The Block In The Back Call Bring Back Our TD Before Half…

[GoldenIsle]

was horrible. Heck … both players went to the ground side by side. The game would be much better if refs would leave the flag in there pocket when they think they see a foul but not absolutely sure, but then they wouldn’t be seen and they’re ego can’t take that.

 

[cincyjacket]

I thought the call was holding. But yeah, it was bad.

 

[BuzzLaw]

It was a bad call. We may have stepped out of bounds tho. Not sure.

 

[RussianOffense]

I thought he stepped out so I'm not sure it would've been a TD

 

[GoldenIsle]

I believe the refs use the hold symbol for block in the black and clipping if you roll somebody up in the back below the waist.

 

[LaFlavor]

I believe the refs use the hold symbol for block in the black and clipping if you roll somebody up in the back below the waist.

I believe refs use the hold symbol when the conference's best chance for getting into the playoffs is in trouble.

 

[johncu]

They called holding, and the announcers agreed that it was a terrible call. Wasn’t a TD either way since Gibbs stepped out, but our chances would’ve been a lot better from the ~5 yard line.

 

[ScionOfSouthland]

We had a couple balls bounce our way, a couple against us. Wasn’t the best officiating crew. Ultimately we had the game in our hands even with the call

 

[WracerX]

Both targeting calls were probably technically correct but still garbage. For Clemson, it was an old fashion hit on the QB. For us, that TE is the one who brought his head in for helmet to helmet.

 

[andrew]

Both targeting calls were probably technically correct but still garbage. For Clemson, it was an old fashion hit on the QB. For us, that TE is the one who brought his head in for helmet to helmet.

The Clemson hit was textbook targeting, both by the letter and spirit of the rule. He launcher himself upward using his helmet.

Sure it was "old fashioned" but that doesn't mean it was a garbage call. It was the exact type of hit all levels of football have been trying to get rid of for years.

 

[WracerX]

The Clemson hit was textbook targeting, both by the letter and spirit of the rule. He launcher himself upward using his helmet.

Sure it was "old fashioned" but that doesn't mean it was a garbage call. It was the exact type of hit all levels of football have been trying to get rid of for years.

Both were technically correct. But in both cases the tackler was more or less head up and putting their face mask in the offensive players chest. The Clemson wide receiver caused the helmet to helmet. And I am not sure Clemson gets called if Yates chin strap was tighter.

 

[GoGATech]

Both were technically correct. But in both cases the tackler was more or less head up and putting their face mask in the offensive players chest. The Clemson wide receiver caused the helmet to helmet. And I am not sure Clemson gets called if Yates chin strap was tighter.

Tariq straight lowered his head and hit the dude with the crown of his helmet. No doubt on that one and it was the right call. The one on Clemson was correct also, he could've kept his head up, facemask directly to the chest plate as it should be, but he lowered his head also.

 

[MidnightJacket]

Tariq straight lowered his head and hit the dude with the crown of his helmet. No doubt on that one and it was the right call. The one on Clemson was correct also, he could've kept his head up, facemask directly to the chest plate as it should be, but he lowered his head also.

What bugs me is there is another part to the definition that often gets said but seldomly is recognized. The player being hit has to be "defenseless". As far as I can tell though, if you're tackling someone helmet-to-helmet, leading with the crown of your helmet, you WILL get called for targeting regardless of what the other player is doing. On a QB in mid-throw? That makes sense. On a HB who is marching down the field and lowers his head in preparation of the blow in hopes of getting another yard or two during the tackle? This isn't nearly the same thing, and yet still tends to gets the flag all the same.

 

[ElCidBUZZingFAN]

Tariq straight lowered his head and hit the dude with the crown of his helmet. No doubt on that one and it was the right call. The one on Clemson was correct also, he could've kept his head up, facemask directly to the chest plate as it should be, but he lowered his head also.

Anyone arguing against Tariq’s needs to rewatch. He nearly KO’d himself.

When they say the rule protects the defense, Tariq’s is why they say that.

 

[WracerX]

Tariq straight lowered his head and hit the dude with the crown of his helmet. No doubt on that one and it was the right call. The one on Clemson was correct also, he could've kept his head up, facemask directly to the chest plate as it should be, but he lowered his head also.

Tariq got hit in the side of hist helmet with the helmet of the Clemson player. Had the Clemson player not brought his helmet down, Tariq would have hit him in the hips with his helmet in front of the offensive player.

 

[WracerX]

Ok, he was higher than I remembered, but Tariq was coming in around the ribs.

 

[GTRules]

Anyone arguing against Tariq’s needs to rewatch. He nearly KO’d himself.

When they say the rule protects the defense, Tariq’s is why they say that.

My argument is that the targeting was done by the runner.

 

[JJacket]

öööö man, just give is a damn break already. Like McGowan in the first half barely stepping on the line before a completion getting an illegal participation penalty. Just that little call makes a world of difference. I know it was the correct call, but damn already. Clemson gets enough breaks (I'm still not over the offsides from several years back near the goal line)

 

[ElCidBUZZingFAN]

My argument is that the targeting was done by the runner.

Well, I would agree with that. Offensive players also get crazy leeway with facemasks, too.

 

[GoGATech]

What bugs me is there is another part to the definition that often gets said but seldomly is recognized. The player being hit has to be "defenseless". As far as I can tell though, if you're tackling someone helmet-to-helmet, leading with the crown of your helmet, you WILL get called for targeting regardless of what the other player is doing. On a QB in mid-throw? That makes sense. On a HB who is marching down the field and lowers his head in preparation of the blow in hopes of getting another yard or two during the tackle? This isn't nearly the same thing, and yet still tends to gets the flag all the same.

Defenseless has nothing to do with targeting. Targeting is defined as "making forcible contact with the crown of the helmet or making forcible contact to the head or neck area of an opponent." You can hit somebody in the thigh, and if your head is down, it can be called targeting.