|
|
Post by ndgradbuthcfan on Jan 1, 2023 8:55:23 GMT -5
Was decision to overturn Michigan TD in first half correct?
Was TCU player guilty of targeting on last play of game?
My votes: no and yes (but TCU deserved the win).
|
|
|
|
Post by bfoley82 on Jan 1, 2023 9:15:37 GMT -5
Was decision to overturn Michigan TD in first half correct? Was TCU player guilty of targeting on last play of game? My votes: no and yes (but TCU deserved the win). Absolutely targeting |
|
|
|
Post by Xmassader on Jan 1, 2023 23:06:35 GMT -5
Was decision to overturn Michigan TD in first half correct? Was TCU player guilty of targeting on last play of game? My votes: no and yes (but TCU deserved the win). Agree with you on both…disclaimer that I am a Michigan alum and fan. Didn’t think there was indisputable video evidence on the overturned TD. Ruling should have been that the call stands. Had it been called down at the one on the original call, I don’t think that there was indisputable evidence to call it a TD. On the targeting/no targeting play, I believe it should have been called targeting by the letter of the rule. The TCU defender lowered his shoulder and made a forceful hit with the crown of his helmet hitting the helmet of the Michigan receiver. The hit was not egregious or dirty but targeting nonetheless. A targeting call would have given Michigan a first down at their 45 yd. line with 25 seconds to go and no timeouts. Would have been tough to pull it out but certainly possible as I saw in Buffalo this past September. Agree that TCU played well enough to win but also feel that, if the first call had been a TD, Michigan would have won. In any case, my purple alma mater executed the Philly Special much more effectively than my maize and blue one. |
|
|
|
Post by timholycross on Jan 3, 2023 9:10:37 GMT -5
Was decision to overturn Michigan TD in first half correct? Was TCU player guilty of targeting on last play of game? My votes: no and yes (but TCU deserved the win). Agree with you on both…disclaimer that I am a Michigan alum and fan. Didn’t think there was indisputable video evidence on the overturned TD. Ruling should have been that the call stands. Had it been called down at the one on the original call, I don’t think that there was indisputable evidence to call it a TD. On the targeting/no targeting play, I believe it should have been called targeting by the letter of the rule. The TCU defender lowered his shoulder and made a forceful hit with the crown of his helmet hitting the helmet of the Michigan receiver. The hit was not egregious or dirty but targeting nonetheless. A targeting call would have given Michigan a first down at their 45 yd. line with 25 seconds to go and no timeouts. Would have been tough to pull it out but certainly possible as I saw in Buffalo this past September. Agree that TCU played well enough to win but also feel that, if the first call had been a TD, Michigan would have won. In any case, my purple alma mater executed the Philly Special much more effectively than my maize and blue one. I'll give you #1 and disagree on #2. 1. Not definitive; but no excuse for fumbling the ball on the half yard line, especially on an early down; not like it was do-or-die that you score on the next play. Protect the damn ball! 2. Too many external factors to make that sort of ruling (ball being tossed around, willy-nilly, in desparation; only job of any TCU guy out there was to make a definitive tackle). |
|
