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

[dtgold88]

Learn the rules, then come back.

Done. Not a target....now go ahead and tell us the catch rule again that supports a catch.....and argue against the rule.

That's post of the year material.

 

[dtgold88]

If what we saw last night is "in-line with the rules of the game", then these rules have to be dramatically changed, because that was a fantastic tackle. The initial intent was for his shoulder to drive into Lawrence, but then Lawrence ducked down at the last second causing the incidental helmet contact. It was just horrible.

and not debatable.

But Troll Boy gonna troll.

 

[dtgold88]

Here's the thing - it's impossible for your helmet to not be ahead of where your shoulders are when making a tackle. You can't just suddenly sink your head into your abdomen. It's simple anatomy - when you are trying to tackle someone, your head is naturally going to be ahead of your shoulder. It became "targeting" when Lawrence lowered his helmet to meet Wade's. This was nothing at all like other targets where the player was clearly trying to go helmet-to-helmet. It was incidental contact that should never be a penalty.

also not debatable....but troll boy gonna troll some more.

 

[dtgold88]

Guessing you'll still be obsessed with the referee calls in this game.

You'd be wrong as I never said a word about refs after the Clemson W last year.

As I've stated, I haven't been in that situation, but I like to think if my team becomes an alsoran I'll still be here to have rational discussion of games and not just to troll.

But you be you.

 

[ElTexan]

“Led with the helmet” like every other form tackle in the history of ever.

why do ppl keep repeating this line as if it demonstrates or delineates anything?

 

[dtgold88]

They are never going to change the rule to make helmet first contact on a QB acceptable.

I've been at UW practices watching how they teach tackling technique. You have to lead with your shoulder. OSU fans can complain until the cows come home, but launching into a tackle with your head down and leading with it has the potential to end in a targeting call. It wasn't a bad call under the rule and was preventable, even if you believe Lawrence flinched and moved his head to protect himself.

Period.

Now he launched into him? Only took half a day to get to that. By tomorrow he'll have ripped his helmet off and hit him with it.

 

[dtgold88]

“Led with the helmet” like every other form tackle in the history of ever.

why do ppl keep repeating this line as if it demonstrates or delineates anything?

That's the one I don't get, but trolls gonna troll.

 

[dtgold88]

Don't dip the head.

You keep bringing up helmet to helmet. This wasn't called for helmet to helmet contact...it was called for leading with the crown of the helmet.

And how does one lead with his shoulder ahead of his head? Never mind you get you can lead with the shoulder and be called for targeting right? Still hits him in head if he leads with shoulder.....because QB ducked into him.

Facts.

 

[dtgold88]

Not required to launch in order to be a penalty.

agreed....but he claimed he launched to help cause the penalty, which is factually incorrect.

Don't worry....by tomorrow you'll be saying he launched.

 

[dtgold88]

The rule is dumb...but it is the rule, and referees don't get to decide which rules they like and which rules they don't.

But posters get to decide how all in they go on factually incorrect statements. How far will you go?

 

[The Oldtimer]

It can also not be called, like the ref on the field thought.

That's true, but the review booth thought it was necessary to take another look.

 

[dtgold88]

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.

There's no "getting technical". You said he launched. You were wrong. He pointed it out.

Instead of that long diatribe (which I didn't read after the word technical) I think what you meant to say was "my bad. For some reason was confused and thought he launched. I was wrong."

 

[dtgold88]

Whether it would be called or not is difficult to say...it would have been targeting according to the rules.

What you mean to say is "of course it would not have been called."

Happy to help.

 

[dtgold88]

Never said that. I can't say definitively what someone else would do in an alternate timeline you imagined.

You could say it. But you are irrational and realize it would make your other comments off base, which they are.

Just curious....if you did admit you were wrong is there some hefty punishment I'm not aware of from SportsHoopla? The lengths you are going there has to be.

 

[dtgold88]

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

Now this is true. Had chances before and after those calls to still win. Hell, we had the lead with 5 minutes to go.

But that doesn't mean the calls were not wrong.

 

[dtgold88]

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.

maybe you should say he launched at him again.

 

[dtgold88]

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.

no disagreement there.

 

[dtgold88]

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.

Agree....and had you stayed on that track doubt anyone would disagree with you. But you didn't. Even added a factually incorrect statement by saying Wade launched into the QB to help make your incorrect point.

 

[dtgold88]

Have to see motion, not a still frame.

translation - "you realize no amount of proof will get me to change my stance"?

 

[bksballer89]

Now this is true. Had chances before and after those calls to still win. Hell, we had the lead with 5 minutes to go.

But that doesn't mean the calls were not wrong.

I think the first call was wrong. I understand why the fumble was overturned especially when watching that play in full speed