Considering the rubs were appropriately non-called, there's really only one

Report problem with this ad

Jan 10, 2017
9:52:03am

joelvandyne Contributor

option...

Report problem with this ad

joelvandyne

Bio page: joelvandyne
Joined: Jun 16, 2015
Last login: May 3, 2024
Total posts: 24,338 (10,160 FO)

Report problem with this ad

Messages

Author

Time

POLL: What non-calls had a bigger impact on the game last night last night?

boogers

1/10/17 9:30am

Reuben Foster launched his helmet directly into Watson's on the helicopter play

Coop

1/10/17 9:33am

Watson was a runner (not defenseless) so targeting either doesn't apply or is

Hank Rearden

1/10/17 9:39am

Yeah, good point - he wasn't stopped

Coop

1/10/17 9:48am

Articles 3/4 from rule 9 in the NCAA rulebook:

crazY

1/10/17 9:49am

So Article 3 doesn't require that the player be defenseless . . . interesting

Coop

1/10/17 9:54am

Yeah, I think that's a change that was made just before the season started.

crazY

1/10/17 10:00am

<< Deleted >>

BYUMizzou

1/10/17 11:12am

Boulware definitely targeted the receiver shortly before that play

Hank Rearden

1/10/17 9:43am

video

Hank Rearden

1/10/17 11:28am

I wouldn't have wanted that to be called. QB got whipped towards the defender

fattycoug

1/10/17 12:51pm

I feel the same way about a lot of targeting calls

Coop

1/10/17 1:07pm

Had the holding/PI been enforced, the game would have turned out differently IMO

crazY

1/10/17 9:34am

Well if you want to say which had a bigger impact, you can't say it was Bamas

scootsy

1/10/17 9:35am

If they (incorrectly) call the first Clemson rub play, it's a 10 yrd penalty and

Still Questing

1/10/17 9:42am

Considering the rubs were appropriately non-called, there's really only one

joelvandyne

1/10/17 9:52am

Report problem with this ad

Posting on CougarBoard

In order to post, you will need to either sign up or log in.

Report problem with this ad