Regarding "targeting"...
I have heard Mark May state in several G5 games "Was there helmet to helmet contact- yes or no? Yes there was, so this is unquestionably targeting.

Tonight he is "furious" that a Nebraska DB was ejected for hitting a "defenseless receiver". The DB (without question) hit the offensive player with his helmet, but turned his head a little.

It seems the targeting rule is flexible to Mark depending on which teams are playing. lol

Just more evidence that Mark May was the victim of more than a few too many helmet slaps during his NFL days.

It doesn't have to be directly at a perfect angle. Mark May is a dumbo

said it another thread and will say it again....mark may is a fk'n moron.....

(12-26-2015 11:08 PM)DogsWin1 Wrote:  Regarding "targeting"...
I have heard Mark May state in several G5 games "Was there helmet to helmet contact- yes or no? Yes there was, so this is unquestionably targeting.

Tonight he is "furious" that a Nebraska DB was ejected for hitting a "defenseless receiver". The DB (without question) hit the offensive player with his helmet, but turned his head a little.

It seems the targeting rule is flexible to Mark depending on which teams are playing. lol

If I was that Nebraska DB, I would have asked what the referee wanted me to do different.

It was a perfect form tackle.

Ridiculous.

(12-26-2015 11:08 PM)DogsWin1 Wrote:  Regarding "targeting"...
I have heard Mark May state in several G5 games "Was there helmet to helmet contact- yes or no? Yes there was, so this is unquestionably targeting.

Tonight he is "furious" that a Nebraska DB was ejected for hitting a "defenseless receiver". The DB (without question) hit the offensive player with his helmet, but turned his head a little.

It seems the targeting rule is flexible to Mark depending on which teams are playing. lol

They also brought up a stat during the Bahamas Bowl that showed C-USA had the best bowl record last season and Mark May was like, "well, they need to change the minimum number of games to qualify for this thing, you need at least 7 bowl teams to qualify."......Wouldn't give any credit to C-USA at all.

Mark May is the biggest "power conference" homer out there. I can't stand him and have felt that way for years.

(12-27-2015 09:11 AM)southernmiss4ever Wrote:  

(12-26-2015 11:08 PM)DogsWin1 Wrote:  Regarding "targeting"...
I have heard Mark May state in several G5 games "Was there helmet to helmet contact- yes or no? Yes there was, so this is unquestionably targeting.

Tonight he is "furious" that a Nebraska DB was ejected for hitting a "defenseless receiver". The DB (without question) hit the offensive player with his helmet, but turned his head a little.

It seems the targeting rule is flexible to Mark depending on which teams are playing. lol

If I was that Nebraska DB, I would have asked what the referee wanted me to do different.
It was a perfect form tackle.
Ridiculous.

I agree and don't like the lack of clear definition of the targeting rule as it is now. It is comical though to watch the same person view very similar, non-flagrant tackles with helmet-to-helmet contact and so vehemently disagree with himself.

I agree with the Mark May comments and think that the term "Targeting" should be removed from that rule. It only confuses a rule that already requires more scrutiny by officials than most.

I think the whole "targeting" rule is ridiculous.

Somehow, someway, it needs to be changed. Common sense needs to be applied in the reviews.

(12-27-2015 11:24 AM)MU ATO Wrote:  I think the whole "targeting" rule is ridiculous.

Agree 100%

If we beat Pitt next year it will be even sweeter due to Mark May.

Air Force just had their best defensive player ejected due to targeting. Replay looked like he was just going for the tackle after a pass. I think the rule blows.