Arizona State Matchup

[Die4Cy]

Sure, he didn't make the impact with the crown of his helmet, he went in face mask first. He didn't launch, he was running straight through. In terms of the head/neck area hit, the reason I believe that's a no call is because he wouldn't have if Becht hadn't turned to the right in that moment to read his progressions on the right side. An example I'll use would be the no-call in the Texas/Georgia game last night. If the offensive player's movement is what moves their head in to the path of a defender who is too close to change course, I believe that should be a no call.

Simmons is a good dude. Not a dirty player at all. There's no way he ran in there thinking "I'm aiming for the head" and I think on replay you can clearly see he was aiming for chest pads. (Watch the replay they do on the broadcast from lower angle and you can clearly see his facemask up aiming for the chest pads.)

The Texas-Georgia no call is different because as a runner the Georgia quarterback is not a defenseless player. If you want to argue Simmons didn't use the crown of his helmet, fine, that's at least arguable. But the rest of that was bull ****.

 

[SunDevil033]

I shouldn't have brought that subject up, that was a mistake on here. Genuinely wish you guys well, I'll see myself out.

I'll be rooting for you guys any time you're not playing my Devils!

 

[herbicide]

If the offensive player's movement is what moves their head in to the path of a defender who is too close to change course, I believe that should be a no call.

That is what you may believe, but that is not what the rule states, nor how it is called.

The rule is designed for player safety, and errors on the side of said safety. End of story.

 

[MeowingCows]

Briefly, since you brought it up, explain why you believe that was not targeting. It clearly fit the definition of the rule.

The targeting rule states that players cannot:

• Make forcible contact with an opponent using the crown of their helmet
  
  
• Make forcible contact with an opponent's head or neck area using their helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow, or shoulder
  
  
• Launch into an opponent with a hit to the head or neck area
  
  
• Forcibly hit a defenseless player in the head or neck area

In addition, the player's behavior after the hit kinda confirmed the intent there, in my mind. Given the game situation it was a totally unnecessary and obviously dangerous hit, and that's not sour grapes coming from Cyclone fans pointing it out.

I mean, just on those alone, #2 and #4 and check marks and #3 debatably is. I don't think it was intentional, but that's not part of the calculus (nor does it make it a good rule, but it's a rule either way). The end result matters, and those were the end results. The kid got his head snapped back by the contact in his face.

ASUs DB team is gonna watch that on film and they're gonna tell him it's his fault for going high on a QB who isn't even looking his way and has no idea he's coming. Wrap and tackle that guy, he has zero chance of escape. Rocco isn't exactly a super tall QB, this was a predictable risk.

 

[3TrueFans]

I shouldn't have brought that subject up, that was a mistake on here. Genuinely wish you guys well, I'll see myself out.

I'll be rooting for you guys any time you're not playing my Devils!

Suck my ****

 

[NoCreativity]

Skattebo about to go 23 for 58 yards and a garbage time TD dumpoff next week in Happy Valley or South Bend.

 

[MeowingCows]

The Texas-Georgia no call is different because as a runner the Georgia quarterback is not a defenseless player. If you want to argue the didn't use the crown of his helmet, fine, that's at least arguable. But the rest of that was bull ****.

Bingo. Completely different situation here than a pocket passer looking around. Rushing QB has no protections sans sliding.

 

[cyatheart]

Nothing textbook about it. He was "facemask up" aiming for the chest pads. Becht happened to finish his progression on the left and as he shifts right he bends his knees and faces Simmons at the moment of impact. If Becht waits even .5 seconds longer looking the other way there is zero head or neck contact. That was about as bang-band a play as you can get.

I know emotions are high so I'm not going to debate it, it was a mistake to make that comment on this board. I wouldn't be happy with it either if I was in your shoes. But I believe it objectively was not targeting.

Thanks, my friend. Nothing but respect to you guys. That first half I was just waiting for the Higgins / Noel floodgates to open on us, but shockingly we started pressuring Becht. We haven't done that all season, I truly don't even know where it came from. Then to have Guillory step up as huge as he did... I had hoped, but couldn't have imagined how well our receivers would step up sans Tyson.

You are a hell of a fanbase and a hell of a team, I'll be rooting for you guys whenever it doesn't negatively impact ASU.

It’s because you guys actually scouted and made a game plan. We haven’t handled pressure all year and have no adjustments to it after ucf brought it.

Appreciate you posting, will be pulling for ASU but your post on the targeting is the worst post I have ever seen on here. And that is saying a lot. Clearly targeting. To suggest otherwise is bat **** crazy.

 

[Die4Cy]

I mean, just on those alone, #2 and #4 and check marks and #3 debatably is. I don't think it was intentional, but that's not part of the calculus (nor does it make it a good rule, but it's a rule either way). The end result matters, and those were the end results. The kid got his head snapped back by the contact in his face.

ASUs DB team is gonna watch that on film and they're gonna tell him it's his fault for going high on a QB who isn't even looking his way and has no idea he's coming. Wrap and tackle that guy, he has zero chance of escape. Rocco isn't exactly a super tall QB, this was a predictable risk.

Given the players immediate reaction, I think that was his intent. We all know intent isn't part of the rule because it is too difficult to determine. But that one wasn't.

 

[fsanford]

Skattebo about to go 23 for 58 yards and a garbage time TD dumpoff next week in Happy Valley or South Bend.

They will be a ,4th seed and play at home in Fiesta.

 

[CloneLawman]

The ref review for the targeting was QUICK by review standards.
Meanwhile there was a lot of celebrating when a guy looked like he was severely injured.

And that clearly demonstrates a lack of class.

 

[herbicide]

The ref review for the targeting was QUICK by review standards.
Meanwhile there was a lot of celebrating when a guy looked like he was severely injured.

And that clearly demonstrates a lack of class.

Frankly he was lucky the refs didn't see that or it would have been an additional personal foul.

 

[fsanford]

I shouldn't have brought that subject up, that was a mistake on here. Genuinely wish you guys well, I'll see myself out.

I'll be rooting for you guys any time you're not playing my Devils!

Yes best not to debate a sensitive topic on another teams board.

Thinking you will get the 4 seed. Which is great cuz that would be at least 1 extra playoff check for the Big 12

Fingers crossed

 

[CloneLawman]

Frankly he was lucky the refs didn't see that or it would have been an additional personal foul.

It should have been. Just plain stupid, really. But I'm sure DumbDevilTroll33 would "believe" otherwise.

 

[NoCreativity]

They will be a ,4th seed and play at home in Fiesta.

I thought Boise was projected as the 4th seed? Or did the SMU loss change that?

 

[fsanford]

I thought Boise was projected as the 4th seed? Or did the SMU loss change that?

I don't think Clemson gets a bye. Betting odds, most pundits think ASU will now get last bye.

ASU was ranked 2 spots in front of Clemson...Don't think Clemson did enough to make up the 2 spots

Will see

 

[herbicide]

It should have been. Just plain stupid, really. But I'm sure DumbDevilTroll33 would "believe" otherwise.

To beat a dead horse a bit, I can understand a 'disagreement' with how the rule is written, but it is beyond me how anyone can claim that hit didn't qualify as targeting per rule.

 

[CloneLawman]

To beat a dead horse a bit, I can understand a 'disagreement' with how the rule is written, but it is beyond me how anyone can claim that hit didn't qualify as targeting per rule.

Understood. My issue is less with that and more with 1) the unsportsmanlike conduct occurring after the violation and 2) the dumb troll of going on the defeated teams boards to.stir the pot about it when your team won by a half jillion points. And talking like you're really friendly and kind. What an assclown!

 

[Cardinal and Gold]

I shouldn't have brought that subject up, that was a mistake on here. Genuinely wish you guys well, I'll see myself out.

I'll be rooting for you guys any time you're not playing my Devils!

At least you're self aware enough to recognize the mistake. More than I can say for many other fan base's trolls that come here. I hope you get the bye and good luck the rest of the way. Make some noise in the playoffs.

 

[CloneLawman]

At least you're self aware enough to recognize the mistake. More than I can say for many other fan base's trolls that come here. I hope you get the bye and good luck the rest of the way. Make some noise in the playoffs.

What good is recognizing the mistake if you keep talking about it? That's like saying "I know this is a **** move, now let me make it again".