What was the TV anouncers saying about the second hit on Walley?

[Jack Lambert]

Just curious it look like a illegal hit to me.

[RougeDawg]

Just curious it look like a illegal hit to me.

They started down the road and then backtracked. Yes it looked like targeting, but those refs would've missed a herd of water buffalo running across the field today. Horrible crew.

[ShotgunDawg]

I actually didn't think it was targeting. The defender caught him in the top of the shoulder pad

[gravedigger]

Which still quAlifies

[civildawg]

Good god people. This is football not two hand touch. Clearly led with the shoulder and laid a good lick.

[godlluB]

Again, it doesn't matter what you think of the rule, but according to the rule, that was targeting. Matt Wyatt was called the refs out for not calling it.

[confucius say]

Good god people. This is football not two hand touch. Clearly led with the shoulder and laid a good lick.

Leasing with the shoulder doesn't matter anymore. The rule was changed to contact above the shoulders (hard to say if it was). Doesn't matter what the defender leads with.

[Treemydawg]

Good god people. This is football not two hand touch. Clearly led with the shoulder and laid a good lick.
^^^ this. It's football

[RougeDawg]

Again, it doesn't matter what you think of the rule, but according to the rule, that was targeting. Matt Wyatt was called the refs out for not calling it.

Wyatt was warranted in his argument. The receiver was defenseless and the defender launched himself above the shoulders. By role definition it was a penalty and ejection.

[CadaverDawg]

Hard clean hit in my book. Helluva play

[bluelightstar]

Targeting is forcible contact above the shoulder. By rule, that was targeting -- whether it should be or not.

[DudyDawg]

Wish our safeties did that more. Wish every safety did

Would you be okay with bryant/coman/Evans being tossed for that same hit? I wouldn't.

[Coach34]

Dakota damn near got him killed today.

[Treemydawg]

Instead of targeting rule it should be called the candyass rule. It's football hitting is required to play the game, and that hit was in no way targeting it was a clean hit and a good play by their player. I wish more of ours would play with reckless abandon when they got to the ball carrier the way techs did today. Hell Josh Morgan would get ejected from every game these days if he was still playing for us.

[mstatefan91]

Dakota damn near got him killed today.

Noticed that as well. Hung him out to dry both times

[Lumpy Chucklelips]

I'm like most of you guys....I'd like to see our guys hit like that. Problem is, ours are 5 yards away when the ball gets to the receiver. No way any of our guys will get called for it.

[mstatefan91]

I'm like most of you guys....I'd like to see our guys hit like that. Problem is, ours are 5 yards away when the ball gets to the receiver. No way any of our guys will get called for it.

This is pretty much the truth of it. We play so damn soft in the secondary because we don't want to give up the "big play"

[Liverpooldawg]

I don't like the rule, but as long as it's there, that was targeting.

[Liverpooldawg]

This is pretty much the truth of it. We play so damn soft in the secondary because we don't want to give up the "big play"

We do. Last year we all bitched about the big plays that cost us the games we lost. The fact remains that either way we play it it's weak safety lay that is costing us.

[sandwolf]

Good god people. This is football not two hand touch. Clearly led with the shoulder and laid a good lick.

This all day. It looked illegal to us because we are not used to seeing a safety absolutely punish someone that is trying to make a catch in the middle of the field.

[bluelightstar]

This all day. It looked illegal to us because we are not used to seeing a safety absolutely punish someone that is trying to make a catch in the middle of the field.

The problem is that targeting is no longer just defined by whether you lead with the helmet or not. It's any forcible contact above the shoulders. I don't think it should be defined that way, but it is.

[dawgs]

put it this way, if that was us playing D and they called it targeting, i would have been furious.

[sandwolf]

put it this way, if that was us playing D and they called it targeting, i would have been furious.

Agreed.

[Coach34]

Personally- I dont care howthey hit them. This was supposed to be a toughass game where people got hurt. Nobody tells teams they have to throw the ball 45 times- thats their choice. WR's have to pay the penalty for catching the ball.

Football is modern day Gladiators. College players get an education and lots of attention for their efforts. Those who move on get paid. Its worth the risk

[Coach34]

You think Fournette wants to run the rock or manage a Best Buy????

[tcdog70]

Like it or not the second hit by the letter of the rule was a penalty. He was a defenseless player who was hit above the shoulders.

[Todd4State]

By rule, that should have been called targeting. As far as what I want our guys to do- I want them to nail the guy in the pec as it is taught in the Hawk tackling video. A safety can still nail a guy hard, but he can't aim at the head anymore.

If they are going to place an emphasis on it, it needs to be called.

And then there's something that no one is talking about- any targeting penalty is supposed to be automatically reviewed. So, even if it is even close it is supposed to be called. If it's not targeting, then the penalty is overruled and carry on. If it is, assess the penalty and eject the guy.

[maroonmania]

Dakota damn near got him killed today.

The play in question was unnecessary anyway. The way the defense parted up the middle Dak could have strolled into the end zone likely untouched if he would have run it. No need to make that throw to Walley at all.

[chainedup_Dawg]

Hut him in the gut or chest and it's clean and still produces the same result so the whole"wish our guys would hit like that" argument is irrelevant. By letter of the rule, it was targeting. Doesn't matter who is on what side of it. When you leave your feet and hit above the shoulders it's a flag, by the rule anyway. It doesn't matter if you agree with the way the rule is written or not. Yes, i would love to see our guys try to take someone out but within the rules. Hell, break some ribs but do it within the rules. It should've been a flag. I don't like the rule but the rule is there for a reason, either call it or do away with it. The previous play was clean, the defender put hit ball while hitting him, no complaint by me on that one