Targeting explanation

[cedarstrip]

Please no comments on this thread, only links to credible sources that explain why that hit on ASU was not targeting. I honestly have no clue on targeting anymore. I want to learn.

I will allow bumps....

 

[FerShizzle]

 

[cyclone1209]

Please no comments on this thread, only links to credible sources that explain why that hit on ASU was not targeting. I honestly have no clue on targeting anymore. I want to learn.

I will allow bumps....

Call very likely cost ASU the game. They were rolling and couldn’t be stopped. It’s when a defender leads with the crown of the helmet, causing harm to an offensive player in the head area (whether intentional or not). I was disgusted that was a no call.

 

[Clonefan94]

Please no comments on this thread, only links to credible sources that explain why that hit on ASU was not targeting. I honestly have no clue on targeting anymore. I want to learn.

I will allow bumps....

No credible source will explain it as not targeting. My guess is ESPN will try to flush this down the drain ASAP, but you might get a few explanations from them. In the end, I don’t care because I watched the only playoff game I’ll watch. I don’t care who wins now.

 

[JUKEBOX]

Please no comments on this thread, only links to credible sources that explain why that hit on ASU was not targeting. I honestly have no clue on targeting anymore. I want to learn.

I will allow bumps....

https://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/FR24_20240724.pdf

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-V

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 helm.

Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14) When in question, a player is defenseless Examples of defenseless players include but are not limited to:
• A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass This includes an offensive player in a passing posture with focus downfield.
• A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect themselves or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
• A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return.
• A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect themselves or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
• A player on the ground.
• A player obviously out of the play.
• A player who receives a blind-side block.
• A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped.
• A quarterback any time after a change of possession.
• A ball carrier who has obviously given themselves up and is sliding feet first.

So I think it was "leading with helmet with forcible contact at the head or neck area" for "a receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect themselves or has not clearly become a ball carrier."

 

[motorcy90]

it wasn't called because E$ecPN couldn't let one of thier golden cash cows teehas to miss out on their payday.

 

[RustShack]

It wasn’t called targeting because it could have led to SEC Texas losing to Big12 ASU. But by rule, yes it was textbook targeting. Not called, for obvious reasons.

 

[JUKEBOX]

There is no accountability. Networks pay the conferences. Conferences pay the officials.

Bigger teams have bigger TV draws.

 

[LincolnSwinger]

No link, but I think this is in the spirit of the OP…..

Does it matter that the ball was tipped?

 

[buf87]

The only thing i was wondering if it had anything to do with the ball being tipped? Other than that, it looked like targeting to me

 

[JUKEBOX]

No link, but I think this is in the spirit of the OP…..

Does it matter that the ball was tipped?

No I don't think so. That only applies to interference rules. Targeting would still apply.

(CTRL-F "tipped" in the rulebook, and it pretty much only shows up for Contact Interference.)

 

[ScottyP]

I sometimes wonder if the replay official just flips a coin on targeting reviews.

 

[JUKEBOX]

I sometimes wonder if the replay official just flips a coin on targeting reviews.

I remember I was reading into it one time and basically all the conferences have their own processes and do "internal" evaluations of the officials. There is no external oversight or accountability afaik.

Edit: Quick search, and maybe they upload the results of the evaluation here? https://www.qwikref.com/CFONew/login.aspx. You need a login though.

 

[Cloned4Life]

ESPN will subtly touch on it. Focus will be:

• Ensure all panelists state/agree that it was the ‘right call’, but mostly focus on brushing it off like it really wasn’t a big deal and really didn’t have that much of an impact. Maybe even make up something about ASU benefitting from Texas penalties throughout the game, etc.
• Have a rules expert (either in person or even just reference a written statement) affirming that it was correct to not call Targeting after the review, maybe even using a term like “inconclusive”. Ensure it is clear that the SEC and the “rules experts” really don’t think it’s that big of a deal.
• Focus on how “dominant” Texas was early. Deflect all attention away from that call, showing repeated highlights of the punt return. Deflect any attention or credit away from Arizona State, and focus on the mighty Texas defense that had numerous 4th down stops because ASU has a grade school level kicker.
• Mention Scattaboo a few times but mostly focus on the few Texas ‘stopped’ him, which wasn’t very often after the first quarter.

Within a couple of days, you won’t hear a single media member in the ESPN orbit mention the call, and by next week, the focus will be on how dominant Texas was getting up 2 scores (even though ASU physically dominated Texas for the last 3 quarters of the game). And if they slip up - any mention of Targeting by a media pundit or Texas former player or whatever will instead focus on “other times when Texas has gotten screwed over by penalties” (which of course they’ll have to embellish/make up).

 

[nrg4isu]

Defenseless: check (no evidence yet that the ball being tipped changes this)
Crown of the helmet: check
Forcable contact to the head/neck: check

I don't see any room for discretion for this to not be called targeting.

 

[cyclonespiker33]

• Focus on how “dominant” Texas was early. Deflect all attention away from that call, showing repeated highlights of the punt return. Deflect any attention or credit away from Arizona State, and focus on the mighty Texas defense that had numerous 4th down stops because ASU has a grade school level kkicker.

But make sure that you don't show or mention the blatant block in the back on the Texas punt return touchdown

 

[Jayshellberg]

No I don't think so. That only applies to interference rules. Targeting would still apply.

(CTRL-F "tipped" in the rulebook, and it pretty much only shows up for Contact Interference.)

You’re correct. Targeting is still in place EVEN if the ball is tipped. On the other hand, if the ball is tipped, you can’t have pass interference.

 

[alarson]

Defenseless: check (no evidence yet that the ball being tipped changes this)
Crown of the helmet: check
Forcable contact to the head/neck: check

I don't see any room for discretion for this to not be called targeting.

Gottlieb with a dumbass take?

Shocking.

 

[buf87]

Big Ten refs during that game, right? Is the review done by Big Ten refs also?

 

[iowastatefan1929]

Im okay with no targeting here. Gotta stop Texas on 4th down in OT.