For those with more iq than me
Moderators: greenyellow, Autzenoise, UOducksTK1
-
duckfan96
- Senior
- Posts: 2698
- Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:58 pm
For those with more iq than me
Why wasn’t that targeting? Cause to me that looked like textbook targeting
-
squintsdd
- Senior
- Posts: 2062
- Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 12:39 am
Re: For those with more iq than me
It was targeting. It's not about anyone here having a higher iq than you. It's that the officials have a lower iqduckfan96 wrote: Sun Sep 28, 2025 11:13 am Why wasn’t that targeting? Cause to me that looked like textbook targeting
- Duck07
- All-American
- Posts: 17123
- Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:36 am
- Location: Parts Unknown
Re: For those with more iq than me
The "rules expert" says that it wasn't contact within the 6" radius from the apex of the helmet.duckfan96 wrote: Sun Sep 28, 2025 11:13 am Why wasn’t that targeting? Cause to me that looked like textbook targeting
I think they make s*** up as they go which is why he used the "hairline" term on air and is using the technical definition after the game is over because if he said what the technical definition was, it would have been an obvious missed call after replay review.

-
rockthief
- Senior
- Posts: 4718
- Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 11:52 am
- Location: Stand By Me
Re: For those with more iq than me
blatantly so
-
squintsdd
- Senior
- Posts: 2062
- Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 12:39 am
Re: For those with more iq than me
I laughed when he gave the hairline definition in the field. He had no idea how to enforce targeting, or he didn't want to. There is also way more to it than just what they looked for. The helmet was clearly lowered, there was clearly intent to hit the head of the ball carrier, and I'm pretty sure a defenseless player is also defined as a player that is being tackled and already going down, or on the ground.Duck07 wrote: Sun Sep 28, 2025 11:32 amThe "rules expert" says that it wasn't contact within the 6" radius from the apex of the helmet.duckfan96 wrote: Sun Sep 28, 2025 11:13 am Why wasn’t that targeting? Cause to me that looked like textbook targeting
I think they make s*** up as they go which is why he used the "hairline" term on air and is using the technical definition after the game is over because if he said what the technical definition was, it would have been an obvious missed call after replay review.
-
buckmarkduck
- All-American
- Posts: 10996
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:22 am
- Contact:
Re: For those with more iq than me
Yep. It’s weird, because it’s right where the helmet has that U crease in it, seems like a crown of helmet to me. Watched McShay posted himself watching it live, and he thought Limar was lucky to walk away from it. But I guess it’s better than the P12 refs who called everything targeting, and thought they had a quota of 1.5 targeting calls a game.
-
squintsdd
- Senior
- Posts: 2062
- Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 12:39 am
Re: For those with more iq than me
Did limar enter the game after that hit? I'm not so sure that he didbuckmarkduck wrote: Sun Sep 28, 2025 11:51 am Yep. It’s weird, because it’s right where the helmet has that U crease in it, seems like a crown of helmet to me. Watched McShay posted himself watching it live, and he thought Limar was lucky to walk away from it. But I guess it’s better than the P12 refs who called everything targeting, and thought they had a quota of 1.5 targeting calls a game.
- greenyellow
- Moderator

- Posts: 39118
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:54 pm
- Location: Eugene, OR
Re: For those with more iq than me
Every time time I watch a replay of it, the more I believe Limar is lucky to have walked away from that hit without a head and/or neck injury. It's pretty bad when just about everyone who sees it (except the officials last night) thinks a penalty needed to be called.

-
bellsduck
- Senior
- Posts: 3810
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:40 am
- GM: Utah Jazz
Re: For those with more iq than me
Bussin with the Boys were watching the game and everyone there thought it was targeting and very dangerous.
-
Everythingsducky
- Senior
- Posts: 2615
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 2:40 pm
Re: For those with more iq than me
I know it is a snap snap play, but he was also down prior to taking the BS non-call head shot. Does the NCAA take a look at some of these post-game, and render any decisions? I know it ultimately won’t have any influence on the game, but shouldn’t that at least be a teaching moment? Maybe hold the player out for the next half of football?
-
spacefrog13x
- Three Star Recruit
- Posts: 383
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:40 am
Re: For those with more iq than me
I think you have to look at the intent as well. The PSU player was in the action of lowering his helmet and aiming for Limar's head.
If this was done to a scrambling QB they would have tossed the PSU player, imo.
If this was done to a scrambling QB they would have tossed the PSU player, imo.
-
duckfan96
- Senior
- Posts: 2698
- Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:58 pm
Re: For those with more iq than me
My wife, who doesn’t really follow football but watches cause I do, said how the f is that not a penalty. Haha. I thought Limar was incredibly lucky not to have sustained a serious injury
- Alan
- Senior
- Posts: 4359
- Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 2:17 pm
Re: For those with more iq than me
When the targeting penalty was introduced the intent was to stop helmet to helmet hits and create a safer player environment. I don’t know what the hairline or six inch radius means and I don’t care but the PSU player lowered his head and aimed for a helmet to helmet collision…… how could that not be targeting in the pure sense of player safety?
-
rockthief
- Senior
- Posts: 4718
- Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 11:52 am
- Location: Stand By Me
Re: For those with more iq than me
I worry that the injury will not be immediately apparent.