Yup. It was targeting. How many here would have been angry if it was called?

Report problem with this ad

Jan 1, 2025
10:29:54pm

Borg Truly Addicted User

Tells you all you need to know Nobody would have had a problem with it

This message has been modified

Originally posted on Jan 1, 2025 at 10:29:54pm

Message modified by Borg on Jan 2, 2025 at 6:49:30am

Report problem with this ad

Borg

Previous username: Blue Panda
Bio page: Borg
Joined: Mar 6, 2001
Last login: Jan 7, 2025
Total posts: 52,051 (11,601 FO)

Report problem with this ad

Messages

Author

Time

Targeting no-call against Texas: there is an argument that it wasn’t targeting

Skeptical Optimist Truly Addicted User

Jan 1, 6:56pm

There's a better argument. SEC home cooking.

hebercreeper

Jan 1, 6:59pm

Arizona State got plenty of close and questionable calls

Coop

Jan 1, 7:02pm

It wasn’t an SEC officiating crew

Skeptical Optimist

Jan 1, 7:17pm

Big Ten and SEC are tighter now than a senior prom queen and her dress.

byujacob

Jan 1, 7:29pm

Don’t agree with what you’re saying at all. This is clear contact to the head on a defenseless player which is targeting

yapacoug

Jan 1, 7:00pm

It’s isn’t clear where the forcible contact was made

Skeptical Optimist

Jan 1, 7:09pm

Yep. In the speeds on this video, the helmet to helmet contact was the first

Crowd Factor

Jan 1, 7:36pm

I don’t think face mask to face mask contact should be targeting

Coop

Jan 1, 7:01pm

"Minimal contact." That's funny.

Spiff

Jan 1, 7:03pm

He posts a video and claims the opposite of what happened

Plato

Jan 1, 7:23pm

Sure looks forcible to me.

bluesloth

Jan 1, 7:06pm

Forcible contact to the shoulder pad is legal

Skeptical Optimist

Jan 1, 7:11pm

This is a hit to the head:

bluesloth

Jan 1, 7:15pm

Yeah. No shoulder pad there. Helmet to helmet. Defenseless player. Review booth missed the call

TADOW

Jan 1, 7:17pm

That video doesn’t show where the forcible contact was made, you can’t see the front of his

Skeptical Optimist

Jan 1, 7:21pm

What? That is absolutely forcible contact to the head. Not sure what definition

bluesloth

Jan 1, 7:25pm

The NCAA defines it as “going beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball”

Skeptical Optimist

Jan 1, 7:35pm

The two angles you showed were absolutely clear that d hit with facemask first

cwilke1

Jan 1, 7:40pm

You need X-ray vision to see through the Texas defenders shoulder to see where contact was first made

Skeptical Optimist

Jan 1, 7:52pm

You just need to look at the screen of the two different angles shown to easily

cwilke1

Jan 1, 7:54pm

What are you watching or looking at? No way you are able to make your

Crowd Factor

Jan 1, 7:39pm

I definitely don't want that to be targeting.

JuicyJam

Jan 1, 7:07pm

Looks like forcible head to head to contact to me.

TailgateU

Jan 1, 7:08pm

I know this isn’t a factor for targeting, but the fact that the ball was tipped

garyfan

Jan 1, 7:10pm

All I know is I’ve seen a lot less egregious hits be called than that.

The Pope

Jan 1, 7:22pm

It is such a wildly, inconsistently called penalty. As soon as it happened as I said to myself:

TheLoneCougar

Jan 1, 7:24pm

That’s the problem here. Plays like that do get called all the time

Skeptical Optimist

Jan 1, 7:38pm

Wouldn't have mattered anyway. Their kicker would've missed the FG.

ShinobiCoug

Jan 1, 7:25pm

They would have had 1st down in Texas territory. Possible TD.

garyfan

Jan 1, 7:35pm

It's possible but I suspect they wouldn't have scored in remaining 50 seconds

cwilke1

Jan 1, 7:38pm

Wow, I suppose that since a few downs weren't productive we should just ignore

TailgateU

Jan 1, 10:59pm

that's not what I said. I am arguing in favor that the refs should have called

cwilke1

Jan 1, 11:05pm

There may be credible argument but you're not making it

Remigius

Jan 1, 7:28pm

I’m not arguing that there wasn’t forcible contact to the head or neck area. I’m arguing that there isn’t conclusive

Skeptical Optimist

Jan 1, 7:42pm

Apparently not all of us...

SoCalCoug

Jan 1, 7:47pm

Me reading posts from people who don’t see clear helmet to helmet contact:

bluesloth

Jan 1, 7:52pm

Define forcible contact, or rather tell me the NCAA's definition of it. It doesn't exist. That's why it's subjective.

Radioactive Coug

Jan 1, 10:25pm

The face mask is part of the helmet

cwilke1

Jan 1, 7:32pm

A key part of the rule: “When in question, it is a foul.”

Odysseus

Jan 1, 8:28pm

This is the strongest case against an ambiguous definition of forcible contact.

Radioactive Coug

Jan 1, 10:27pm

Yup. It was targeting. How many here would have been angry if it was called?

Posting on CougarBoard