I was serious about reading that section out loud. I think it might help you capture the intent.

 

[Uncle Ken]

I feel like the dude in this video (around the 5:00 to 8:00 minute mark): "It's clear that both conditions were met. The receiver was defenseless, and the defender hit him in the helmet."

Other panelist. "There's too much gray area."

Response: There is NO gray area. The receiver was defenseless and the defender hit him in the head with his helmet. That's the rule. I don't like the rule, but it's black and white...

Look, I wouldn't care so much about this if ASU hadn't been forced to comply with the rule (and was disadvantaged in the game as a result) and somehow it doesn't apply to Texas. That's my frustration.

 

[Darth Snow]

I’m with Ken on this. The hit on the asu receiver is exactly what they are trying to remove from the game in order to protect players.

It's hilarious that the SEC Simps are defending this hit that knocked the dude out. And sad. They'd convince themselves of anything to protect their conference narrative.

 

[Uncle Ken]

It's hilarious that the SEC Simps are defending this hit that knocked the dude out. And sad. They'd convince themselves of anything to protect their conference narrative.

I was laughing during this "conversation."

Last year Hawg purported to be the only person on this board to understand how the CFP selection worked. Even when faced with the holes in his arguments he pretended not to see them and just kept pounding the table.

It's almost as if when a bad decision goes the SEC's way, he's spring-loaded to simultaneously be a subject matter authority while also feigning stupidity. It's quite remarkable to watch the parochialism in action.

 

[hawg1]

It's hilarious that the SEC Simps are defending this hit that knocked the dude out. And sad. They'd convince themselves of anything to protect their conference narrative.

We’ve tried to have a reasonable conference-agnostic discussion about this topic. It was inevitable that you and others were not able to do such. Reasonable people should be able to discuss, disagree even among “Simps” with personal animosity. Nope, not here. Can just one thread be that way?

 

[hawg1]

I was laughing during this "conversation."

Last year Hawg purported to be the only person on this board to understand how the CFP selection worked. Even when faced with the holes in his arguments he pretended not to see them and just kept pounding the table.

It's almost as if when a bad decision goes the SEC's way, he's spring-loaded to simultaneously be a subject matter authority while also feigning stupidity. It's quite remarkable to watch the parochialism in action.

Yep, personal. Sad.

 

[Darth Snow]

We’ve tried to have a reasonable conference-agnostic discussion about this topic. It was inevitable that you and others were not able to do such. Reasonable people should be able to discuss, disagree even among “Simps” with personal animosity. Nope, not here. Can just one thread be that way?

Maybe you should ask yourself why you have earned that label. And ironically you haven't been engaged in a reasonable argument. At least. Not from your side. I enjoyed watching ken repeatedly demolish you. But I figured it was time to call a simp a simp. I applaud his patience but I learned a long time ago it's much better to just laugh. This is as clear cut a case as possible and it was a great opportunity for you to establish some credibility. You chose not to. All for a big 12 team too which makes this even funnier

 

[hawg1]

Maybe you should ask yourself why you have earned that label. And ironically you haven't been engaged in a reasonable argument. At least. Not from your side. I enjoyed watching ken repeatedly demolish you. But I figured it was time to call a simp a simp. I applaud his patience but I learned a long time ago it's much better to just laugh. This is as clear cut a case as possible and it was a great opportunity for you to establish some credibility. You chose not to. All for a big 12 team too which makes this even funnier

I stand by my arguments. I thought it was targeting, as said, on first view. I still did until I investigated. I made an argument. I supported my reasons. I may be wrong. I made nothing personal. The replay officials made the call. FU.

 

[Uncle Ken]

Yep, personal. Sad.

Oh, I’m sorry, were you holding that conversation in good faith?

I thought you were just pretending to not understand what “attack” means as applied to tackling.

My apologies if you really are really unclear on what that sentence means.

Have you tried reading it out loud?

 

[Alfred91]

I still haven't seen video or a photo that shows me that the ASU hit on the interception was targeting. I'm not saying it definitively wasn't targeting, just that I haven't seen much. Probably because there hasn't been nearly as much chatter about that hit as the Texas hit at the end of the game.

Moving to the Texas hit - when I initially saw it, I thought it was textbook targeting. I haven't seen anything to change my opinion. I don't know why they overturned it upon review, I'm not going to speculate on it. All I know is that is probably confirmed upon review 7 or 8 times out of 10.

It's all part of what is the most frustrating part of refereeing today, college or pro, across multiple sports. Inconsistency from game to game or even play to play.

 

[hawg1]

I still haven't seen video or a photo that shows me that the ASU hit on the interception was targeting. I'm not saying it definitively wasn't targeting, just that I haven't seen much. Probably because there hasn't been nearly as much chatter about that hit as the Texas hit at the end of the game.

Moving to the Texas hit - when I initially saw it, I thought it was textbook targeting. I haven't seen anything to change my opinion. I don't know why they overturned it upon review, I'm not going to speculate on it. All I know is that is probably confirmed upon review 7 or 8 times out of 10.

It's all part of what is the most frustrating part of refereeing today, college or pro, across multiple sports. Inconsistency from game to game or even play to play.

I’d love to see officiating reform in a new CFB universe when/where Saban is Commissioner.

 

[ZandiBuff]

I know his arms didn’t touch until after the tackle, but that’s a normal tackle. You can’t tackle someone if the first thing to touch is your arm. Paging Dr Shilo.

As for leading with the head, from what I’ve tethered from watching almost every play of every game that been on tv, that means that you either have your arm tucked, or they are in no athletic position to make a tackle. That’s why I don’t think Taffe’s was targeting.

(Also, I’ve now watched this play probably close to infinity times). (And also, hopefully I’ll be leaving Texas by Sep).

Shilo has arms?