- Thread starter
- #1
If the DB isn't even attempting to initiate contact with the WR, how can a flag even be thrown for targeting?
Wow, that'd piss me offI think they don't want to miss a targeting call. So anything close is called hoping replay bails them out
Usually replay doesn't look at it
That seems pretty dangerous. Refs need to be in the moment, not thinking about a possible suspension in the back of their mind. Now if it continually happens with one guy, I'd have no problem.I've said it before - if a ref throws a flag and calls targeting only for it to be reversed after review, the ref should serve a suspension. Maybe that'll make them a little less trigger happy.
I think the penalty still stands even if the targeting is reversed.If it was overturned, what's the problem? Targeting is an automatic replay review and an ejection if confirmed, right?
I could see how a ref might see that as targeting in real time, on the field, depending upon his view. The defender's arms weren't extended or reaching for the ball as if he was trying to catch it, as the receiver's were. From behind where the defender was coming from, that probably did look like he launched himself going for the hit.
I think the penalty still stands even if the targeting is reversed.
You're wrong. How I know you are wrong is because erasing the penalty is logically correct and the NCAA does nothing that is logically correct.That's what I was thinking when I saw that play live, but evidently they can reverse the whole penalty as well compared to years past. The next play was 2nd and 10.
You're wrong. How I know you are wrong is because erasing the penalty is logically correct and the NCAA does nothing that is logically correct.