OT: The ASU vs. Texas non-targeting call...
- Thread starter ttowncoug
- Start date
Well first of all, I agree with the non-targeting call. A bang bang play, the Texas guy barely dipped his helmet. a good, albiet close, non-call. Anyone who says otherwise need to watch (and watch again) the obvious and almost game-deciding illegal "pull" by ASU's lineman on the Skattebo TD in OT. But no, the lineman is celebrated over it.
As my wife and I sat watching the game we were like, wow! Targeting on 3rd and 15, man, this sure gives ASU an excellent chance to win. As the penalty would have given them excellent, close field position. We both agreed that the play met the text-book definition of targeting. When they came back after the delay they announced no targeting, we were amazed and pretty disillusioned about why that was not called. It clearly, for me shows how rigged ‘big time’ football really is. “They” were not going to let ASU beat Texas. “They” protected the team they wanted to win, needed to win, was supposed to win. I have basically went from being a CF junkie to not caring and not watching. I only tuned into that game with 7 left in the 4th q. Other than that I watch Coug and Idaho games. Also, not to mention the ASU player was clearly stunned and was semi-unconscious. He just layer there. CF owes us better, by a long shot.
100% agree.
I felt like the same no targeting penalty vs USC. ASU gets targeting, they likely put the game away with a field goal.
Give ASU's coach a ton of credit though. He's done a great job in a short time. Being only 34, I suspect he'll have a great career.
I felt like the same no targeting penalty vs USC. ASU gets targeting, they likely put the game away with a field goal.
Give ASU's coach a ton of credit though. He's done a great job in a short time. Being only 34, I suspect he'll have a great career.
Huh... he went helmet to helmet. If that wasnt targeting then targeting doesn't exist
There is no way in the world that the ASU non-call bears any resemblance to the non-call on USC in 2018. Watch the clip (below). Gustin literally changes direction, lowers his head, and drives Minshew to the ground. THAT is targeting.
Pac-12 says Porter Gustin's controversial hit on Gardner Minshew was not targeting
A brutal hit by USC LB Porter Gustin on Washington State QB Gardner Minshew was determined not to be targeting, according to Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott.
sports.yahoo.com
More cry=babying. This time from the Big-12 Commissioner.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ot...1&cvid=a4d8eec6865644aeb933f3bbcfd99350&ei=15
Last edited:
Two points:
1. The assisted touchdown by Scattebo has absolutely zero to do with the non-targeting call, which is the topic of this thread.
2. When it comes to who has the knowledge and experience to accurately opine on the non-targeting call, I am going to go with Gene Sterator over Loyal Coug each and every time when it comes to football. When it comes to recommending bad beer to drink I will give Loyal the nod. Coors Light, seriously?
One of the worst no calls ever!There is no way in the world that the ASU non-call bears any resemblance to the non-call on USC in 2018. Watch the clip (below). Gustin literally changes direction, lowers his head, and drives Minshew to the ground. THAT is targeting.
Pac-12 says Porter Gustin's controversial hit on Gardner Minshew was not targeting
A brutal hit by USC LB Porter Gustin on Washington State QB Gardner Minshew was determined not to be targeting, according to Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott.
More cry=babying. This time from the Big-12 Commissioner.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ot...1&cvid=a4d8eec6865644aeb933f3bbcfd99350&ei=15
It is easy to understand why ASU feels it was targeting. Helmet to helmet on a helpless receiver, without doubt. I also understand Loyal's point. There was no dip of the helmet; it was indeed "bang bang", and the defender had essentially nowhere to go since he arrived almost simultaneously with the ball and was moving full speed.
Yormark is right. A much tighter definition, with examples, is needed and must be taught to all concerned (officials, coaches, players). As it stands, this is a "make or break" call that leaves a lot of gray area.
As a side note, I would probably view this as targeting. But I am not an expert. And since WSU got scr*wed in the PAC ambush, I don't watch other teams (other than the Beavs, and now probably our NewPAC brethren). I did not watch this game. My tiny little protest against a corrupt system.
Yormark is right. A much tighter definition, with examples, is needed and must be taught to all concerned (officials, coaches, players). As it stands, this is a "make or break" call that leaves a lot of gray area.
As a side note, I would probably view this as targeting. But I am not an expert. And since WSU got scr*wed in the PAC ambush, I don't watch other teams (other than the Beavs, and now probably our NewPAC brethren). I did not watch this game. My tiny little protest against a corrupt system.
Bummer. You missed Scattebo vomiting on the sidelines in between series in the 4th Q. And when the cute ASU equipment gal psyched out the Texas kicker on the sideline.
Speaking of protests, need to turn the Sugar Bowl on! Bye!
ASU got screwed based on the rule and what we can infer as the reason the call wasn't made. I loosely recall more than a few times WSU has been screwed by a DB going in heads-up in a bang-bang play with no lowering of the head but grazing the receiver's facemask, as tends to happen when your facemask protrudes and you go tackle a guy head-on. No apparent intent to go helmet-to-helmet or hurt the guy, and no real way to avoid it, but 15 yards and an ejection in the first half of the next game nonetheless. It's stupid but meets the definition. The Texas DB went in more clearly helmet-to-helmet in this case. The targeting rule needs to be modified.
I think the review booth concurred that a Texas loss would hurt TV ratings which is what college football is all about now. ‘Show me the money!”
It was without question a targeting and if they don’t call that there’s no such thing as targeting. The clowns that applaud the no call say “it would have had too much impact on the game”. Well yeah so does not calling an obvious penalty. If there’s a DB draped all over a receiver in that situation you throw the flag too (same principal applies though where refs get scared to make the call towards the end of the game).
If you’re too scared to make the correct call, officiating probably isn’t for you.
That said, ASU has no business whining. Their kicker sucks and they still woulda had another 15-20 yards to be in 50/50 FG range. The game going to OT gave them 50/50 odds. There, they promptly blew it when they had the game won and decided to telegraph a zero blitz on 4th and 13. They deserved to lose at that point.
If you’re too scared to make the correct call, officiating probably isn’t for you.
That said, ASU has no business whining. Their kicker sucks and they still woulda had another 15-20 yards to be in 50/50 FG range. The game going to OT gave them 50/50 odds. There, they promptly blew it when they had the game won and decided to telegraph a zero blitz on 4th and 13. They deserved to lose at that point.
Watching live I thought for sure it would be called targeting.
My guess is because Taffee didn't exactly lead with the crown of the helmet, it was waived off. It felt like targeting, but similar to a catch, there must be a gray zone....more peculiar, the announcers didn't discuss it in much detail after the call was confirmed?
My guess is because Taffee didn't exactly lead with the crown of the helmet, it was waived off. It felt like targeting, but similar to a catch, there must be a gray zone....more peculiar, the announcers didn't discuss it in much detail after the call was confirmed?
fck man, I can't believe I'm saying this but I agree with Loyal on this one.There is no way in the world that the ASU non-call bears any resemblance to the non-call on USC in 2018. Watch the clip (below). Gustin literally changes direction, lowers his head, and drives Minshew to the ground. THAT is targeting.
Pac-12 says Porter Gustin's controversial hit on Gardner Minshew was not targeting
A brutal hit by USC LB Porter Gustin on Washington State QB Gardner Minshew was determined not to be targeting, according to Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott.
More cry=babying. This time from the Big-12 Commissioner.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ot...1&cvid=a4d8eec6865644aeb933f3bbcfd99350&ei=15
The texas kid hit him with his face mask, and almost looks like he lifted his head up to avoid targeting.
The p.o.s. $C player launched himself like a fcking missle and drilled the top of his helmet into Minshew's earhole.
The Gustin tackle on Minshew was dirty AF. Like with intent and purpose to hurt Minshew.
It felt Taffee (UT) hit the ASU player more square and straight up.
The whole intent of the targeting rule was to reduce head and spinal injuries and to avoid having defenders leading with their heads. If they're serious about any part of that, then they need to throw the flag any time it's close. The replay booth's job should be to review, with a presumption toward confirming. They should reverse/overturn only if there's indisputable evidence that it was not targeting - which basically means they only overturn if the helmets didn't hit each other, or initial contact was somewhere else.
For the same reason, the booth should only call targeting from above if it's undeniable. I'd also accept the argument that the booth can't call the penalty at all...although I'm in favor of player safety rules being enforced by review.
For the same reason, the booth should only call targeting from above if it's undeniable. I'd also accept the argument that the booth can't call the penalty at all...although I'm in favor of player safety rules being enforced by review.
How the hell are you going to completely remove helmet to helmet contact from the game? You have humans running full speed towards each other with the intent of making impact.
The only answer to completely mitigate all these injuries is to go to two hand touch. Or flags.
Its already a joke you have QBs running for 5-10 extra yards because every defender is deathly afraid to make contact lest they be ejected and fined.
Even those suggestions won't eliminate injuries. In 8th grade flag football ( 1-8 elementary, no Jr HS tackle with uniforms) I cracked heads with another guy that stumbled into me pulling a flag and split my head open right in the eyebrow. Bloody mess, several stitches. lol Also broke a thumb that season, 8th grade was tough on me.
To me it seems like if the powers that be were serious about preventing injuries they would mandate that EVERY player had to have their uniform cover the knees with the pants and a pad. The Notre Dame QB today looked like he was bicycle shorts, they barely came to mid thigh.
Unlike the Internet which is on fire over one play that was very close. Which really was just yardage - not a TD or INT or
fumble called back.
Yeah what is that? I clearly remember a WSU kicker having to come out of a game once because his knees weren't covered. Of course that was probably 15-20 years ago.
Eliminate helmets. You dont see anywhere near these types of collisions in either rugby or Australian Rules Football.
(I'm not actually in favor of this, but it would reduce leading or tackling with your head. Taihtsat)
This is why they should just throw it out. All this rule does is give the refs and the conference powers another avenue to interpret the rules in whichever direction they want to swing the game.
Doesnt have to be a dip in helmet ... you cant go helmet to helmet
You’re not. Heads are going to hit, especially on the DL and OL. The penalty needs to focus on the forceful hits that are usually on ball carriers (although, there’s significant evidence that the smaller, repetitive hits on the line are just as damaging).
Injuries are going to happen anyway. With bodies in proximity, they’re going to collide. I know someone who fractured an orbital playing flag football.
I also knew someone who fractured that playing flag also. Another player got a broken jaw. I got a concussion. Taihtsat
I hurt my ankle pretty bad playing full contact flag in my 20's. It healed up over the years, but now it hurts all the time and is permanently swollen. That and my knee from softball.
But none of this matters. What matters is the hot sideline reporters in both the Sugar Bowl and Gator Bowl. Geezus - they just keep pulling out those hotties. Wish I had a picture of all 4 of them together. Almost clones.
Yeah. Laura Rutledge is not ugly either. Link that has a picture of both.....
And Taylor McGregor at the Gator Bowl....
This is tougher than Cuck90 and stupidgibbons ever were. Neither of them had stones enough to put on pads, just skirts.
Lmao I don’t know about gibbons, but I guarantee you I’ve played at a higher level than you fat ass. Good to know we can add another item that you don’t know jack shit about.
#peakedinhighschool
The rule for targeting requires an "indicator." Further, it is an intentional act, and not incidental. It is not just helmet-to-helmet contact. From the NCAA rulebook (see here, rule 9-1-3, emphasis mine):
Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet
And I went to where I see lots of discussion about officiating. See this forum (refstripes.com) for some short, good discussion of this no call.
Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet
ARTICLE 3 No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of their helmet. The crown of the helmet is the top segment of the helmet; namely, the circular area defined by a 6-inch radius from the apex (top) of the helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below) When in question, it is a foul (Rule9-6) (AR 9-1-3-I).
Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player
ARTICLE 4 No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul(Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6) (AR 9-1-4-I-VI).
Note 1: “Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:
- Launch A player leaving their feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area
- A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground
- Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
- Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet
And I went to where I see lots of discussion about officiating. See this forum (refstripes.com) for some short, good discussion of this no call.
but... but... Gene Steritore!
*** read through your thread and found this. Not only Steritore, but these jokers too:
What is an "upward thrust" indicator? I see no movement upward or otherwise until the TX kid makes contact with the ASU kid, and that's only because the ASU kid was taller and the collision made the TX kid helmet go up.
These guys... how can we have analysts and officials who see what they want to see? There is objectively ZERO indicator. I've rewatched it 100 times now. I wish SVP would have made him break it down by each requirement and then show in the video exactly what meet the condition.
Last edited:
Forget the upward thrust. It’s forcible contact to the head and neck area, helmet to helmet on a defenseless receiver, and while he didn’t hit him exactly the crown, he certainly got him with the upper part of the helmet. And he was “defenseless”. Its targeting. As as van pelt and the other guy said in every scenario imaginable thats called…I can remember at least 3 plays in Coug games that weren’t nearly this cut and dry that they called it targeting. I hate the rule for the most part as it’s supposed to get head hunting out of the game and 90% of the calls are stuff like this which aren’t head hunting.
Deep breath... don't insult...
Bro. Did you even read what Suudy posted? Did you read the rule?
YOU CAN'T FORGET THE UPWARD THRUST, ITS PART OF THE RULE. TARGETING REQUIRES AN INDICATOR. A HEAD DIP, LOWERING OF THE CROWN, UPWARD THRUST, LEAVING THE FEET.
hth.
I read all of it thanks for the size 62 font and red letters though! And please point out where I insulted anyone, other than calling out Biggs being an uninformed fatass on a previous reply to his dumbfckery.
Tell me, whenever this rule comes up on TV and one of the “experts” is brought in what’s the first thing they say? …“Forcible contact to the head and neck area”. Every time. That’s why I said forget the upward thrust stuff, the refs don’t even think about that jargon in the heat of the moment. It ALWAYS comes back to the above.
We can agree to disagree I guess, no insults you and Suudy see it differently. FWIW every rules expert that’s been ilasked about it has unequivocally said…yup, that’s 100% targeting 🤷. And as I also said these are guys who were officials and know the difficulty of the job. They will give those guys the benefit of the doubt, and they are saying they were wrong.
What’s missing in this play is that the “player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking”. From the rulebook:
Note 1: “Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact
I don’t see him taking aim. This was incidental not intentional.
Note 1: “Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact
I don’t see him taking aim. This was incidental not intentional.
Many calls are judgement calls. Nobody cares about them until a critical moment in the game. In the opening drive a DPI or holding nobody bats an eye.
Look, I’ve been a football official near 20 years. We blow calls. I’ve blown calls. But replay gives extra time, extra eye, and extra experience. With all that, I think they got this right.
I agree, the upward thrust is critical. Most effective when the receiver makes a similar thrust in the opposite direction.
I may not be talking about football anymore.
