Targeting explanation

[Jonyrose]

I don’t get the concept that they could have stopped them on 4th and 13 somehow overrides calling this correct. This was also 4th down, and just as critical.

Those idiots saying targeting shouldn’t be called there are advocating that on any 4th down, targeting shouldn’t exist.

 

[KidSilverhair]

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.)

Yep. Tipped ball eliminates pass interference. But the “defenseless receiver” still exists, and targeting can be called.

 

[NorthCyd]

I don’t get the concept that they could have stopped them on 4th and 13 somehow overrides calling this correct. This was also 4th down, and just as critical.

Those idiots saying targeting shouldn’t be called there are advocating that on any 4th down, targeting shouldn’t exist.

I don't know if this is reference to my post, but I don't think it makes the call ok. It was an egregious no call. I'm simply responding to people who say the no call cost them the game which it definitely did not. They still ended up with a great opportunity to win, way better than if they had gotten the first down on targeting, and boned it big time.

 

[Big_Sill]

I don’t get the concept that they could have stopped them on 4th and 13 somehow overrides calling this correct. This was also 4th down, and just as critical.

Those idiots saying targeting shouldn’t be called there are advocating that on any 4th down, targeting shouldn’t exist.

Targeting should have been called, but the best chance ASU had to win was when they put Texas in a 4th and 12 in OT. ASU has no kicker, if targeting called they still would have needed to get 30 more yards and make a kick or 40 more yards for a TD.

I don’t think people are saying it overrides, just saying it wasn’t their best chance to win.

 

[Nolaeer]

ESPN College football playoffs contract, page 313, paragraph 12, clause 6, under the Guaranteed TV Revenue section:
"In a one score game in the 4th quarter or overtime, all instant replay reviews for targeting or reversing a call on the field must be run through ESPN for confirmation, otherwise the call on the field stands."

 

[cyclone87]

Maybe, targeting has been super inconsistent all year, seemed to be called less often from my perspective. I thought ISU had a lot of calls go their way all year.

There was a really odd targeting call against us in the UCF. Tipped ball and both guys went for it touched helmets. So technically targeting. It looked pretty silly though imo.

 

[EvilBetty]

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

Does it matter that the ball was tipped?

no, that just applies to pass interference. all the rules of targeting still apply if a ball is tipped.

 

[isufbcurt]

 

[cedarstrip]

ESPN just broke it down and it was 100% targeting. The officiating crews that get playoff games are supposed to be the best, there were multiple clear angles of this play. There should be consequences for this. These crews aren't working for $50/hr.

 

[2122]

I didn't see crown of helmet. I saw facemask.

 

[isufbcurt]

I swear all instant replay guys have to be 80 year old retired refs. Why is instant replay wrong so often. It’s bizarre. This was clear targeting. Very clear. ESPN’s problem is the announcers and even their own rules analyst said it was targeting. So what gives. Can we get an explanation from the review official? He owes an explanation

They are.

The managing partner of the CPA Firm in WDM that I worked at was a long time Big 12 official, when he retired from being a regular official he became a replay official.

 

[isufbcurt]

I didn't see crown of helmet. I saw facemask.

I doesn't have to be crown of the helmet for a defenseless player, just a blow to the head.

 

[FerShizzle]

View attachment 140376

Targeting explanation, “nobody knows”

 

[AllInForISU]

I didn't see crown of helmet. I saw facemask.

That does not apply in this call at all.

 

[AllInForISU]

Remember when Enyi rolled over Gardner Minshew and got called for targeting somehow?

 

[FerShizzle]

Remember when Enyi rolled over Gardner Minshew and got called for targeting somehow?

The Alamo Bowl? The weakest targeting ever called, ever.

 

[cyphoon]

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

Since the ASU player was defenseless, it doesn't matter what body part the Texas player hit him with: head, arm fist, or shoulder can all be used to target. The key is did the Texas player hit the head or neck area? Most of the contact was in the face mask, which seems like it should qualify as a blow to the head.

Another interesting tidbit from that link was the language that reads like "if you're not sure, then it is targeting." iow, the refs need solid proof it wasn't targeting to not make the call, and that really seems dubious in this case.

H

 

[cyphoon]

Flip it around, who thinks here that if that would have been an ASU player hitting a UT player right there, that it would not have been called targeting?

Targeting all day long if it was a Texas player getting hit.

H

 

[cyphoon]

Those idiots saying targeting shouldn’t be called there are advocating that on any 4th down, targeting shouldn’t exist.

Gottlieb tweeted something idiotic to that effect. Paraphrasing "it was textbook targeting, but you can't call it there."

Excuse me? I though the point of this rule was to help prevent players from suffering a debilitating life due to CTE and other neurological disorders. So we just suspend that safety net when its 4th down in the 4th quarter of a big game?

What a dipwit.

H

 

[cedarstrip]

ASU should get an apology letter, the ref should never work D1 again and Taaffe should be out 1st half next game.