Targeting explanation

[NorthCyd]

Can never say this about any big blown call. No one knows the alternate future created from that call being made.

Fair enough. We don't really know what the outcome of the call being made would have been. What we do know is they had other really good opportunities to win the game after that. At the end of the day I 100% get people being upset because the refs didn't make the call to protect a players health. Most of the conversation seems to center around it's impact on the outcome of the game and from that angle it doesn't bother me as much. ASU decided to blitz on 4th and 13 to win the game and didn't pressure the QB at all. Make that play and they win and the no call is a footnote.

 

[FallOf81]

I'd like to see a side by side of the Cyclone who was ejected immediately into Big 12 Championship game against OK versus this latest screw job. As I recall, it was a weak call against the kid, and definitely swayed the game toward guess who, yes, another "blue blood".

 

[Stormin]

Fair enough. We don't really know what the outcome of the call being made would have been. What we do know is they had other really good opportunities to win the game after that. At the end of the day I 100% get people being upset because the refs didn't make the call to protect a players health. Most of the conversation seems to center around its impact on the outcome of the game and from that angle it doesn't bother me as much. ASU decided to blitz on 4th and 13 to win the game and didn't pressure the QB at all. Make that play and they win and the no call is a footnote.

ASU should not have been forced to be in that position to have to make that play. Perhaps being forced to play more defense would have weakened Texas if it did go to OT. The targeting call should have been made. It wasn’t, because it is Texas. Unbiased officiating should result in a likely 50/50 split of unfavorable calls. Texas gets the break almost always. That is bias.

 

[Clonefan32]

I 1,000% believe it's targeting. The only thing I think you could maybe say is that he does appear to kind of maybe get his eyes up right as the hit occurs...?

 

[cedarstrip]

Fair enough. We don't really know what the outcome of the call being made would have been. What we do know is they had other really good opportunities to win the game after that. At the end of the day I 100% get people being upset because the refs didn't make the call to protect a players health. Most of the conversation seems to center around it's impact on the outcome of the game and from that angle it doesn't bother me as much. ASU decided to blitz on 4th and 13 to win the game and didn't pressure the QB at all. Make that play and they win and the no call is a footnote.

I don't care about the players health(yikes)
I don't care about the outcome of the game.

I do care how they can review that and not call targeting. Why the hell are we stopping games for reviews if they aren't getting the OBVIOUS calls correct.

 

[herbicide]

I don't care about the players health(yikes)
I don't care about the outcome of the game.

I do care how they can review that and not call targeting. Why the hell are we stopping games for reviews if they aren't getting the OBVIOUS calls correct.

This one is easy... $$$ (commercial $)

 

[bozclone]

That review was 100% BS. The lack of a targeting call at that point in the game had a huge impact on the game. College sports have never been so corrupt as it is now. Too much money involved for it not to be. We are blessed to have the leadership we have at ISU, but ESPN and others will never give guys like us a fair chance if they have a choice.

 

[CYEATHAWK]

Fair enough. We don't really know what the outcome of the call being made would have been. What we do know is they had other really good opportunities to win the game after that. At the end of the day I 100% get people being upset because the refs didn't make the call to protect a players health. Most of the conversation seems to center around it's impact on the outcome of the game and from that angle it doesn't bother me as much. ASU decided to blitz on 4th and 13 to win the game and didn't pressure the QB at all. Make that play and they win and the no call is a footnote.

It is not a footnote regardless of the outcome because if there was ever a play that defined the rule.........that was the play. Crown down into the helmet of a defenseless player........boom, winner!
But there was money that wanted a certain team to play at a certain place (cotton bowl). And while making the proper call didn't mean Asu would automatically win, not making the call certainty took that last minute chance away.
And I don't think it a stretch to say had that exact play happened in the first quarter......they would have called it.

 

[Gunnerclone]

Fair enough. We don't really know what the outcome of the call being made would have been. What we do know is they had other really good opportunities to win the game after that. At the end of the day I 100% get people being upset because the refs didn't make the call to protect a players health. Most of the conversation seems to center around it's impact on the outcome of the game and from that angle it doesn't bother me as much. ASU decided to blitz on 4th and 13 to win the game and didn't pressure the QB at all. Make that play and they win and the no call is a footnote.

It’s the same as CBB for me, reffing shouldn’t be subjective. I’m not calling for 100% accuracy, but the bottom line is that everything would be better (and fairer), if an infraction is committed it should be officiated by the rule book, not by game flow or the refs opinion of how it would or would not affect a game. 1 st minute, final minute, every minute.

 

[Bret44]

That was 100% Targeting.

But it is funny that the ASU lineman pulled/suplexed Scataboo in the endzone in the OT. It is also 100% illegal but was missed and never talked about, even praised by the announcers.

 

[cyclonespiker33]

I 1,000% believe it's targeting. The only thing I think you could maybe say is that he does appear to kind of maybe get his eyes up right as the hit occurs...?

His eyes don't matter at all. There was forceable and unnecessary contact to the head or neck of a defenseless receiver.

 

[FLYINGCYCLONE]

That review was 100% BS. The lack of a targeting call at that point in the game had a huge impact on the game. College sports have never been so corrupt as it is now. Too much money involved for it not to be. We are blessed to have the leadership we have at ISU, but ESPN and others will never give guys like us a fair chance if they have a choice.

There is a 30-30 segment about when SMU got the death penalty. Money was huge and the SW Conference was out of control. It was like nil before it was legal.

 

[rosshm16]

I'd imagine this has been said already (I only read through page 2 sorry) but the fact that they had a chance to win it on the 4th & 13 play does not excuse the terrible call robbing them of what would likely have been another chance to win it.

 

[FerShizzle]

I mean… it was kind of at least 2 of those things. Maybe all 3.

This guy must have gotten a mean phone call from the head of Big 10 officiating. And is now gaslighting.

 

[Clonefan32]

That was 100% Targeting.

But it is funny that the ASU lineman pulled/suplexed Scataboo in the endzone in the OT. It is also 100% illegal but was missed and never talked about, even praised by the announcers.

There was also a similar hit by an ASU DB that wasn't called targeting earlier. Again, not at all excusing this non-call, but there were a few that went ASUs way too.

 

[Erik4Cy]

That was 100% Targeting.

But it is funny that the ASU lineman pulled/suplexed Scataboo in the endzone in the OT. It is also 100% illegal but was missed and never talked about, even praised by the announcers.

Agree 100% targeting.

But I thought pushing/pulling your own player forward was not illegal anymore. Hence, why you see all the "tush push" type plays now.

I remember it was supposed to be illegal back when Leinart/Bush did it for USC vs ND (iirc, circa 2004/2005ish) but they didn't call it. But I thought I remember hearing where the rule was changed so that you could push/pull your teammate forward?

 

[KidSilverhair]

Agree 100% targeting.

But I thought pushing/pulling your own player forward was not illegal anymore. Hence, why you see all the "tush push" type plays now.

I remember it was supposed to be illegal back when Leinart/Bush did it for USC vs ND (iirc, circa 2004/2005ish) but they didn't call it. But I thought I remember hearing where the rule was changed so that you could push/pull your teammate forward?

Pushing a ball carrier is now legal. Pulling a ball carrier is still illegal. But you never see it called, and because of that it’s happening more (I’ve seen it multiple times in the past week).

 

[StLouisClone]

Agree 100% targeting.

But I thought pushing/pulling your own player forward was not illegal anymore. Hence, why you see all the "tush push" type plays now.

I remember it was supposed to be illegal back when Leinart/Bush did it for USC vs ND (iirc, circa 2004/2005ish) but they didn't call it. But I thought I remember hearing where the rule was changed so that you could push/pull your teammate forward?

You can push but you can't pull.

 

[Erik4Cy]

Pushing a ball carrier is now legal. Pulling a ball carrier is still illegal. But you never see it called, and because of that it’s happening more (I’ve seen it multiple times in the past week).

Thanks. I honestly think the rule is kinda stupid to have one and not the other. Especially like you said where one rarely, if ever, gets called.

I'm cool with pushing OR pulling your teammate ahead for extra yardage. But I would also understand if both were against the rules. But pushing cool/pulling not cool is a kinda weird middle ground.

 

[BCClone]

Agree 100% targeting.

But I thought pushing/pulling your own player forward was not illegal anymore. Hence, why you see all the "tush push" type plays now.

I remember it was supposed to be illegal back when Leinart/Bush did it for USC vs ND (iirc, circa 2004/2005ish) but they didn't call it. But I thought I remember hearing where the rule was changed so that you could push/pull your teammate forward?

Always could push, but couldn’t pull or carry.