Jump to content

Longhorns 2022 Thread


Stoney

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, WETSU said:

Also look at that picture again. His head is clearly getting compressed into his pads… the hit absolutely involved the QBs head. Not saying it was helmet to helmet, but the defenders left shoulder absolutely hit the QBs head and neck. 

AD1A3CE7-4C10-46A8-9172-FCD5B30E092D.png
 

Head is clearly on his left shoulder, feet still on the ground, and I would argue that his head had more contact on the other Texas player than the QB. 

Edited by ETXfan16
  • LOL! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, WETSU said:

It was a clear launch at the head neck area. The point is it’s called every single week. They ALWAYS call the flag and then review the hit and reverse it if it’s not really targeting. But I don’t understand how you don’t call it that close: I mean it was clear it was a hit to the neck/head area by a launching defender. I just want to know what the rule is if that’s not targeting…

Close is good in horseshoes and hand grenades.

 

Still trolling Longhorn threads, I see.  You just sore Texas won.  Who do the Aggies lose to today?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, ETXfan16 said:

Texas loses this game 10/10 times in the past. Iowa States defense is one of the best in the country. They won really really ugly game. I’ll take it. 
 

PK’s lack of adjustments is getting unbearable. Getting torched on 3rd and long multiple times and allowing 4th down conversions. I’ve seen enough of him the past year and a half. 

Amen!!!!!  He is horrible at schemes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ETXfan16 said:

AD1A3CE7-4C10-46A8-9172-FCD5B30E092D.png
 

Head is clearly on his left shoulder, feet still on the ground, and I would argue that his head had more contact on the other Texas player than the QB. 

The left shoulder is hitting neck/head of the QB… 

Like I said it’s a close call that is called 90% of the time. I just want the rule to go away if you’re going to let that slide but call it on other plays. 
 

I would feel the same way about this call regardless of what teams are playing. 

  • LOL! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Lhornfan said:

I’m just going to disagree, and I would do the same if the teams were reversed and our QB was the player hit. The launching is not there because Decker puts his head down and goes low. Safety hit the only area that he could make contact with, and he purposely used his shoulder pad. 

He so wanted Texas to lose…. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, WETSU said:

Decker didn’t put his head down and go low…. He was being tackled from behind and the Texas guy launched at a halfway down player. I think it’s a stupid rule.  But that was absolutely launching at the head/neck. 

He was leaning forward and dove.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you’re arguing the hit at the end was targeting, please shut up. I’m so sick and tired of the OFFENSIVE player lowering his head, nothing being called, then everyone wants targeting on the defense. That’s not the way football works.

The QB was scrambling, already beyond the line of scrimmage, he’s now a RB. He lowers his head, the defender raisins his head as he goes in for the he hit, and hits the runners shoulder. 
That is NOT targeting. And anyone that thinks so, is what’s wrong with that stupid call to begin with. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, WETSU said:

It’s the neck not the head. You cannot drive your shoulder/head into the head/neck area. The QB laid on the ground grabbing his head after the play was over. It wasn’t a helmet to helmet hit or the Texas player leading with his crown, but it was a hit thrown at the head neck area. We have seen far weaker calls is my point. If that’s not leading into the head/neck area of a player than what is? Honest question.  There’s no consistency. If you’re going to let it go sometimes let it go all the time is my point. 

Oh I definitely think there's contact to Decker's helmet with the shoulder pad, but there was no launch or intent. Cook is simply tackling the ONLY legal part of the body available due to Decker lowering his head. The sudden impact is what caused RGIII to say targeting as well as Matt Campbell run onto the field asking for a review. RGIII retracted his statement after watching the replay several times and stated it was a clean play if Cook's helmet hit the QB's shoulder. Cook is also not "driving" into the head/neck area because you can see his knees under his own stomach. In fact, if the other Texas player doesn't slow Decker's momentum prior to contact, Cook most likely gets trucked by Decker. The actual definition of targeting in the NCAA requires forcible contact that goes beyond a legal tackle - this did not.

As for those wondering if it was reviewed for targeting. I believe it was, and I feel like that question will be answered in the post game conference. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Lobo97 said:

If you’re arguing the hit at the end was targeting, please shut up. I’m so sick and tired of the OFFENSIVE player lowering his head, nothing being called, then everyone wants targeting on the defense. That’s not the way football works.

The QB was scrambling, already beyond the line of scrimmage, he’s now a RB. He lowers his head, the defender raisins his head as he goes in for the he hit, and hits the runners shoulder. 
That is NOT targeting. And anyone that thinks so, is what’s wrong with that stupid call to begin with. 

I hate targeting. I simply want to know what is it and consistency with the rule. That same exact type of play will be called targeting at some point today. It happens every week. I’ve seen plays where the ball carrier lowered his head and caused the contact every week yet it’s still called. 
 

My point is the penalty is not consistent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Lhornfan said:

Oh I definitely think there's contact to Decker's helmet with the shoulder pad, but there was no launch or intent. Cook is simply tackling the ONLY legal part of the body available due to Decker lowering his head. The sudden impact is what caused RGIII to say targeting as well as Matt Campbell run onto the field asking for a review. RGIII retracted his statement after watching the replay several times and stated it was a clean play if Cook's helmet hit the QB's shoulder. Cook is also not "driving" into the head/neck area because you can see his knees under his own stomach. In fact, if the other Texas player doesn't slow Decker's momentum prior to contact, Cook most likely gets trucked by Decker. The actual definition of targeting in the NCAA requires forcible contact that goes beyond a legal tackle - this did not.

As for those wondering if it was reviewed for targeting. I believe it was, and I feel like that question will be answered in the post game conference. 

Can we both agree the inconsistency of the call though? Do you honestly believe that was a a no brainer call that would have NEVER been called in any other game? You’ve never seen one that close called? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, WETSU said:

I hate targeting. I simply want to know what is it and consistency with the rule. That same exact type of play will be called targeting at some point today. It happens every week. I’ve seen plays where the ball carrier lowered his head and caused the contact every week yet it’s still called. 
 

My point is the penalty is not consistent. 

I absolutely agree that it’s inconsistent. I believe most of the plays they call for targeting are ridiculous and should not be targeting. I believe what they’ve been calling roughing the passer, especially as of late, is ruining the game. We saw one of these early in this game too when they called ISU for roughing. I thought that call was ridiculous. 
I also believe 100% that this play was NOT targeting. Even RG3, after seeing the replay for himself, retracted his own argument of it being targeting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, WETSU said:

Can we both agree the inconsistency of the call though? Do you honestly believe that was a a no brainer call that would have NEVER been called in any other game? You’ve never seen one that close called? 

We can agree on that for sure. It's not as bad as roughing the QB in the NFL, but there is a lack of consistency with targeting. I also agree that this could have been called due to inconsistency. I also believe the officials got it correct.

The real gift was Hutchinson dropping the ball late. We dropped one as well and Ewers overthrew another wide open earlier, but that Iowa St drop was a dagger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Lhornfan said:

We can agree on that for sure. It's not as bad as roughing the QB in the NFL, but there is a lack of consistency with targeting. I also agree that this could have been called due to inconsistency. I also believe the officials got it correct.

The real gift was Hutchinson dropping the ball late. We dropped one as well and Ewers overthrew another wide open earlier, but that Iowa St drop was a dagger.

Texas missed on a few throws.
Ewers missed a wide open Cain for an easy TD. Cain dropped a wide open ball, that would’ve gone for huge yards. I also thought the deep ball to Worthy at the goal line could’ve been PI. 
What was exciting to see, however, was Texas playing sloppy like that, and still pulling out a close win. They lose games like that the last couple of years. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Lobo97 said:

If you’re arguing the hit at the end was targeting, please shut up. I’m so sick and tired of the OFFENSIVE player lowering his head, nothing being called, then everyone wants targeting on the defense. That’s not the way football works.

The QB was scrambling, already beyond the line of scrimmage, he’s now a RB. He lowers his head, the defender raisins his head as he goes in for the he hit, and hits the runners shoulder. 
That is NOT targeting. And anyone that thinks so, is what’s wrong with that stupid call to begin with. 

The problem is that I’ve seen the RB lower his head and targeting be called. Hence why I say I hate the inconsistency, and the fact that they didn’t even look at it. Again, which I’ve seen happen lol
That particular call, I’ve said multiple times I don’t know if it’s targeting or not. My issue is with the lack of consistency when it has such a huge penalty. 

I wish there were no targeting rule. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JohnnyFootball said:

Gotcha. I didn’t pay EXTREMELY close attention. Just felt like Johnson was in every time I switched over to that game. 

Johnson is the reason Texas won imo. The dude was nails that final scoring drive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, WETSU said:

Can we both agree the inconsistency of the call though? Do you honestly believe that was a a no brainer call that would have NEVER been called in any other game? You’ve never seen one that close called? 

Demarvion Overshown would agree

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, JohnnyFootball said:

The problem is that I’ve seen the RB lower his head and targeting be called. Hence why I say I hate the inconsistency, and the fact that they didn’t even look at it. Again, which I’ve seen happen lol
That particular call, I’ve said multiple times I don’t know if it’s targeting or not. My issue is with the lack of consistency when it has such a huge penalty. 

I wish there were no targeting rule. 

I agree that they’re inconsistent with it. I can’t say for sure, but I’d bet when they reviewed the play they looked for targeting as well. I think we never heard anything about it because they didn’t believe it to be targeting either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Mr. P locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...