Targeting explanation

[Pope]

They’d have had maybe a 30-40% chance to win in regulation. A team with a good fg kicker would’ve had maybe 80-90% chance, the penalty would’ve put them on edge of range and doubtful Texas gets ball back unless they score td immediately.

They would have had 1st and 10 in the Texas 35 yard line with a minute and one time out. I would have given them more than a 40% chance to win in regulation, but we'll never know because the folks in the review booth made sure if that.

 

[cedarstrip]

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

So what's your point?

 

[cedarstrip]

They would have had 1st and 10 in the Texas 35 yard line with a minute and one time out. I would have given them more than a 40% chance to win in regulation, but we'll never know because the folks in the review booth made sure if that.

But its not the review booth is it? The ref looks at the screen on the field. He simply didn't know the rule and ****** it up.

 

[Pope]

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.

You cannot say the horrible non-call "definitely did not" cost them the game. You don't know that. Nobody can ever know that. The refs made sure of it.

 

[herbicide]

SVP's & his guest Dvorcek(?) review of it a bit ago was 100% targeting.

 

[packattack425]

If targeting exists for player safety, you can’t pick and choose when to apply it. I can understand not calling questionable PI call late in the game to not decide a game but I feel like targeting shouldn’t fall in that category

 

[mj4cy]

Only team left from a non-evil conference got bounced in 2OT and the replay official helped.

Perfect spot to stop watching.

Helmet to helmet with zero attempt to move the head to the side against a defenseless player. Absolute ********.

 

[NorthCyd]

You cannot say the horrible non-call "definitely did not" cost them the game. You don't know that. Nobody can ever know that. The refs made sure of it.

What I can say is it 100% did not rob them of all opportunity to win the game because that's exactly what they had with the 4th and 13 play.

 

[cyphoon]

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

Irrelevant when it comes to a defenseless player.

H

 

[Pope]

What I can say say is it 100% did not rob them of all opportunity to win the game because that's exactly what they had with the 4th and 13 play.

What happened after the horrible non-call is irrelevant! ASU was robbed the incredible opportunity to win the game in regulation, period.

 

[VeloClone]

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

Why does everyone keep saying this. It was 3rd down.

 

[Stumbles]

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

He needs to go back to embarrassing himself by talking **** about DII schools , only to subsequently get beat by a DII school.

 

[cedarstrip]

But its not the review booth is it? The ref looks at the screen on the field. He simply didn't know the rule and ****** it up.

And they are in communication with someone on the headset. They should be accountable as well.

I am irate about this, I can't imagine being an asu fan!

 

[NorthCyd]

What happened after the horrible non-call is irrelevant! ASU was robbed the incredible opportunity to win the game in regulation, period.

Yes, it did rob them of an opportunity, but saying it cost them the game is false. Period. Agree to disagree I guess.

 

[farcyted]

Helmet to helmet with zero attempt to move the head to the side against a defenseless player. Absolute ********.

Its amazing how many football fans think it has to be a crown of the helmet hit.

 

[Pope]

As someone said earlier, I'm done watching the SEC/Big 10 Invitational.

Screw you ESPN. I couldn't give a sh*t who wins from here on out, and I sincerely hope a significant part of the college football viewing audience feels the same way.

 

[iowastatefan1929]

SVP's & his guest Dvorcek(?) review of it a bit ago was 100% targeting.

Yes there was an upward thrust as I see now.

Also the 2 point conversion to tie it at 24, ASU had an illegal man down field but defensive holding was called, so it was half the distance and retry.

 

[Pope]

Yes, it did rob them of an opportunity, but saying it cost them the game is false. Period. Agree to disagree I guess.

And saying it didn't cost them the game is just as false, if not more. The whole point is we'll never know because the refs made sure of that.

 

[NorthCyd]

And saying it didn't cost them the game is just as false, if not more. The whole point is we'll never know because the refs made sure of that.

Yes, it cost them an opportunity for sure. They may have gone down and kicked a game winning field goal, or they could have thrown a pick six and lost. Who knows. Point is they had other opportunities after that. Very good ones.

 

[psycln11]

There is really no good explanation for it, but it didn't cost ASU the game. Get a stop on 4th and 13 to win the game. Can't ask for a much better opportunity than that to win a playoff game.

The problem with this logic is that it never should have come to the 4th down stop. ASU would have had an opportunity to win in regulation.