helmet to helmet

[talkinhawks]

Not trying to complain. Just wondering honestly on the int in the end zone was it not helmet to helmet? I was watching with no volume so I couldn't hear any discussion

 

[ClintonIAfan]

I thought it looked like targeting. Contact above the shoulders on a defenseless player. M$u gets away with far too much dirty play.

 

[hawkfan340]

Missed call. Plain and simple.

 

[HawksMN]

And the pick was a lucky as he!! play. Pure luck that ball sat on the dudes back.

 

[uihawk82]

Yeah, Gus Johnson or Klatt mentioned it as a possibility. It was in a crowd but you would think one ref would have seen it or called it.

That would have given the hawks first and goal at the 2 or 2.5 yard line.

 

[g11]

I thought it was at first, but I think it was below the neck lead with shoulder. Hard hit, certainly was a close call. You see those plays all the time in the NFL, I don't really have a problem with it.

The big thing to question, is college's PI rules. Iowa lost what 30 yards on that play? Just don't care for players getting rewarded for holding WR's when they get burned.

 

[Southernhawk]

I thought it was at first, but I think it was below the neck lead with shoulder. Hard hit, certainly was a close call. You see those plays all the time in the NFL, I don't really have a problem with it.

The big thing to question, is college's PI rules. Iowa lost what 30 yards on that play? Just don't care for players getting rewarded for holding WR's when they get burned.

Actually, the call on the field was defensive holding, not DPI, so that actually cheated us another 5 yards. I didn't rewind to verify but it seemed like the ball was already on its way and so should have been DPI, not holding.

 

[PCHawk]

Actually, the call on the field was defensive holding, not DPI, so that actually cheated us another 5 yards. I didn't rewind to verify but it seemed like the ball was already on its way and so should have been DPI, not holding.

If they called PI, we would have ended the drive with 4th and 2 at the 42 instead of the 47. Very well might have gone for it then.

 

[hawkeyebob62]

Not trying to complain. Just wondering honestly on the int in the end zone was it not helmet to helmet? I was watching with no volume so I couldn't hear any discussion

I'm sorry, but Bullough clearly "lead" with his shoulder on that hit. Yes, there was contact from the helmet, but it was incidental to leading with his shoulder.

Play it in slo-mo and it can "look" like helmet-lead, but it really wasn't.

 

[RushTogether]

If the roles were reversed and that was called targeting on Iowa, how would we feel?

 

[mopkins]

I thought it was helmet to helmet and I thought it was quite obvious.