Us in a nutshell...

[Spartanhusker]

Stop them but undisciplined

 

[Headcard]

Disagree. It was a god clean hit, and Morgan ducked at the last second. Would not have been called on Minnesota if the roles were revered and we all know it.

 

[Spartanhusker]

Can’t agree... and why not go lower??? We all know it gets called???

 

[ThereIsNoPlace_rivals38755]

I'm eating some shelled pistachios right now, OP....and I still never heard of ya.

 

[BigB87]

Disagree. It was a god clean hit, and Morgan ducked at the last second. Would not have been called on Minnesota if the roles were revered and we all know it.

I think it would have been called the other way, but its a BS rule regardless. When the runner ducks their head what else is a defender supposed to do.

Clearly no intent, shouldn't be an ejection if nothing else.

 

[Headcard]

I think it would have been called the other way, but its a BS rule regardless. When the runner ducks their head what else is a defender supposed to do.

Clearly no intent, shouldn't be an ejection if nothing else.

I see that same hit not called all over CFB every week and yes, even in the B1G.

 

[Sodakred]

Can’t agree... and why not go lower??? We all know it gets called???

Yep. The rule has been around for several years. While some targeting calls without helmet to helmet contact are debatable, helmet on helmet will be called 100% of the time. Is it hard to avoid sometimes? Sure but maybe if he would have just tackled him instead of trying to light him up he could have avoided the issue. We all enjoyed seeing the big hits but that isn’t football today and well coached teams know that and adjust.

 

[Headcard]

 

[Spartanhusker]

I think it would have been called the other way, but its a BS rule regardless. When the runner ducks their head what else is a defender supposed to do.

Clearly no intent, shouldn't be an ejection if nothing else.

THIS I agree with... awful rule

 

[Headcard]

 

[Redscarlet]

Don’t understand there wasn’t even a flag thrown how could he be ejected?

 

[oldjar07]

Can’t agree... and why not go lower??? We all know it gets called???

If he goes lower he would lower his helmet even more and it would look worse and probably be a lot more dangerous for both players. If it's not called on the field, it shouldn't be reviewable.

 

[oldjar07]

Disagree. It was a god clean hit, and Morgan ducked at the last second. Would not have been called on Minnesota if the roles were revered and we all know it.

It gets called all the time on other teams. It's a terrible rule.

 

[RiLLLLLLLLey]

Can’t agree... and why not go lower??? We all know it gets called???

You go lower, and you have no way to adjust. Or the opposing player just hurdles you. That call was sh*t.

 

[PCastro]

Yep. The rule has been around for several years. While some targeting calls without helmet to helmet contact are debatable, helmet on helmet will be called 100% of the time. Is it hard to avoid sometimes? Sure but maybe if he would have just tackled him instead of trying to light him up he could have avoided the issue. We all enjoyed seeing the big hits but that isn’t football today and well coached teams know that and adjust.

If it’s a qb running it’s called different than a rb. running. I don’t know why

 

[HuskerDana_rivals188993]

Targeting everytime…..he has an N on his helmet.

 

[Headcard]

 

[The_Glove_Man_rivals300278]

This is why I keep saying, get rid of the sliding rule, if anyone crosses the line of scrimmage with the ball they are a runner and will be treated as such. If you don't want your QB to take a pop, keep them behind the line.

We really should go back to the option, we'll get three or four of these per game.

If it’s a qb running it’s called different than a rb. running. I don’t know why