Yeah he's a huge PSU former QB not a big surprise that he'd have a homer tilt. I mean knowing that going in doesn't get me riled up over it. Just is what it is. I mean how would Chung Long have called it for us right?
2 Pedos Guilty of Targeting
- Thread starter ClintonIAfan
- Start date
HawkGold
Well-Known Member
After watching it more, and there are likely other angles, he is likely held, jumps up to deflect the pass, breaks loose and his momentum is taking him up. He largely avoids direct helmet contact. Players have been called for lesser for sure.
Nate also has a very slow release.
Not saying I agree but doubt this is going anywhere. The O lineman with his arm like it is likely influenced this.
Nate also has a very slow release.
Not saying I agree but doubt this is going anywhere. The O lineman with his arm like it is likely influenced this.
SteveGarvey1
Well-Known Member
The TD being overturned was the worst replay decision I've ever seen, even though it saved Iowa 4 points. Not sure what the replay official was looking at.
kicker22
Well-Known Member
The whole "targeting" situation I find absolutely hilarious. If I understand it correctly (as dumb a rule as it is) if it's even remotely questionable the flag is to be thrown, but then for it to be enforced it has to be "without a doubt" when reviewed. So let's come up with a penalty that is called completely different then any other penalty in the game. Makes perfect sense. Can't imagine why it's controversial.
Northside Hawk
Well-Known Member
That would have been the hottest topic in college football had Iowa come back and squeaked it out, and it would have blown up in Vegas had we merely covered the spread.
judzeehawk
Well-Known Member
It was the way he was more worried about the player missing a game than he was about another player getting targeted. I really don't think Chuck would of said what Blackledge said.
I won't argue that at all. And yeah it did seem that way from him. I guess I just wasn't surprised even though I should have been
ssckelley
Well-Known Member
I was thinking the same thing. But that reverse targeting call has to be up there as well. Both calls made me wonder what in the heck they were looking at.
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
Again, in both cases, "launching" looks a lot more like "diving/pushing" to make the tackle. In the case of #18, I think the helmet-to-helmet was unintentional. But...I thought this was all about "err to the side of caution", anyway? It's one thing to not DQ a player, but another when it's clearly helmet-to-helmet.
And yet, they can't overturn a PI or"non-PI" call? That, to me, is the head-scratcher. You can overturn what is, in essence, a "personal foul", but not a missed penalty call.
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
Disagree. I don't really care what they thought in the broadcast booth. His hand, then his knee, THEN the ball crossing was how I saw it. Where they "held" the replay was what "prejudiced" it, IMO.
The thing is much of the fan base still worships Joe Pa statues.
ssckelley
Well-Known Member
You've got a screen shot of this, right? Evidently your eyes are WAY better than mine. In no way did I see indisputable evidence to over turn that call.
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
A screen shot? WTH, do you take pics of your food to post on social media, too?
I would agree about "indisputable evidence to overturn", maybe, but it looked to me like his knee hit before the ball crossed the plane. Not that it mattered, anyway, because even holding them to a FG we couldn't do anything on O until the very last(-gasp_ drive.
Robowe
Well-Known Member
hawkdrummer1
Well-Known Member
So that justifies calling a 20 year old college football player who had nothing to do with it a Pedo?
They weren't. Calling the Joe Pa defenders that. The worshipers.
HawkGold
Well-Known Member
A....no
hawkdrummer1
Well-Known Member
Subject line: Two Pedos guilty of targeting. Those are college football players who had nothing to do with the Paterno debacle
