I don’t believe they ever called roughing the passer. Maybe I’m wrong. I thought the only call was targeting, and overturning that call left no penalty. I think the timing of the hit was fine, it was just the type of contact that was improper.
When it comes to the QB, I didn't think there could be targeting called without roughing the passer. I clearly don't understand the rule!
All I know is: You can’t hit him high You can’t hit him low You can’t drive him into the ground with your body weight You can’t him him late But somehow Vandy didn’t do any of those on that play yesterday.......... Oh and you can’t hit him at all if he is wearing a crimson jersey
Because the only call was "personal foul, targeting" and the review overturned the targeting. Had it been "personal foul WITH targeting", even with targeting reversed, the personal foul would've counted. There's the explanation
At the very least it was roughing the passer. The Vandy player didn't lower his head to intentionality inflict punishment on Brennan but there was helmet to helmet contacf after the ball had been released.
Didn't see the end of the game and haven't seen the play. Hanagriff said after he would love to be have the head of officials explain why it wasn't a penalty but the Devin White play was last year.
BARELY after. It was a tough hit, it could've been called roughing, but it certainly wasn't late Also, I was just explaining the reason, nnot justifying it. On one hand, as an LSU fan, I wanted it called roughing. On the other, as a football fan, let em play tackle football
it does matter this year for targeting. refs got it right. player buried his face mask into Brennan’s chest. a close to text book hit. at absolute most the top of his helmet gazed Brennan’s face mask. had the roles been reversed, LSU fans would lose their shit if that got called and upheld against us.
@Nutriaitch You may be right about the play itself, I didn't see a replay. It looked like targeting at first glance to me. I was mainly commenting about the intent part. I stand by that. Intent is not part of the rule. http://www.ncaa.org/themes-topics/targeting Here's an article discussing intent, too. This is the summary followed by a link to the article: This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting. When in question, it is a foul. ... For fouls in the second half: Disqualification for the remainder of the game and the first half of the next game. A player is automatically ejected for any targeting penalty, no matter the severity or intent.Nov 2, 2018 How to fix NCAA's targeting rule with one simple change ...https://www.sbnation.com › 2018/11 › fix-targeting-rule-ncaa
