Texas got away with a targeting call late in the 4th quarter that would have given ASU a first down and kept their drive going.
I wonder what conference those refs were from..........
Make that 34 - 0. Howard 11-18 269 and 3 TDs. I'm not hearing much out of the OSU haters.........
Finally calling plays that they should have the last three years. They should have been the undefeated team if they let their WRs work. Theres only a couple teams that could stop that group when they play like this
Make that 34 - 0. Howard 11-18 269 and 3 TDs. I'm not hearing much out of the OSU haters.........
Finally calling plays that they should have the last three years. They should have been the undefeated team if they let their WRs work. Theres only a couple teams that could stop that group when they play like this
I still can't figure out the crap Day was calling against Michigan - this is the kind of game THAT one should have been. Yeah, I know: "Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda - but Didn't"
"When they can't find anything wrong with you, they create it!"
Down 26 at half. So in reality the Ducks have 3, 8 point possessions and a field goal to win if their defense steps up. It's not really that big of a lead if you think about compared to 34-0.
"When they can't find anything wrong with you, they create it!"
Make that 34 - 0. Howard 11-18 269 and 3 TDs. I'm not hearing much out of the OSU haters.........
Finally calling plays that they should have the last three years. They should have been the undefeated team if they let their WRs work. Theres only a couple teams that could stop that group when they play like this
I still can't figure out the crap Day was calling against Michigan - this is the kind of game THAT one should have been. Yeah, I know: "Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda - but Didn't"
You and me both. I have no idea why they werent just letting the WRs work. Every time they did it worked and then they decided to not to it anymore
@Steven59 said: In reality it looks like a Georgia vs Ohio State championship game
I wouldn't sell ND short and remember that Georgia is without their QB Beck.
To Ohio State/Oregon, I had told someone recently that although I figured the teams were close I leaned Ohio State. When these teams played earlier in the season ending in a 1-point Oregon win it was in their home stadium. Absent that advantage and understanding it's difficult to beat the same team twice in a season I didn't think the Ducks would prevail. I doubt anyone expected what we got tonight.
One thing is sure, and I said this after the Tennessee game, there really shouldn't be anymore criticism of Will Howard.
@Maywood said: @Steven59 said: In reality it looks like a Georgia vs Ohio State championship game
I wouldn't sell ND short and remember that Georgia is without their QB Beck.
Well more like wishful thinking - I never like Notre Dame. Maybe just because Channel 3 has them on every time they play and I just got tired of seeing them - you know, Like the Lakers and the Yankees constantly on regular TV -
"When they can't find anything wrong with you, they create it!"
Ind --- 2-0. one team remaining.
ACC --- 0-2. no teams remaining.
Big 10 --- 4-2. two teams remaining..
SEC --- 2-2. one team remaining.
MW --- 0-1. no teams remaining.
Big 12 --- 0-1. no teams remaining.
@Steven59 said:
In reality it looks like a Georgia vs Ohio State championship game????
Texas had the DBs to stop OSU and scare Day and staff into changing their play calling back to what it was. Wouldnt put that in stone.
The Georgia game honestly who knows. It was already hard enough that a QB was getting his first start of his career and now it was delayed at least a day (the Louisiana AG wants it pushed back to Friday) from a terrorist attack and no one can predict how the players are going to react to the situation.
Kickoff was going to be 9pm but ND and Georgia both asked to move it earlier and as of now its 4pm but who knows if it will actually happen then
@Bullsitter said: Texas got away with a targeting call late in the 4th quarter
That was a close call. Watching highlights this morning in real time speed it looks like Taaffe had his head up. Watching in slow-motion, what the replay guy would be seeing, it does appear that he dipped his head slightly and went helmet to helmet with the crown. Does the NCAA have a "defenseless player rule" like the NFL?? It would seem it met that criteria. That's a tough call at a crucial point in the game.
Did you ever find out what conference the officials were from? That was a fabulous game overall.
@perkdog said:
It was unintentional but it was a helmet to helmet, I've seen less dangerous hits be targeting but it should have been called
If they called that it would have been game over for Texas but nobody outside of Arizona cares about ASU
Follow the Money and Texas brings more viewers than ASU ever will
That's my opinion
This.
ASU dominated that game.
Let's ask Texas if they would be good with their receivers receiving 6 hits like that targeting hit that wasn't called against Arizona State. Seems like the powers that be really wanted Texas to advance to the semifinals over ASU.
Same ole, same ole...
@coolstanley said:
Despite Texas playing in their home state in the upcoming Cotton bowl, Ohio State opens as a 4.5 favorite.
That is not surprising. Texas looked really weak in the second half with Arizona. They didn’t really deserve to win. Their kicker missed two chances to win the game, and the defense gave away a 16 point lead. Ohio State’s biggest choke was the loss the Michigan.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
@perkdog said:
It was unintentional but it was a helmet to helmet, I've seen less dangerous hits be targeting but it should have been called
If they called that it would have been game over for Texas but nobody outside of Arizona cares about ASU
Follow the Money and Texas brings more viewers than ASU ever will
That's my opinion
I’m not sure it wasn’t intentional. I had only seen the replay at full speed until this morning. I don’t see how that call isn’t made there. As a fan I would rather see OT for sure, but that’s the play the rule is for. It’s a bad no call.
just a disgusting no call. kid was defenseless and the first contact he absorbed when he immediately turned was the Longhorn player's helmet slamming into his. and on top of that, he got laid out. if that had happened in an NFL game there would have been laundry all over the field. classic case of swallowing the whistle at the end of a game, period.
mind you, this take coming from someone who had a vested interest in the outcome (i needed a Texas W)
I saw the “no call” as the proper call because I viewed the collision as unintentional. Do you really want the officials determining the outcome of the game? That’s what it would have been if the targeting call had been made.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
@BillJones said:
I saw the “no call” as the proper call because I viewed the collision as unintentional. Do you really want the officials determining the outcome of the game? That’s what it would have been if the targeting call had been made.
Whether they make the call or not, they are determining the outcome. I had no vested interest in that game so my preference was to watch more of it, but targeting should have been called. I'm not hearing [m]any analysts suggesting it shouldn't have been called either so I don't think this is a provocative opinion. It really does appear textbook.
@BillJones said:
I saw the “no call” as the proper call because I viewed the collision as unintentional. Do you really want the officials determining the outcome of the game? That’s what it would have been if the targeting call had been made.
I just want officials to do there job consistently
"Targeting" sounds like a Player intentionally sought out to hit a defenseless player in the helmet with malicious intent so maybe the penalty sounds worse than it should but that type of play has been called incessantly before so why not call it there? to
As I said I don't think the player had malicious intent compared to say the Trevor Lawrence incident but the play was what it was, a defenseless WR getting lit up helmet to helmet.
It's now part of the game and if your going to.call.it on similar plays you need to call it there
I had no bet on the game btw and didn't care who won so I'm honestly being impartial here, and no I don't "Want" officials depicting the outcome of the game by calling a penalty sometimes and other times not, we should all want consistency no matter the platform.
if an infraction is only an infraction based on game circumstance, you're all of a sudden jacking with the integrity of the sport. you'll never be able to get me to sign off on, "we don't want a game to be decided in that fashion."
if that's the way it's gonna be just light the rulebook on fire at the two-min warning and make the remainder of every game a free-for-all
if an infraction is only an infraction based on game circumstance
How many times do announcers say something like "The Officials are letting them play" near the end of games, typically when there's PI??
As @perkdog said: we should all want consistency no matter the platform. That's a commonly heard rant concerning coin grading, it affects football as well.
How was it not targeting? Targeting doesn’t require hitting with the crown of the helmet. Forcible contact to the head or neck area while leading with the helmet qualifies, which is precisely what the DB did.
think about the ramifications of that non-call. Texas' D, which is overrated btw, was getting gashed all game long to the tune of 31 & 510. the odds of ASU moving it another 15 or so yards and winning that game were significant. that would have led to a semifinal bludgeoning that put people in a coma by the 3rd quarter. instead, it's two of the largest fanbases in college football pitted against each other in what will likely shatter viewership records.
behind closed doors i'm sure those zebras are getting their feet licked clean
@BillJones said:
I saw the “no call” as the proper call because I viewed the collision as unintentional. Do you really want the officials determining the outcome of the game? That’s what it would have been if the targeting call had been made.
I just want officials to do there job consistently
"Targeting" sounds like a Player intentionally sought out to hit a defenseless player in the helmet with malicious intent so maybe the penalty sounds worse than it should but that type of play has been called incessantly before so why not call it there? to
As I said I don't think the player had malicious intent compared to say the Trevor Lawrence incident but the play was what it was, a defenseless WR getting lit up helmet to helmet.
It's now part of the game and if your going to.call.it on similar plays you need to call it there
I had no bet on the game btw and didn't care who won so I'm honestly being impartial here, and no I don't "Want" officials depicting the outcome of the game by calling a penalty sometimes and other times not, we should all want consistency no matter the platform.
They were pretty consistent during the ASU Texas game. Theres no way to have consistency on all the crews from the different conferences that al;so arent even full time and have to go to work during the week.
Fortunately this crew and replay crew understood there was no intent, was face mask to face mask and was just incidental in the process of making a tackle on a football play.
There are crews out there that would have called it and want to be the stars of the game throwing flags all over the place but those are the guys that should be forced out. The targeting rule was intended to protect players not just throw out whoever you want making a tackle that some crews have turned it into
@galaxy27 said:
think about the ramifications of that non-call. Texas' D, which is overrated btw, was getting gashed all game long to the tune of 31 & 510. the odds of ASU moving it another 15 or so yards and winning that game were significant. that would have led to a semifinal bludgeoning that put people in a coma by the 3rd quarter. instead, it's two of the largest fanbases in college football pitted against each other in what will likely shatter viewership records.
behind closed doors i'm sure those zebras are getting their feet licked clean
Also people really arent giving ASU enough credit. I said weeks ago not to sleep on ASU. They have a good coaching staff and I started liking them more and more when the players were saying we have nothing to lose and all the pressure is on Texas. Teams with that attitude are dangerous
The Texas kicker crapped the bed for sure, but ASU and Skattebo should be getting credit instead of just saying the Texas defense isnt good
@fergie23 said: Not calling targeting was the right call
How was it not targeting? Targeting doesn’t require hitting with the crown of the helmet. Forcible contact to the head or neck area while leading with the helmet qualifies, which is precisely what the DB did.
Robb
It wasn't force able and he was wrapping up. There were multiple plays like that in the game and the refs did a good job not calling any of them.
Calling that would have been a complete change from how they had officiated the game
@BillJones said:
I saw the “no call” as the proper call because I viewed the collision as unintentional. Do you really want the officials determining the outcome of the game? That’s what it would have been if the targeting call had been made.
I just want officials to do there job consistently
"Targeting" sounds like a Player intentionally sought out to hit a defenseless player in the helmet with malicious intent so maybe the penalty sounds worse than it should but that type of play has been called incessantly before so why not call it there? to
As I said I don't think the player had malicious intent compared to say the Trevor Lawrence incident but the play was what it was, a defenseless WR getting lit up helmet to helmet.
It's now part of the game and if your going to.call.it on similar plays you need to call it there
I had no bet on the game btw and didn't care who won so I'm honestly being impartial here, and no I don't "Want" officials depicting the outcome of the game by calling a penalty sometimes and other times not, we should all want consistency no matter the platform.
They were pretty consistent during the ASU Texas game. Theres no way to have consistency on all the crews from the different conferences that al;so arent even full time and have to go to work during the week.
Fortunately this crew and replay crew understood there was no intent, was face mask to face mask and was just incidental in the process of making a tackle on a football play.
There are crews out there that would have called it and want to be the stars of the game throwing flags all over the place but those are the guys that should be forced out. The targeting rule was intended to protect players not just throw out whoever you want making a tackle that some crews have turned it into
I think this is a naive interpretation of the rule. It may be a valid perspective, but it doesn't align with how the rule is written. There is nothing about intent so I don't know why it's being brought up to justify a no-call anyways. Whether there was intent to "light him up" or not, had the hit dislodged the football it would have been ruled incomplete - hence - the receiver didn't make a football move after completing the catch and he was hit 'helmet first' (crown or not) above the pads. Targeting. It's unfortunate that a mistake like that should have put Texas in a terrible position and likely cost them the game, but that's how the rules are written. Giving the refs such a wide berth to interpret the rules based on game situation or whatever - including personal interpretation - seems like a bad idea if you want to have a single standard applied, consistently. But to each their own. This one just doesn't seem very subjective.
Fortunately this crew and replay crew understood there was no intent, was face mask to face mask and was just incidental in the process of making a tackle on a football play.
What a lame interpretation. That is not face mask to face mask, that is the crown of the helmet(defined as the top segment of the helmet; namely, the circular area defined by a 6-inch radius from the apex (top) of the helmet) to the defenseless receivers head.
Why is your opinion of EVERYTHING always contrary to what everybody else says and common sense??
Out of curiosity as much as anything else I looked at what the rules say about targeting(not in the rule book, an article on ESPN). Aside from a bunch of mumbo-jumbo, the phrase that stuck out to me was that "Targeting is largely a judgment call on the field which explains a lot. It is the direction that sports at all levels seems to be taking and only reinforces what has been said earlier in the thread --- Do you really want the officials determining the outcome of the game? No, I don't, but that is often exactly what happens.
When the rules aren't clearly written, then they can't be clearly enforced. When the rules can't be clearly enforced, then the outcome of games are left to the interpretation of the Officials. That's what happened here.
@galaxy27 said:
think about the ramifications of that non-call. Texas' D, which is overrated btw, was getting gashed all game long to the tune of 31 & 510. the odds of ASU moving it another 15 or so yards and winning that game were significant. that would have led to a semifinal bludgeoning that put people in a coma by the 3rd quarter. instead, it's two of the largest fanbases in college football pitted against each other in what will likely shatter viewership records.
behind closed doors i'm sure those zebras are getting their feet licked clean
I’ve always rejected the notion that the refs, commissioners, ‘higher powers’ etc. would make calls that would favor a certain team, but after that non call I may have changed my mind. That was the definition of targeting. The defender had time to lower his head and avoid the helmet to helmet hit but did not.
I don’t know what kind of halfway believable explanation the refs could give to convince me it wasn’t targeting.
The higher powers wanted Texas to win and did something to alter the outcome on purpose.
No other explanation is plausible in my opinion.
If someone watched that game the refs didnt call any of those plays all game. They did a good job being consistent
The last thing you want is the refs to start changing how they call the game at the end. Multiple ones could have been called all game for the people that want everyone thrown out for making a tackle but they were not called.
Has nothing to do with an officiating crew from the B!G wanting Texas to win. They were pretty consistent. If the officials were going to try and rig the game they would have done so for ASU. It was a crew from the B!G and while ASU put up a hell of a fight ASU would be an easier game for OSU than Texas.
Watch the entire game. not a still shot. That wasnt the first time in that game it happened and credit to the refs and replay booths for being consistent
If you want to see one side officiating just turn on the Sugar Bowl with that Big 12 crew
Comments
🟩🦆🏈
Let's Go Green...Ya Gotta Think Out There...
🟩🦆🏈
What is happening in the Rose Bowl??!!??
Holy Moley - 31 - 0
Make that 34 - 0. Howard 11-18 269 and 3 TDs. I'm not hearing much out of the OSU haters.........
"When they can't find anything wrong with you, they create it!"
Texas got away with a targeting call late in the 4th quarter that would have given ASU a first down and kept their drive going.
I wonder what conference those refs were from..........
Finally calling plays that they should have the last three years. They should have been the undefeated team if they let their WRs work. Theres only a couple teams that could stop that group when they play like this
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Don't leave the game yet folks - now 34 - 8. The Ducks could easily score enough in the second half to win if Ohio's Defense slacks off!
"When they can't find anything wrong with you, they create it!"
I still can't figure out the crap Day was calling against Michigan - this is the kind of game THAT one should have been. Yeah, I know: "Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda - but Didn't"
"When they can't find anything wrong with you, they create it!"
Down 26 at half. So in reality the Ducks have 3, 8 point possessions and a field goal to win if their defense steps up. It's not really that big of a lead if you think about compared to 34-0.
"When they can't find anything wrong with you, they create it!"
You and me both. I have no idea why they werent just letting the WRs work. Every time they did it worked and then they decided to not to it anymore
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Tick,tick,tick,..............drawing nearer 34-15
"When they can't find anything wrong with you, they create it!"
OK - that OSU TD did it - cue the ELO song.................
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84gmKIKTk40
"When they can't find anything wrong with you, they create it!"
In reality it looks like a Georgia vs Ohio State championship game????
"When they can't find anything wrong with you, they create it!"
@Steven59 said: In reality it looks like a Georgia vs Ohio State championship game
I wouldn't sell ND short and remember that Georgia is without their QB Beck.
To Ohio State/Oregon, I had told someone recently that although I figured the teams were close I leaned Ohio State. When these teams played earlier in the season ending in a 1-point Oregon win it was in their home stadium. Absent that advantage and understanding it's difficult to beat the same team twice in a season I didn't think the Ducks would prevail. I doubt anyone expected what we got tonight.
One thing is sure, and I said this after the Tennessee game, there really shouldn't be anymore criticism of Will Howard.
Well more like wishful thinking - I never like Notre Dame. Maybe just because Channel 3 has them on every time they play and I just got tired of seeing them - you know, Like the Lakers and the Yankees constantly on regular TV -
"When they can't find anything wrong with you, they create it!"
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Yeah, NBC has a long term contract with Notre Dame.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Updated Conference tracker.
Ind --- 2-0. one team remaining.
ACC --- 0-2. no teams remaining.
Big 10 --- 4-2. two teams remaining..
SEC --- 2-2. one team remaining.
MW --- 0-1. no teams remaining.
Big 12 --- 0-1. no teams remaining.
Semi-finals
Big 10 vs. SEC
Big 10 vs. Ind
Right! And here I thought there were just that many ND fans out there they wanted to show their games to!
"When they can't find anything wrong with you, they create it!"
"When they can't find anything wrong with you, they create it!"
Texas had the DBs to stop OSU and scare Day and staff into changing their play calling back to what it was. Wouldnt put that in stone.
The Georgia game honestly who knows. It was already hard enough that a QB was getting his first start of his career and now it was delayed at least a day (the Louisiana AG wants it pushed back to Friday) from a terrorist attack and no one can predict how the players are going to react to the situation.
Kickoff was going to be 9pm but ND and Georgia both asked to move it earlier and as of now its 4pm but who knows if it will actually happen then
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Despite Texas playing in their home state in the upcoming Cotton bowl, Ohio State opens as a 4.5 favorite.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
@Bullsitter said: Texas got away with a targeting call late in the 4th quarter
That was a close call. Watching highlights this morning in real time speed it looks like Taaffe had his head up. Watching in slow-motion, what the replay guy would be seeing, it does appear that he dipped his head slightly and went helmet to helmet with the crown. Does the NCAA have a "defenseless player rule" like the NFL?? It would seem it met that criteria. That's a tough call at a crucial point in the game.
Did you ever find out what conference the officials were from? That was a fabulous game overall.
B!G officiating crew for the Texas ASU game. Not calling targeting was the right call
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
It was unintentional but it was a helmet to helmet, I've seen less dangerous hits be targeting but it should have been called
If they called that it would have been game over for Texas but nobody outside of Arizona cares about ASU
Follow the Money and Texas brings more viewers than ASU ever will
That's my opinion
I hope OSU stomps Texas......
This.
ASU dominated that game.
Let's ask Texas if they would be good with their receivers receiving 6 hits like that targeting hit that wasn't called against Arizona State. Seems like the powers that be really wanted Texas to advance to the semifinals over ASU.
Same ole, same ole...
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
That is not surprising. Texas looked really weak in the second half with Arizona. They didn’t really deserve to win. Their kicker missed two chances to win the game, and the defense gave away a 16 point lead. Ohio State’s biggest choke was the loss the Michigan.
I’m not sure it wasn’t intentional. I had only seen the replay at full speed until this morning. I don’t see how that call isn’t made there. As a fan I would rather see OT for sure, but that’s the play the rule is for. It’s a bad no call.
just a disgusting no call. kid was defenseless and the first contact he absorbed when he immediately turned was the Longhorn player's helmet slamming into his. and on top of that, he got laid out. if that had happened in an NFL game there would have been laundry all over the field. classic case of swallowing the whistle at the end of a game, period.
mind you, this take coming from someone who had a vested interest in the outcome (i needed a Texas W)
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
I saw the “no call” as the proper call because I viewed the collision as unintentional. Do you really want the officials determining the outcome of the game? That’s what it would have been if the targeting call had been made.
Whether they make the call or not, they are determining the outcome. I had no vested interest in that game so my preference was to watch more of it, but targeting should have been called. I'm not hearing [m]any analysts suggesting it shouldn't have been called either so I don't think this is a provocative opinion. It really does appear textbook.
I just want officials to do there job consistently
"Targeting" sounds like a Player intentionally sought out to hit a defenseless player in the helmet with malicious intent so maybe the penalty sounds worse than it should but that type of play has been called incessantly before so why not call it there? to
As I said I don't think the player had malicious intent compared to say the Trevor Lawrence incident but the play was what it was, a defenseless WR getting lit up helmet to helmet.
It's now part of the game and if your going to.call.it on similar plays you need to call it there
I had no bet on the game btw and didn't care who won so I'm honestly being impartial here, and no I don't "Want" officials depicting the outcome of the game by calling a penalty sometimes and other times not, we should all want consistency no matter the platform.
if an infraction is only an infraction based on game circumstance, you're all of a sudden jacking with the integrity of the sport. you'll never be able to get me to sign off on, "we don't want a game to be decided in that fashion."
if that's the way it's gonna be just light the rulebook on fire at the two-min warning and make the remainder of every game a free-for-all
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
if an infraction is only an infraction based on game circumstance
How many times do announcers say something like "The Officials are letting them play" near the end of games, typically when there's PI??
As @perkdog said: we should all want consistency no matter the platform. That's a commonly heard rant concerning coin grading, it affects football as well.
Not calling targeting was the right call
How was it not targeting? Targeting doesn’t require hitting with the crown of the helmet. Forcible contact to the head or neck area while leading with the helmet qualifies, which is precisely what the DB did.
Robb
think about the ramifications of that non-call. Texas' D, which is overrated btw, was getting gashed all game long to the tune of 31 & 510. the odds of ASU moving it another 15 or so yards and winning that game were significant. that would have led to a semifinal bludgeoning that put people in a coma by the 3rd quarter. instead, it's two of the largest fanbases in college football pitted against each other in what will likely shatter viewership records.
behind closed doors i'm sure those zebras are getting their feet licked clean
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
They were pretty consistent during the ASU Texas game. Theres no way to have consistency on all the crews from the different conferences that al;so arent even full time and have to go to work during the week.
Fortunately this crew and replay crew understood there was no intent, was face mask to face mask and was just incidental in the process of making a tackle on a football play.
There are crews out there that would have called it and want to be the stars of the game throwing flags all over the place but those are the guys that should be forced out. The targeting rule was intended to protect players not just throw out whoever you want making a tackle that some crews have turned it into
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Surely... but eww.
Also people really arent giving ASU enough credit. I said weeks ago not to sleep on ASU. They have a good coaching staff and I started liking them more and more when the players were saying we have nothing to lose and all the pressure is on Texas. Teams with that attitude are dangerous
The Texas kicker crapped the bed for sure, but ASU and Skattebo should be getting credit instead of just saying the Texas defense isnt good
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
It wasn't force able and he was wrapping up. There were multiple plays like that in the game and the refs did a good job not calling any of them.
Calling that would have been a complete change from how they had officiated the game
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
I think this is a naive interpretation of the rule. It may be a valid perspective, but it doesn't align with how the rule is written. There is nothing about intent so I don't know why it's being brought up to justify a no-call anyways. Whether there was intent to "light him up" or not, had the hit dislodged the football it would have been ruled incomplete - hence - the receiver didn't make a football move after completing the catch and he was hit 'helmet first' (crown or not) above the pads. Targeting. It's unfortunate that a mistake like that should have put Texas in a terrible position and likely cost them the game, but that's how the rules are written. Giving the refs such a wide berth to interpret the rules based on game situation or whatever - including personal interpretation - seems like a bad idea if you want to have a single standard applied, consistently. But to each their own. This one just doesn't seem very subjective.
Fortunately this crew and replay crew understood there was no intent, was face mask to face mask and was just incidental in the process of making a tackle on a football play.
What a lame interpretation. That is not face mask to face mask, that is the crown of the helmet(defined as the top segment of the helmet; namely, the circular area defined by a 6-inch radius from the apex (top) of the helmet) to the defenseless receivers head.
Why is your opinion of EVERYTHING always contrary to what everybody else says and common sense??
Out of curiosity as much as anything else I looked at what the rules say about targeting(not in the rule book, an article on ESPN). Aside from a bunch of mumbo-jumbo, the phrase that stuck out to me was that "Targeting is largely a judgment call on the field which explains a lot. It is the direction that sports at all levels seems to be taking and only reinforces what has been said earlier in the thread --- Do you really want the officials determining the outcome of the game? No, I don't, but that is often exactly what happens.
When the rules aren't clearly written, then they can't be clearly enforced. When the rules can't be clearly enforced, then the outcome of games are left to the interpretation of the Officials. That's what happened here.
ESPN Targeting link.
https://espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/41152488/what-targeting-ncaa-rule-college-football
I’ve always rejected the notion that the refs, commissioners, ‘higher powers’ etc. would make calls that would favor a certain team, but after that non call I may have changed my mind. That was the definition of targeting. The defender had time to lower his head and avoid the helmet to helmet hit but did not.
I don’t know what kind of halfway believable explanation the refs could give to convince me it wasn’t targeting.
The higher powers wanted Texas to win and did something to alter the outcome on purpose.
No other explanation is plausible in my opinion.
If someone watched that game the refs didnt call any of those plays all game. They did a good job being consistent
The last thing you want is the refs to start changing how they call the game at the end. Multiple ones could have been called all game for the people that want everyone thrown out for making a tackle but they were not called.
Has nothing to do with an officiating crew from the B!G wanting Texas to win. They were pretty consistent. If the officials were going to try and rig the game they would have done so for ASU. It was a crew from the B!G and while ASU put up a hell of a fight ASU would be an easier game for OSU than Texas.
Watch the entire game. not a still shot. That wasnt the first time in that game it happened and credit to the refs and replay booths for being consistent
If you want to see one side officiating just turn on the Sugar Bowl with that Big 12 crew
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Next I want to understand why Georgia is throwing this game. They’re clearly the better team.