Game Thread: CFP SEMIFINAL: Clemson (13-0) vs Ohio State (13-0) 8pm ET ESPN

[bksballer89]

I get that you are going to try to argue or twist every possible thing that goes against your team today, but trying to get technical in choice of words while entirely ignoring the point doesn't shock me coming from you in the least.

Your defender lowered his head while going into that tackle and was leading with his helmet. They teach not to do that on at least the team I follow, if not every modern college football program. It was bad technique and was a preventable situation accordingly.

Stop blaming the wrong thing.

OSU didn't have to have a WR turn the wrong way and throw the game ending pick directly at a defender. The refs had nothing to do with how that game ended.

Yup. Also OSU had plenty of chances to finish Clemson before that targeting call. Didn't they settle for fgs 3X inside the red zone? Game should have been at least 24-0

 

[Across The Field]

A ref with no agenda agrees with what is really not debatable. So go ahead and debate...will it be irrelevant GIF/MEMEs or the "I cannot refute what you said" facepalm?

This conversation is already over. It's clear that it was a catch and fumble that was horribly botched.

 

[WizardHawk]

So look at this -

The Clemson defender's helmet is ahead of his shoulders when making this tackle. Is this targeting? Of course not.

Is it possible for you to stop being a blind homer tard?

His helmet isn't making contact in this still image. You literally have no point or argument presented here.

You cannot make contact first with your helmet. It's not that complicated. They are taught how to avoid that. I've watched the drills. There is no debate here.

 

[dtgold88]

Dude - they are now taught to lower that head AND FUCKING MOVE IT TO THE SIDE to go into a tackle with their shoulder.

You are just looking like a pissed off homer to argue against this.

You can hate the rule, but this was called correctly under it. And it was preventable by using better technique.

you can hate the rule and be rational and see it was the wrong call.

 

[The Oldtimer]

Blame the rule, not the execution.

Good point and if the Buckeyes had played defense on the last Clemson scoring drive, we wouldn't be discussing this targeting rule at all.

 

[WizardHawk]

Yup. Also OSU had plenty of chances to finish Clemson before that targeting call. Didn't they settle for fgs 3X inside the red zone? Game should have been at least 24-0

That's where I started my first point. OSU had all kinds of chances to create enough separation and win, and lost the game on a pick that was entirely their own fault.

The refs didn't screw them out of this game, they lost it on their own.

 

[Across The Field]

Is it possible for you to stop being a blind homer tard?

His helmet isn't making contact in this still image. You literally have no point or argument presented here.

You cannot make contact first with your helmet. It's not that complicated. They are taught how to avoid that. I've watched the drills. There is no debate here.

Making contact is irrelevant, we're talking about leading with it. So is this targeting?

Clearly his head is ahead of his shoulder on this tackle. Must've been targeting, right?

 

[Across The Field]

Good point and if the Buckeyes had played defense on the last Clemson scoring drive, we wouldn't be discussing this targeting rule at all.

Oh that's not true. We could've won 40-7 and this would still be talked about.

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

Show me a targeting call ever made where a player's helmet hit another players mid-section and targeting was called.

At about the 5:30 mark

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

Making contact is irrelevant, we're talking about leading with it. So is this targeting?

Clearly his head is ahead of his shoulder on this tackle. Must've been targeting, right?

Have to see motion, not a still frame.

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

There is one.

And I posted another.

 

[WizardHawk]

you can hate the rule and be rational and see it was the wrong call.

Under the current rules 'incidental' helmet to helmet is going to be called targeting 95% of the time. That it won't be called that 100% is part of the problem. That unintentional contact can be called at all is part of the problem. That this was called under this current rule is not where the problem lies.

Again, this will probably be brought up by your fans for years to come. The issue is the rule, not the enforcement of it.

 

[The Derski]

Did you guys talk in here all night?

 

[Across The Field]

At about the 5:30 mark

Well no shit. He launched into him and hit him with his helmet and basically nothing else. That tackle looks nothing at all like what Wade did.

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

Well no shit. He launched into him and hit him with his helmet and basically nothing else. That tackle looks nothing at all like what Wade did.

He hit him below the head/neck area. That is what you requested.

 

[Across The Field]

Have to see motion, not a still frame.

LOL what?? It's clear his helmet was ahead of his shoulder pads when contact was made. You're telling me this should be targeting with everything else you've been saying.

 

[Bayou Tiger]

Making contact is irrelevant, we're talking about leading with it. So is this targeting?

Clearly his head is ahead of his shoulder on this tackle. Must've been targeting, right?

I want to see these retards post a photo where the shoulders are ahead of the players head.

Unless the player is a turtle, I don't believe that photo exists!



I could be wrong though....

 

[The Oldtimer]

Oh that's not true. We could've won 40-7 and this would still be talked about.

Maybe?

 

[Across The Field]

He hit him below the head/neck area. That is what you requested.

He also launched head-first. Completely different from what we were talking about.

 

[Across The Field]

I want to see these retards post a photo where the shoulders are ahead of the players head.

Unless the player is a turtle, I don't believe that photo exists!



I could be wrong though....

Yep, this sums it up.

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

LOL what?? It's clear his helmet was ahead of his shoulder pads when contact was made. You're telling me this should be targeting with everything else you've been saying.

Don't know when initial contact was made based on a still frame. This is why you need motion.