In the Kansas Illinois game was that targeting on the Kansas player? I thought it was a good clean hit by him. I'm rooting for Kansas I can't stand Brett B.
Was that targeting?
- Thread starter cmags82huskers
- Start date
Are you talking about the most recent one where the defender hit the receiver a split second after the catch, shoulder/forearm to the helmet? If so then yeah that's clearly targeting. Receiver is defenseless, contact is forcible to the head/neck area. It was a good call, had he did the same action but hit him in the chest it wouldn't be targeting, but that forearm connects with the guys helmet and you see his head snap back a little
100% chance Alan Alda is your favorite actor of all time.
Any Alan Alda directed by Werner Herzog is absolute kino.
Other than cheerleading, playing in the band, or screwing players and coaches, they have no business in the game.
I'll bow this one out and let @VandallHuskerJulie take over...
That's okay, cause I don't answer to ANY woman....other than my wife. LOL
You're gonna piss me off with your ****ing nonsense.
If you're a woman, go take care of your own ****ing man.
Not that it matters, but I don't know if its a he/she or a she/he.
I just know I don't listen to women on anything sports related.
"Chi-i-i-i-co-o-o-o, don't be disco-o-o-oura-a-a-aged. All right, go ahead and be discouraged, you blind bastard, see if I care."
In real time I thought the DB hit shoulder to shoulder and really measured his hit. When slowed down, due in part to receiver dipping, it was clear forceable contact above the shoulders. On the one hand, I thought the DB really tried to make a solid tackle and would have had little option other than to just let the receiver go which destroys the entire point of football. On the other hand, it was a clear violation of the rule as written and was contact that could cause a head injury. I just dont know any longer.
