Recruiting Forum Football Talk II

Status
Not open for further replies.
#35,477
#35,477
Why do I keep seeing post so happy about how physical we were?

Sure there were encouraging parts and I am excited about the future but these takes about us taking over the LOS are just not true. If they were the 4th down JG debacle would have never happened. We have to remember we had it first and goal on the 2 and got whipped for 3 straight plays
 
  • Like
Reactions: OrangenSC
#35,478
#35,478
BruinVol said:
Why do I keep seeing post so happy about how physical we were?

Sure there were encouraging parts and I am excited about the future but these takes about us taking over the LOS are just not true. If they were the 4th down JG debacle would have never happened. We have to remember we had it first and goal on the 2 and got whipped for 3 straight plays
Click to expand...
This is a bad take.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smokeytom, Orangeredblooded, Paper_Towel and 15 others
#35,479
#35,479
So why ever call targeting?

It’s should never be called under the current rules imo
BearCat204 said:
The call on the field should have been roughing the passer, not targeting. With it not being called on the field, they cant review a play and retroactively say it was roughing the passer. They can, at any time, review a play for targeting. So yes, it should have been called roughing the passer on the field and reviewed to see if it would be considered targeting.
Click to expand...
 
#35,480
#35,480
jakez4ut said:
Tua or not, we matched, if not exceeded, Bama physically on the LOS.
Click to expand...
Call me whatever, but if we played the uga game this saturday with a healthy Maurer, we dont get pushed around like we did late against them a couple of weeks ago. The rate that this OL and DL has improved in a short amount of time is impressive and it kinduv gives me a good feeling about the future on the line.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolsDoc81TX, SmokinBob, UTProf and 2 others
#35,481
#35,481
BruinVol said:
So why ever call targeting?

It’s should never be called under the current rules imo
Click to expand...
You only really see it called targeting when its the receivers involved. I cant remember when I have seen a late hit like that on the QB called as targeting on the field and not roughing the passer.
 
#35,482
#35,482
mrmax86 said:
This is a bad take.
Click to expand...

I get it that if someone said they aren’t excited about our OL but I Don’t get the notion we won the LOS battle. We certainly competed but we aren’t there yet. By being Able to get Those 2 yards shoes there is much work to do
 
#35,484
#35,484
But was that hit on Maurer even called targeting on the field? I dont think there was a flag thrown was there? I maybe wrong with that
 
#35,485
#35,485
titansvolsfaninga said:
Just rewatching the game, we are either the best 2 win team in the country or Bama is not a really good team. Granted Tua was out, but our DL was getting pressure on most plays.

I still can't figure out why the officials stopped game play when Chandler went into the wild cat formation. As soon as he lined up as wildcat, they blew the whistle.
Click to expand...
JJ was right about his assertion of Bama's championship aspirations.

and it was JJ lined up in the wildcat when they stopped the clock so Bama could see what was going on and adjust accordingly.

edit......nm, it was jordan not jj.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SweetasSoda
#35,488
#35,488
BruinVol said:
Why do I keep seeing post so happy about how physical we were?

Sure there were encouraging parts and I am excited about the future but these takes about us taking over the LOS are just not true. If they were the 4th down JG debacle would have never happened. We have to remember we had it first and goal on the 2 and got whipped for 3 straight plays
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smokeytom, 85SugarVol, barrylee and 14 others
#35,491
#35,491
BearCat204 said:
Call me whatever, but if we played the uga game this saturday with a healthy Maurer, we dont get pushed around like we did late against them a couple of weeks ago. The rate that this OL and DL has improved in a short amount of time is impressive and it kinduv gives me a good feeling about the future on the line.
Click to expand...
yep i don't think you can have anything but hope for the future after the last 3 weeks.

and i think UGA is better up front on both sides of the ball than Bama. Bama has much better skill position players though....

UGA just needs to forget about stats and just pound opponents in to submission with their run game.....they shoudln't need to throw it more than 15 times a game.

bama needs to go bombs away and just pressure the opponents offense in to trying to keep up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gainesvol82, Vols4us, LA Vol and 1 other person
#35,496
#35,496
BearCat204 said:
But was that hit on Maurer even called targeting on the field? I dont think there was a flag thrown was there? I maybe wrong with that
Click to expand...
no flag on that play. and it wasn't targeting. it could have/should have been roughing the passer cause he got two handed shoved to the ground after the ball was gone, but that's not reviewable.

edit...there was flag for targeting on that play, forgot about it. they made the wrong call....and got that part right since targeting was reversed. but it should have been roughing the passer to beign with.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SmokinBob, OrangenSC, OrangeGlasses731 and 2 others
#35,497
#35,497
BruinVol said:
So help me out.

This is how I understand the rule.

Roughing the passer is a called made that can’t be overturned. That would be a late hit type play that isn’t targeting.

But targeting can be overturned and the 15 yards not awarded.


Am I correct?

If so I agree that call should have been a late hit roughing the passer
Click to expand...
Yep that is correct.
 
#35,499
#35,499
jakez4ut said:
no flag on that play. and it wasn't targeting. it could have/should have been roughing the passer cause he got two handed shoved to the ground after the ball was gone, but that's not reviewable.
Click to expand...

After the ball was gone is minimizing it, it was a full second after the ball was gone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paper_Towel, Big Orange#1, OGbabyaviVol and 4 others
#35,500
#35,500
jakez4ut said:
no flag on that play. and it wasn't targeting. it could have/should have been roughing the passer cause he got two handed shoved to the ground after the ball was gone, but that's not reviewable.
Click to expand...
There were flags thown and the call on the field was targeting. It should have been roughing the passer and then reviewed for targeting. Since they called it targeting on the field, they couldnt review and switch it to roughing the passer.....as it clearly was that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OrangenSC, Paper_Towel, OrangeGlasses731 and 2 others
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement



Back
Top