You obviously didn't see our game in 2019 with Fla. Late in game Trask (on in place of Franks) starts to scramble, i.e. making him a runner. Our guy went in low leading with helmet. Trask lowered his head after our guy. Call?? Targeting UK.
People saying UK was the better team
- Thread starter BBNFORLIFE
- Start date
That’s not the rule, though. By the rule, it was targeting. I see it in every game I watch.
- Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
College football targeting, explained: How controversial rule works, from penalty yardage to ejections | Sporting News
College football's targeting rule is one of the most intensely debated rules in organized sports. The Sporting News attempts to provide clarity about it.
The rule has nothing to do with who is the aggressor is. I don’t guess I am saying it right enough to explain.
the rule has absolutely nothing to do with anything other than:
-hit high or with head of a defenseless player, which Levis clearly was not
-hitting any player in the head while leading with the crown of your Helmet, which the defender clearly did.
Also on the last call it is a moot point if it was a pass or not because the ball did not go forward. The ball went backwards meaning no matter what his arm did it was a fumble.
We are talking about which is the better team. I give the edge to ole miss on both lines of scrimmage. They controlled on both sides. Skill position I give a slight edge to UK. These teams are very evenly matched. Mistakes are part of the game and cost UK in this one.
Plenty of games are won/lost based on one or two plays. The fact is UK lost this game because they failed to make a number of simple plays you’d expect to convert. How many games has UK missed two xp’s and a chip shot fg. I’d be willing to bet not many.
Stats lie dude. We didn’t execute and made uncharacteristic errors. We had the better squad. Ole miss snuck out the back door with that win
Does it taste like any other dark beers or does it have something you like? I like dark beers.
Stats tell the truth most of the time. I saw UK run for a 2.9 and OM run for a 4.8 ypc. That discrepancy gets you beat most games. I saw both teams leave some points on field. These teams are very evenly matched and would probably split a 10 game series on a neutral field.
Stats say one thing but my eyes told me we had the better team. Ole Miss stole that one. Sucks
Agree to disagree. We had the better dudes all around. You can’t just look at a box score. If you looked at a blind list of 100 box scores I bet you couldn’t find Alabama or Georgia.
We left 19pts on the board just by being dumbasses. How were we not the better team?
Didn't rise to the occasion. Moment was a little too big for them.
We gave this game away.
There is no doubt in my mind if you played this game over and over, we'd come out on top more often.
There is no doubt in my mind if you played this game over and over, we'd come out on top more often.
No we were NOT the better team. Today Ole Miss was. It about the W, PERIOD. We didn't get it.
Doesn’t matter, Kentucky football outplayed them and everybody knows it. But Kentucky lost.
You have to be head up on the tackle, been that way a long time. It's as much for the Defender's safety as anything. I don't agree that it cost UK the game but it was definitely targeting/personal foul.
The rule says no player may go after a defenseless player with hand, helmet, forearm. The whole thing centers on defenseless, and RBs are not considered defenseless. That is what the rule states, I just looked it up. Defenseless player, a back aggressively trying to gain yards is not defenseless. Like I said the other UK has legit complaint, just can't call targeting against a back looking to pick up yardage, defender is defenless.
You're just wrong here. It doesn't center on defenseless. There are two parts:
Section 1. Personal Fouls
Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet
ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 9-6) (A.R. 9-1-3-I)
Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player
ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)
Note 1: "Targeting" means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:
Launch-a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area
A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground
Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet
Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14). When in question, a player is defenseless. Examples of defenseless players include but are not limited to:
A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return.
A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
A player on the ground.
A player obviously out of the play.
A player who receives a blind-side block.
A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped.
A quarterback any time after a change of possession A ball carrier who has obviously given himself up and is sliding feetfirst.
You can ignore part 2, section 4. It doesn't apply. Part 1, section 3, does. Ole Miss defender leads with the crown, which is a section 3 violation if there is a targeting indicator. We have that, as he led with the helmet and hit the head or neck area and led with the crown.
That's targeting. I don't care for the rule, but that's a targeting call all the time.
Kentucky stopped its self on 3 drives with fumbles and on a fourth with a missed chip shot field goal. That's how a better team loses to a lesser team. The better team did not execute on Saturday.
They got a chunk of theirs on one missed assignemnt run up the middle and our numbers were held back by sacks taken off the total. There is no question if you remove the huge stack of self inflicted mistakes and judge it just based on that we were as good or better than they were. I alwasy solve these questions by this one question . . . which team would you put $1,000 on to win two out of three on a neutral field. Dont know too many who'd right that check for Ole Miss.
In two road SEC games against top 15 opponents Kentucky has allowed three total touchdowns. Please do not direct any blame to the defense. They are performing at a level not seen at Kentucky.
In listening to all national CFB analysis shows going over the weekend results, and they are universal in commenting that Kentucky was the better more talented team but gave the win away with dumb mistakes.
Split Zone Duo
Andy Staples Show
Fullcast
The Audible
Late Kick Live
All of em saying we shoulda won, and they ain't local blind homers neither
Split Zone Duo
Andy Staples Show
Fullcast
The Audible
Late Kick Live
All of em saying we shoulda won, and they ain't local blind homers neither
Go to 30 seconds. It's tough to call that first fumble targeting. Physical play by a DB giving up 25 lbs to Levis. This is how you want your secondary to tackle. If a defender can't go low and aim for the hips and legs, why are they wearing pads?
Second fumble is very close. Replay booth should have looked at it. Only one replay on this link.
Stoops pointed out the two explosion plays they had and that was it. We should have won by two scores. Defense was plenty good enough to win. Even with Weaver and Hayes out and Jones going down. One you never forget. Hopefully it inspires the team to make sure it doesn't ever happen again. Knowing you are the better team but letting the lack of mental discipline and mental toughness beat you is a hard way to go down.
watching that video over what a complete poor effort by David W at right tackle on the last fumble. Just pathetic.
how is being upset that we gave away the game equated to a moral victory?
Defense played just fine. Blanked them in the second half. Just too many foolish mistakes on special teams and poor ball security on offense.
