Toggle sidebar

Bama Game Thread: Official Postgame Thread - Bama @ Vandy...

gtgilbert said:
Both calls were actually correct as the rules are written. While generally I think SEC refs have a lot of room to improve, these calls were not examples of that.

targeting is to a defenseless player, OR with the crown of the helmet. When an O player lowers his head into a hit, he's pretty much never going to get that call. Maybe that's not what it should be, but that's what the NCAA rulebook says.

QB roughing, like it or not, is any forcible contact above the shoulders after the pass is released. Again, not that I love the way it's written, but that is what it is right now.
Click to expand...
It’s not JUST the crown of the helmet. Any forcible contact to the head or neck area is targeting. You can’t make the argument they made the right call when the guy literally got knocked out on the play.
 
  • Like
  • Emphasis!
Reactions: B1GTide and AlexanderFan
KrAzY3 said:
There are 5 automatic bids that make teams outside the top 10 kind of irrelevant, this includes the ACC, Big 12 and spot to the weakling conferences because that's how playoffs tend to work. So, there's a very real possibility that you have to finish top 9 to make it into the playoff and probably at least 10.

If you look at last year as an example, only three teams make it in with two losses under that scenario, that would be Missouri, Oregon, and Penn State.

Ole Miss and Oklahoma are both left out with 2 losses. So, Alabama could get in with two losses, but it's far from a sure thing and we'd need to cheer for Vanderbilt from here on out to try to up that SoS in order to improve that possibility.
Click to expand...
Vandy will not have a winning season, looking at their schedule
 
  • Like
Reactions: Superdad and B1GTide
CB4 said:
Wommack needs to quit flapping his gums talking about creating pressure and turnovers, and trying to convince everyone how “darn smart he is”. Spend some time on getting your players off the field on third and fourth down.

As an Alabama fan since 1967, this game from a defensive standpoint was absolutely an embarrassment.,
Click to expand...

Yeah, probably everyone here thought that surely he would adjust to what they were doing...🙄
 
  • Like
Reactions: B1GTide, russtang and Krymsonman
colbysullivan said:
It’s not JUST the crown of the helmet. Any forcible contact to the head or neck area is targeting. You can’t make the argument they made the right call when the guy literally got knocked out on the play.
Click to expand...
The whole reason behind the rule is for player protection, specifically to protect/prevent(which is impossible) concussions. Wellllllllll that player was obviously concussed by the hit he took from the opposing players. Therefore it's a dang penalty. He wasn't concussed because he was tackled and his head hit the stupid fake turf, or because he caught an errant knee while being tackled. It's just a botched call by an SEC official (replay this time which should never happen) so I shouldn't be shocked. They all suck.
 
gtgilbert said:
It's not the players in the front 6 that are the problem. it's the way they are being used. Womack slides to an odd front way to often, and just about every time, the other team takes advantage of it. If we let out edge guys be edge guys and our bigs be bigs instead of asking bigs to play out past the OT and our edge guys to play inside over the OG we might have a chance. It's been obvious from early on, but for some reason he's not seeing it.
Click to expand...

Don't we have some good analysts on staff to point that out?🤔
 
We are seeing the future of Bama football. We have a great coach and will never be Saban. We will always have talent, however we will have less consistency and will lose games. Gotta do the basics and RTR!
 
colbysullivan said:
It’s not JUST the crown of the helmet. Any forcible contact to the head or neck area is targeting. You can’t make the argument they made the right call when the guy literally got knocked out on the play.
Click to expand...

that's not the rule. It has to be to a 'defenseless player' to be targeting <OR> contact with the crown of the helmet (even if not to head or neck, or to defenseless player). The way it's currently written it's like two rules in one. prentice, in this instance, didn't meet the current definition of a defenseless player as he had made a 'football move' as he was going downfield. I'm not saying that it is written correctly, just that is what it is now. To be honest, it's not written well, but this is the best explanation I have seen:

ftw.usatoday.com

College football's targeting and related ejection rules in 2024-25, explained

It’s no secret that one of college football’s most controversial rules — maybe the most controversial college football rule — is targeting, which, if called, results in th
ftw.usatoday.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: TD7
gtgilbert said:
that's not the rule. It has to be to a 'defenseless player' to be targeting <OR> contact with the crown of the helmet (even if not to head or neck, or to defenseless player). The way it's currently written it's like two rules in one. prentice, in this instance, didn't meet the current definition of a defenseless player as he had made a 'football move' as he was going downfield. I'm not saying that it is written correctly, just that is what it is now. To be honest, it's not written well, but this is the best explanation I have seen:

ftw.usatoday.com

College football's targeting and related ejection rules in 2024-25, explained

It’s no secret that one of college football’s most controversial rules — maybe the most controversial college football rule — is targeting, which, if called, results in th
ftw.usatoday.com
Click to expand...
This is exactly the type of play the rule is designed to eliminate.
 
  • Emphasis!
  • Like
Reactions: B1GTide and thingamajimbeux
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads

Top Bottom
Back