Campbell on Hot Mic

I'm cool with Campbell going nuts. But I think you are interpreting his intentions a bit more the way you want it to be.

I don't think there was any method behind it. He was pissed and he got mad. He doesn't do that and I think he doesn't want to do that. We've seen him lose his **** one other time (against Kansas State in 2017). I bet it will be another 4 years before we see it again.
Did you not watch the alamo bowl?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Tailg8er
Exactly. All we had to do was 1) snap the ball or 2) jump. Those two things would lead to an offsides penalty. Also, we easily picked up the first down after it so I’m not sure why people are so focused on this...
Yes. I was shocked that both Purdy and Campbell carried on the rant. I know they know these basic rules. I was quite surprised Campbell did not get a technical. (I know most will disagree here, but) I actually thought he was threatening the official the way he kept repeatedly pointing at him. Seemed totally out of character for Campbell.
 
I mean.....I’m usually watching the game, not standing there with my phone camera trying to pirate record it all.

Well, I wouldn't do it either for the same reason. But the number of videos that people tend to make at these things makes it seem odd that no one had video. It was also during a timeout.
 
Well, I wouldn't do it either for the same reason. But the number of videos that people tend to make at these things makes it seem odd that no one had video. It was also during a timeout.
Sorry, I was too busy scaring the OU teen girls below us with my screaming and cussing at that time.
 
  • Funny
Reactions: NWICY
Campbell got away with his outburst on the offsides no-call for one reason - he was right and the most of the rest of the crew knew it when he was pointing at the line judge and yelling "do your job". Coaches can push it to the limit in these situations compared to when a coach tells an official that either he or his call sucks.

It took the line judge almost the entire game to finally stop ignoring that OU's DE lined up in the neutral zone on multiple snaps without drawing a flag.
 
by the definition it was targeting. Doesn’t make it a good rule, but it is the

"No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area"

Yes there was forcible contact, yes the receiver was defenseless, but I don't think Young was targeting the receiver's helmet. When Young commits to the tackle, I think he expects to drive his shoulder into the back of the receiver. It looks to me like he is trying to get under the helmet. Unfortunately, Stoops falls in a goofy way and the contact is to the head. Young can't even see this at the moment of impact.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot at 2020-12-20 11-41-25.png
    Screenshot at 2020-12-20 11-41-25.png
    468.6 KB · Views: 24
  • Screenshot at 2020-12-20 11-45-24.png
    Screenshot at 2020-12-20 11-45-24.png
    134.9 KB · Views: 25
  • Screenshot at 2020-12-20 11-54-37.png
    Screenshot at 2020-12-20 11-54-37.png
    634.7 KB · Views: 26
defensless receiver comes into play of targeting.

note 1 point 3. Note 2 point 2.

by the definition it was targeting. Doesn’t make it a good rule, but it is the way it’s written.

View attachment 79678
It is a matter of opinion. Forcible is the subjective part. On replay, my definition of forcible would be pretty strong. His head did not snap, his body did not snap, it was not "Forcible" on the Forcible Richter scale. It was a 5 of 10. Needs to be a 9 out of 10 or more.
 
Campbell got away with his outburst on the offsides no-call for one reason - he was right and the most of the rest of the crew knew it when he was pointing at the line judge and yelling "do your job". Coaches can push it to the limit in these situations compared to when a coach tells an official that either he or his call sucks.

It took the line judge almost the entire game to finally stop ignoring that OU's DE lined up in the neutral zone on multiple snaps without drawing a flag.

The thing is the outburst for the most part worked. Poor refereeing became much less of a factor after that, and I don't think it's much of a surprise we got ourselves back into the game as it went on. I 100% agree on the offsides that wasn't called we should have snapped the ball and/or the entire offensive line should have jumped, and I have no idea why we didn't.

As far as the ejection goes, if that was just a 15-yard penalty we had to eat, but our guy wasn't tossed, I think we would have been fine. But that ejection killed the soul of the team for something like the next 20 game minutes.
 
It is a matter of opinion. Forcible is the subjective part. On replay, my definition of forcible would be pretty strong. His head did not snap, his body did not snap, it was not "Forcible" on the Forcible Richter scale. It was a 5 of 10. Needs to be a 9 out of 10 or more.

Literally anyone who watches college football can say this play was targeting by the way the rule is written. If you think it wasn’t take off your cardinal and gold tinted glasses. Isheem didn’t get screwed by the refs, he got screwed by the rule.

and yes, this kids head did have that forcible snap motion.
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: Urbandale2013
Literally anyone who watches college football can say this play was targeting by the way the rule is written. If you think it wasn’t take off your cardinal and gold tinted glasses. Isheem didn’t get screwed by the refs, he got screwed by the rule.

and yes, this kids head did have that forcible snap motion.
I think you can easily say it wasn’t targeting by the letter of the rule and still understand they were going to call it that way. It’s just a common misapplication of the rule. The forcible contact was to the lower body but the offensive player initiated the head contact.
 
defensless receiver comes into play of targeting.

note 1 point 3. Note 2 point 2.

by the definition it was targeting. Doesn’t make it a good rule, but it is the way it’s written.

View attachment 79678

Every WR that jumps to catch a ball and doesn't get it but then subsequently tackled is defenseless. In fact, it would seem the D is tackling a player without the ball, which is against the rules.
 
  • Like
Reactions: isutrevman

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron