Can we talk about the targeting?

[chef dixon]

I was shocked at the announcers defense of it. That's by the book launching above the head. The rule does suck but Auburn just ain't used to that going against them.

[FriarsPoint]

Technically they may have been right, as a fan of the team that benefited, I think it was bs. Personally I don’t think it would have mattered. After we went up 29-28, IMO, there was no way we were losing that game.

If this team can ever figure out how to play 4 consistent quarters, they’re going to be dangerous.

[RezDog7]

Technically they may have been right, as a fan of the team that benefited, I think it was bs. Personally I don’t think it would have mattered. After we went up 29-28, IMO, there was no way we were losing that game.

If this team can ever figure out how to play 4 consistent quarters, they’re going to be dangerous.

How is that BS. That is the clear definition of targeting.

[TrapGame]

He launched. Helmet to helmet. The rule is not about the "intent" of the player. It was called correctly. Rogers was arguing about "intent" of the defensive player. You follow the rule as written not by the intent of player that violated it. That was the correct call.

[Apoplectic]

Clearly led with his head to the helmet to attempt injury to the sack insult

[Commercecomet24]

Textbook targeting. It maybe a "football play" but by the rule book it was targeting!

[FriarsPoint]

How is that BS. That is the clear definition of targeting.

That’s the whole point. Subjective. Was it malicious enough to change the game? I didn’t think so.

[Commercecomet24]

He launched. Helmet to helmet. The rule is not about the "intent" of the player. It was called correctly. Rogers was arguing about "intent" of the defensive player. You follow the rule as written not by the intent of player that violated it. That was the correct call.

Yep!Jordan Rodgers is an idiot. Intent doesn't play into the call at all. I mean heck nobody wants to get a targeting call!

[Tater]

It was textbook targeting but it is a bs rule.

[OLJWales]

Would like to see again. Needed a rule but not enforced like it's been done. Helmets have been worn a long time for a reason. Hate the ones where defender has already committed but ball carrier changes HIS helmet trajectory creating collision.

Needs to be blatant or no call.

[SailingDawg]

I was shocked at the announcers defense of it. That's by the book launching above the head. The rule does suck but Auburn just ain't used to that going against them.

Yes, I grew tired of the announcers calling it "old school football" on both potential targeting calls. The hit on Will was a jump into the face, not a jump up to swat the ball down.

[vv83]

Technically they may have been right, as a fan of the team that benefited, I think it was bs. Personally I don’t think it would have mattered. After we went up 29-28, IMO, there was no way we were losing that game.

If this team can ever figure out how to play 4 consistent quarters, they’re going to be dangerous.

You're wrong on that, text book targeting. The announcers defending it by saying it was an 'in the moment' play was jaw dropping. No shit, that's the whole point of the rule, to get rid of those instinctive head hits.

[chef dixon]

Also at that point it was a complete dominant train running on their ass. The call didn't matter even though it was correct

[lastmajordog]

The Dog announcers were AWESOME.....they said the rule needed discussion and understood AU fans being upset.....BUT....it was the correct call according to the rule.......Tip of the Hat to Neil and Matt.......The Great One (Jack) is grinning big time.....about the game...and the quality announcers...

[parabrave]

He launched with his helmet and hit Will in the facemask. Now if he launched up with his hands up like he was trying to block a pass then he would've been OK.

[DownwardDawg]

As others have pointed, it was textbook targeting "as per the rule book".

[Maverick91]

I wouldn’t have wanted it to be a flag if he handed “launched” into Rogers. If e just ran into Rogers and their helmets hit. I don’t think it counts. It’s because he launched, and Jordan Rogers was an idiot for his “intent” comment. If intent played anything into it, we wouldn’t ever have a flag. “Mr ref I didn’t mean to jump offsides.” What a dumb take.

[3rdGen]

Text book by the rules?. Been taking them all year?.. don?t care who it hurt or benefitted or if you want to classify it as a ?football? play. It was a good call because they did it by the book unlike so many calls that were missed or bad earlier in the year. You can?t ask for correct calls and then turn around and ask for ?football? calls. It?s one of the other.

Sorry bout the question marks. They are not what we?re intended.

[Lance Harbor]

May have been letter of the law, but it was a football play. Didn't like the call. Also didn't care. Eff the Cam Newtons.

He launched. Helmet to helmet. The rule is not about the "intent" of the player. It was called correctly. Rogers was arguing about "intent" of the defensive player. You follow the rule as written not by the intent of player that violated it. That was the correct call.

[Commercecomet24]

The crew actually did a pretty good job today. They called it Fair and accurate!