Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

Why wasn’t that targeting? Cause to me that looked like textbook targeting

duckfan96 wrote: Sun Sep 28, 2025 11:13 am Why wasn’t that targeting? Cause to me that looked like textbook targeting

It was targeting. It's not about anyone here having a higher iq than you. It's that the officials have a lower iq

duckfan96 wrote: Sun Sep 28, 2025 11:13 am Why wasn’t that targeting? Cause to me that looked like textbook targeting

The "rules expert" says that it wasn't contact within the 6" radius from the apex of the helmet.

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.

blatantly so

Duck07 wrote: Sun Sep 28, 2025 11:32 am

duckfan96 wrote: Sun Sep 28, 2025 11:13 am Why wasn’t that targeting? Cause to me that looked like textbook targeting

The "rules expert" says that it wasn't contact within the 6" radius from the apex of the helmet.

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.

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.

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.

buckmarkduck 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.

Did limar enter the game after that hit? I'm not so sure that he did

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.

Embedded Tweet

Bussin with the Boys were watching the game and everyone there thought it was targeting and very dangerous.

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?

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.

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

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?

I worry that the injury will not be immediately apparent.