*** Official IOWA STATE Vs Akron Gameday Thread ***

[19clone91]

I can see a unnecessary roughness call there since he was trying to shove his head into the ground it appeared, but it wasn’t targeting. Not sure how the rulebook comments about the use of a helmet being required for a targeting call. I am definitely surprised to be on this side of a bad call.

 

[Tedcyclone]

Hate that call

I cannot believe that was targeting and then the kid got kicked out.. WT! Football today is jacked and calls are loco.

 

[uro cy]

After that call, I feel slightly guilty cheering for the TD.
(only slightly, after all the bad calls we have taken)

 

[crash_zone]

Did they call it targeting partly for the contact when he was already down and unprotected?

 

[cyrocksmypants]

Glad to see everyone had my same opinion on that targeting call. I know we greatly benefited, but I hate to see that kid not only miss the rest of this game but the first half of the next on a horrendous call. I feel for that kid.

 

[CloneGuy8]

I guess it's targeting because he hit his head, but I don't think it was intentional. Bad call but I'll take it.

 

[crayhons]

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). (A.R. 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 his 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

Not saying I agree, but this is what the rules state.

 

[BigLame]

Is announcer incorrect talkie for about not using the helmet? Targeting is simply not hitting the head of the exposed, offensive player, correct?
Lazard was hit in the back of his head. Doesn't matter if defender used helmet or not, right?

Well there you go- someone beat me to it. Thx!!

 

[UraMallas]

Thanks, announcers. I appreciate your facilitation in reliving that memory.

 

[SerenityNow]

Not a bad call at all. Targeting doesn't have to be helmet to helmet. It's targeting neck and head by any body part of the defender. Ref got it exactly right.

https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/9/7/12829482/targeting-penalty-rulebook-ncaa-football

 

[Cybball37]

There was the double digit lead lost ISU visual they had for this game days ago. Finally got it out.

 

[helechopper]

I think we will win this one.

 

[casey1973]

Not targeting but I do have to agree with the outcome.

 

[dxmonger]

I'll write Akron an apology letter for that one

We have a lifetime supply of bad calls that go against us and finally one goes our way and we write apology letters... I think that summarizes life as a Cyclone fan.

 

[crayhons]

Is announcer incorrect talkie for about not using the helmet? Targeting is simply not hitting the head of the exposed, offensive player, correct?
Lazard was hit in the back of his head. Doesn't matter if defender used helmet or not, right?

• Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area

It doesn't have to be the helmet, there are plenty of other situations where it is still targeting.

 

[KennyPratt42]

By definition that was 100% targeting, but also one of those plays that makes the rule look bad.

 

[CRcyclone6]

I can see a unnecessary roughness call there since he was trying to shove his head into the ground it appeared, but it wasn’t targeting. Not sure how the rulebook comments about the use of a helmet being required for a targeting call. I am definitely surprised to be on this side of a bad call.

NFL would have called it unnecessary roughness, hitting a defenseless receiver. Play on and no big deal if Lazard doesn't drop the damn ball.

 

[cyclonedave25]

After 3 games, its safe to say we are a 3rd Q team.

 

[khardbored]

The first body part to hit Laz's helmet was the arm/shoulder

I can see a unnecessary roughness call there since he was trying to shove his head into the ground it appeared, but it wasn’t targeting. Not sure how the rulebook comments about the use of a helmet being required for a targeting call. I am definitely surprised to be on this side of a bad call.

Targeting does not have to be helmet-to-helmet. If you initiate contact in the opponents helmet with fist, forearm, or shoulder, it's still targeting by rule.

By the book, it was the right call. We (football fans in general) just don't like it.

 

[cygrads]

It would be nice to pitch a shutout in the 2nd half but I doubt the defense has that in mind.