Jan 1, 2025
6:56:56pm
6:56:56pm
Targeting no-call against Texas: there is an argument that it wasn’t targeting
The problem is that it is called on hits like that often.
But there are 2 ways that it get called:
- leading with the crown of the helmet while making forcible contact. That doesn’t apply here.
- making contact to the head or neck area with the helmet on a defenseless player, which was the potential foul here.
But if you look at the replay, it’s actually minimal contact with the helmet to the head. It actually looks like the defenders face mask contacted his shoulder pad first. At the very least, there wasn’t conclusive video evidence that he made forcible contact to the head or neck area with his helmet. And it didn’t look like the hit “went beyond making a legal tackle”.
https://twitter.com/Rate_the_Refs/status/1874571978381873471
But there are 2 ways that it get called:
- leading with the crown of the helmet while making forcible contact. That doesn’t apply here.
- making contact to the head or neck area with the helmet on a defenseless player, which was the potential foul here.
But if you look at the replay, it’s actually minimal contact with the helmet to the head. It actually looks like the defenders face mask contacted his shoulder pad first. At the very least, there wasn’t conclusive video evidence that he made forcible contact to the head or neck area with his helmet. And it didn’t look like the hit “went beyond making a legal tackle”.
https://twitter.com/Rate_the_Refs/status/1874571978381873471
- Previous username
- workindev
- Bio page
- Skeptical Optimist
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
- Last login
- Jan 6, 2025
- Total posts
- 85,402 (4,534 FO)
How about Texas being given a 1st down on this play on the final drive saving their timeout?? (RdF3, Jan 1, 2025 at 7:12pm)
Messages
Time
Jan 1, 6:56pm
Jan 1, 7:02pm
Jan 1, 7:21pm
Jan 1, 7:25pm
Jan 1, 7:35pm
Jan 1, 7:08pm
Jan 1, 7:24pm
Jan 1, 7:32pm