• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

Game Thread #2 Ohio State vs #3 Clemson, 8 pm ET, Dec 28th in Glendale, AZ

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
billmac91 said:
I think the targeting call was technically correct. There wasn’t any intent but college almost always errors on side of safety.
Click to expand...
If the intent is to "error on the side of safety", then shouldn't the targeted player be held out of the game as well? You know, because the poor guy got hit in the head so hard that he is undoubtedly concussed and should not continue playing.

BuckeyeNation27 said:
I need someone to explain to me how in the world it's not targeting when a player lowers his head, leads with the crown of his helmet, and hits the QB in the head.
Click to expand...
The entire premise of the targeting rule is to prevent a defensive player from aiming at the head of an offensive player. That's why they call it "targeting" in the first place. If the defender aims at the ribs but ends up hitting the head, then who's fault is that? Certainly not the defender's.

There is implicit in every rule, whether in football or real life, one very important factor: The official enforcing the rule must exercise a certain amount of judgment when doing so. This is to prevent "letter of the law" violations that lead to unjust results (results that serve only to punish and do nothing to further the intent of the rule).

When the officials know in advance that a rule is poorly written, and that enforcing that rule "to the letter of the law" leads to unjust results that do nothing to further the intent of the rule, they should employ extra caution when enforcing that rule. This is called "selective enforcement". It is a real thing, and it is a good thing when used properly.

If "letter of the law" is what you are relying on to support your argument, then your argument has no merit.
 
Upvote 0
Drubuck said:
I wouldn't say horrific. Fields overthrew a wide open Dobbins by a fraction for a wide open td and almost was. Perfectly called screen dropped for a walk in TD.
Click to expand...
that first one was on 3rd down, and the 2nd was after a false start right? we passed way to much in the red zone with a healthy Dobbins in the backfield
 
Upvote 0
LordJeffBuck said:
The entire premise of the targeting rule is to prevent a defensive player from aiming at the head of an offensive player.
Click to expand...
I don't think I agree. The premise is getting head shots out of the game...intentional or not. Your definition sounds like there needs to be intent.

I also don't know that I can agree on your last sentence. If an argument is based on the letter of the law, that sounds pretty solid.
 
Upvote 0
lvbuckeye said:
The call is "targeting" for a reason. Did Wade "target" Lawrence's head? NO. Wade targeted Lawrence's ribs. Lawrence dropped his head about two feet. They wear helmets for a reason. Shit happens.
Click to expand...

Yea but wade is supposed to make a super hero instant stop to avoid giving the QB a boo boo
 
Upvote 0
I haven't bet a single football game since Superbowl 40. That game was the last straw for me. Seattle had two TDs called back on offensive PI. Ben Roflcopter fumbled the ball at the three, reached his empty hand over the goal line, and after review was called a TD, even though the ball was between his legs. Seattle didn't lose to Pittsburgh. They lost to the refs.

This game is the college equivilant for me. Why give a fuck about who actually wins in the field when the refs take matters into their own hands. Ohio State didn't lose to Clemson. They lost to the refs.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top