My Account
Sign up, and you can customize which countdowns you see.
Sign up
Report problem with this ad
Start a related thread
Start a related poll
Reply via Boardmail
Jan 2, 2025
2:23
:06
am
icecougar
Truly Addicted User
He started to lower his head but it didn’t appear to be the crown of the helmet
…that hit the receiver, it looked like it was facemask to facemask.
Start a related thread
Start a related poll
Reply via Boardmail
Report problem with this ad
icecougar
Bio page
icecougar
Joined
Apr 17, 2006
Last login
Jan 4, 2025
Total posts
43,020 (359 FO)
Report problem with this ad
Messages
Author
Time
I initially strongly disagreed with the targeting non-call in the Texas-Arizona
Incentivize
Jan 2, 12:30am
I came to the same conclusion.
LifeLongLakerFan
Jan 2, 12:31am
I did not. May not have been intentional, but the hit checked the blocks
jrifkin48
Jan 2, 4:12am
I get that. It was on the line. What ultimately did it for me was that it was
LifeLongLakerFan
Jan 2, 8:15am
Not right according to the rule on defenseless players. Crown, etc isn’t
bluesloth
Jan 2, 12:36am
In my opinion, the rule is there to protect a player from getting injured. I think the fact that the guy’s laying there
KYU
Jan 2, 12:42am
So they should throw out a flag every time someone gets injured?
cougaman
Jan 2, 6:19am
Every time a “defenseless” player gets injured by being hit in the head, yes. Thats the entire purpose of the rule.
mvtoro
Jan 2, 9:06am
So if they aren’t injured then no penalty? Injuries are going to happen, and
cougaman
Jan 2, 9:32am
Nope, still a penalty even if there’s no injury. Penalty is based on a specific action that is likely to result in
mvtoro
Jan 2, 10:02am
So if you don’t have that action and there’s still an injury, it’s not in fact a
cougaman
Jan 2, 10:07am
Yup. Thats why I used the language of the rule in my post. Some folks are trying to parse what’s “forcible” contact and
mvtoro
Jan 2, 10:21am
Right, so the player on the ground doesn’t man anything in this discussion,
cougaman
Jan 2, 10:30am
No, a defenseless player being injured by the contact to his head shows that it was plenty “forcible” to fulfill the
mvtoro
Jan 2, 10:40am
That’s what I disagree with. You are using the result to justify the penalty.
cougaman
Jan 2, 10:44am
Prevention of those exact injuries are 100% the purpose of the rule. Injuries *are* the purpose and justification for
mvtoro
Jan 2, 11:04am
To avoid hits that are more worrisome, which is why you judge the hit, not the
cougaman
Jan 2, 11:43am
Nope. The purpose isn’t to avoid “worry” by preventing “worrisome” acts. The purpose is 100% to decrease injury and to
mvtoro
Jan 2, 1:14pm
So you do throw the flag because of the injury, not the act. That’s what you are
cougaman
Jan 2, 1:37pm
No I’m not. That’s your strawman of what I’m proposing. You throw the flag if there is “forcible contact” to the head
mvtoro
Jan 2, 1:54pm
I’m debating the post by KYU where he says “the fact that the guys laying on the
cougaman
Jan 2, 3:08pm
Ok. Don’t know where you should be disagreeing with anything I posted.
mvtoro
Jan 2, 4:26pm
You responded to me. I’m just trying to be clear. What’s in debate is if the hit
cougaman
Jan 2, 4:38pm
Indicator is “forcible contact” to head or neck area of a defenseless receiver. Which part of that do you think is in
mvtoro
Jan 2, 5:38pm
“Leading with” the head for forcible contact. I think he was trying to wrap up
cougaman
Jan 2, 6:03pm
Doesn't matter what he was "trying" to do. He did it.
TailgateU
Jan 2, 6:06pm
Nobody asked you.
cougaman
Jan 2, 6:07pm
He made first contact with his head against the other’s head. That’s “leading”. I don’t agree that intent has anything
mvtoro
Jan 2, 6:20pm
I guess you missed the part that I don’t care to debate anymore. It only took 10
cougaman
Jan 2, 6:31pm
Yet here you are again. You actions belie your words.
mvtoro
Jan 2, 7:24pm
I’ll use your words here and you can debate with yourself what you meant.
cougaman
Jan 2, 7:31pm
You’re back again! If you want to learn the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions you might see how all
mvtoro
Jan 2, 7:58pm
I get that, it makes sense. But the tackle itself was brutal also. The fact he was basically picked up and slammed
Radioactive Coug
Jan 2, 10:35am
Could be. There are plenty of ways for a defender to be injured that are legal. That’s why I posted with the language I
mvtoro
Jan 2, 11:01am
Why even respond like that? It’s kind of dishonest.
KYU
Jan 2, 9:35am
You kind of implied that the injury made the call. People get injured all the
cougaman
Jan 2, 9:37am
You just doubled down on your dishonesty
KYU
Jan 2, 9:38am
The rule was written with player safety in mind.
Spiff
Jan 2, 9:50am
Cool
cougaman
Jan 2, 10:07am
Even on a defenseless player, there still has to be indicators present
StantonMac
Jan 2, 12:46am
which is a ridiculous ruling cause he got him with the crown anyways
FieroCoug
Jan 2, 1:15am
Can always count on an unbiased take from FieroCoug when OU or UT are involved…
reddead
Jan 2, 1:17am
“targeting 100 times out of 100”
FieroCoug
Jan 2, 1:19am
Talking heads need to have takes, but it’s not what the rules say
reddead
Jan 2, 1:55am
his head, above the facemask, was the first thing to make contact. yes he
FieroCoug
Jan 2, 2:09am
Yes, but that only matters if he makes contact with the crown (6 in from top)
reddead
Jan 2, 2:22am
You're wrong.
dYrtbYkerYder
Jan 2, 2:28am
You need to brush up on the rules. I linked the relevant rule for you below...
reddead
Jan 2, 2:39am
Not on a defenseless player.
dtownCoug
Jan 2, 6:27am
Doesn't have to be the crown. Forcible contact to the head and neck area is
RGGeemer
Jan 2, 7:43am
And it could be with a hand, shoulder, foot, knee, arm, pinky finger, etc.
dYrtbYkerYder
Jan 2, 7:58am
The rulebook specifies helmet, shoulder, forearm, hand. But your point is
RGGeemer
Jan 2, 8:00am
For a defenseless player (which the WR was in this case)
Skeptical Optimist
Jan 2, 8:06am
He led with his helmet
CougarDanger
Jan 2, 3:09am
That indicator includes an element of intent or purpose
reddead
Jan 2, 3:30am
No it doesn’t. It doesn’t say “intent” and just like a facemask penalty it doesn’t matter if you did it accidental or
mvtoro
Jan 2, 9:16am
I realize reading is hard, but the D's intent/purpose is specifically addressed
reddead
Jan 2, 6:54pm
Yeah, reading is particularly hard when you invent whole sentences that aren’t actually written in the rule. Very hard
mvtoro
Jan 2, 7:19pm
Wait, your high school is in Mesa? 10 miles from ASU's stadium?
reddead
Jan 2, 8:30pm
Opinions getting ratioed pretty hard?… Claim bias! LOL! Ok bro 🤣 keep adding your own language to the rules if it makes
mvtoro
Jan 2, 8:38pm
Maybe Steve Shaw, national director of officiating doesn’t understand the rule either. Says intent doesn’t matter:
mvtoro
Jan 2, 9:18pm
RE: “targeting 100 times out of 100”
KYU
Jan 2, 10:09am
Not even close. The NCAA defines the crown as a 6” circle at the top of the helmet
Skeptical Optimist
Jan 2, 6:12am
<< Deleted >>
dYrtbYkerYder
Jan 2, 1:52am
Indicators like his head snapping back after helmet to helmet contactsand him laying on the ground with a concussion
KYU
Jan 2, 9:56am
Neither of those are indicators for a foul in the rule book
Skeptical Optimist
Jan 2, 10:00am
But that would seem to be an indicator of forcible contact.
Spiff
Jan 2, 10:03am
He led with his helmet. Case closed.
calbearcoug
Jan 3, 9:16am
One indicator. Singular. Requirement met.
calbearcoug
Jan 3, 9:15am
It's not hard, but a select few like to pretend like it is.
dYrtbYkerYder
Jan 3, 9:20am
Yes. So obvious and "not hard" that it wasn't called live, and wasn't called
reddead
Jan 3, 9:28am
Proof of absence is not absence of proof
calbearcoug
Jan 3, 10:02pm
A targeting indicator is though
cougaman
Jan 2, 6:18am
head wasn’t all the way down but it was down at contact.
FieroCoug
Jan 2, 12:38am
And on defenseless player, doesn’t even have to be helmet to helmet. Can be
bluesloth
Jan 2, 12:40am
Sounds like you are looking for reasons to not call it. The ref consultant
GSwarriorcoug
Jan 2, 12:55am
It's been targeting all year
Mitty
Jan 2, 1:11am
No it hasn’t. It wasn’t even targeting 5 min earlier in the same game (ASU int)
reddead
Jan 2, 1:18am
in what world is back to chest the same as crown to face? would you rather
FieroCoug
Jan 2, 1:20am
By “back”, I’m sure you mean “forearm and shoulder to the head/neck”. Link below
reddead
Jan 2, 2:08am
at worst it was shoulder to shoulder. he did launch but it wasn’t head or neck
FieroCoug
Jan 2, 2:10am
Not what I see. Look at the UT head movement here, and the ASU forearm extension
reddead
Jan 2, 2:30am
I think that is the problem...it hasn't. If that exact play happens 100 times, it gets called 50 and no-called 50.
TheLoneCougar
Jan 2, 7:57am
People seriously need to learn the rule better. First, you need to determine if
dYrtbYkerYder
Jan 2, 1:52am
There still needs to be an “indicator” and I don’t think that’s as clear cut
reddead
Jan 2, 1:57am
Irony. “People need to learn the rule book.” Then they leave out a key part of
cougaman
Jan 2, 6:24am
Fine. Here are the targeting indicators for hit on a defenseless player:
dYrtbYkerYder
Jan 2, 9:19am
Great that you know that now. It was kinda silly of you to act smarter than
cougaman
Jan 2, 9:45am
You're copy-pasting the rule I linked for you, but you still don't understand it
reddead
Jan 2, 7:03pm
<< Deleted >>
Odysseus
Jan 2, 6:40am
led with helmet. Case closed.
calbearcoug
Jan 3, 9:17am
I’ve seen players held out for a lot less
ninja math
Jan 2, 1:57am
I felt like it should have been called at the time.
VenomFarmer
Jan 2, 2:18am
He started to lower his head but it didn’t appear to be the crown of the helmet
icecougar
Jan 2, 2:23am
THE HIT DOESN'T NEED TO BE WITH THE CROWN OF THE HELMET!!!
dYrtbYkerYder
Jan 2, 2:30am
But it does need to have an "indicator" and crown of the helmet is one indicator
reddead
Jan 2, 2:32am
That he led with his helmet.
CougarDanger
Jan 2, 3:10am
Addressed above. Not clear that he led with the necessary purpose/intent
reddead
Jan 2, 3:30am
LOL intent does not enter into it. Not even remotely.
calbearcoug
Jan 3, 9:17am
That he led with his helmet
CougarDanger
Jan 2, 3:14am
Which is dumb. We all lead with our heads wherever we go.
C-dubb
Jan 2, 5:32am
RE: Which is dumb. We all lead with our heads wherever we go.
JoeExotic
Jan 2, 5:50am
This is what they are trying to stop. Don’t use the helmet like a weapon. At
ImuaKahuku
Jan 2, 5:54am
Which is what the defender did.
cougaman
Jan 2, 8:22am
The verbiage about "a defenseless player" says nothing about the "crown".
dYrtbYkerYder
Jan 2, 9:21am
This. ☝️ Crown only matters if the receiver wasn't defenseless. Since he was
al3124
Jan 2, 4:37am
IT NEEDS TO HAVE A TARGET INDICATOR THOUGH
cougaman
Jan 2, 8:19am
"Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with
dYrtbYkerYder
Jan 2, 9:22am
I’ve read the rule. You didn’t include that in your original post that you
cougaman
Jan 2, 9:35am
No need to yell. I just woke up.
VenomFarmer
Jan 2, 9:11am
I like to look at these things scientifically. My conclusion? A targeting call
WallaX2
Jan 2, 4:54am
Doesn’t need crown. whole purpose of the rule is to avoid that exact injury.
ImuaKahuku
Jan 2, 5:27am
Apparently there are a lot of people who think that Big 10 refs willingly cheat for the SEC
Skeptical Optimist
Jan 2, 6:13am
I think it is more likely that the refs didn’t have the guts to make the call
JoeExotic
Jan 2, 6:21am
I think if they had an angle clearly showing forcible contact to the head they would have made the call
Skeptical Optimist
Jan 2, 7:18am
The angles are clear IMO. Defenseless player got popped in the head.
JoeExotic
Jan 2, 7:30am
I don't think that's clear - you can't see through his shoulder to see where his face mask hits first
Skeptical Optimist
Jan 2, 7:37am
We must not be watching the same clip
JoeExotic
Jan 2, 7:51am
I agree that there is contact to the WR helmet/face mask
Skeptical Optimist
Jan 2, 8:15am
Forcible has a definition.
JoeExotic
Jan 2, 9:30am
It absolutely impacted the rest of the play. The WR had made the catch and
dYrtbYkerYder
Jan 2, 9:34am
It was well short of the sticks though
JoeExotic
Jan 2, 9:38am
The purpose of the targeting rule isn’t about “impacting the play”. It was made and is called to improve player safety.
mvtoro
Jan 2, 10:30am
I know this - I’m telling you why I think the ref didn’t throw the flag.
JoeExotic
Jan 2, 11:58am
That may be true. And I agree that if that’s the case, it is the wrong way to enforce rules 👍🏻
mvtoro
Jan 2, 1:17pm
Even with your dictionary definition it's still highly subjective.
Radioactive Coug
Jan 2, 9:36am
Lol
JoeExotic
Jan 2, 9:39am
Forcible contact is not defined in the NCAA rulebook
Skeptical Optimist
Jan 2, 9:53am
But it’s still a word with a definition
JoeExotic
Jan 2, 10:07am
That fact that you can't admit it is subjective is the whole problem.
Radioactive Coug
Jan 2, 10:13am
I would say that being the whole problem is subjective.
JoeExotic
Jan 2, 10:27am
Well then the rule needs to be changed - actually, I think under the rules the refs were dead wrong
BYUFootballRocks1
Jan 2, 8:16am
"Any contact" isn't the standard defined in the rulebook - it has to be "forcible contact" to the
Skeptical Optimist
Jan 2, 8:25am
Did you not watch the play? It was a viscous hit from helmet to helmet.
jpal1397
Jan 2, 8:33am
Of course I watched the play.
Skeptical Optimist
Jan 2, 8:39am
I’ve seen other targeting calls with much less carnage done than this one.
jpal1397
Jan 2, 8:20am
It's obvious targeting. The people quoting the rule are leaving out key parts:
Roko's Basilisk
Jan 2, 8:29am
It’s obvious, so you throw out a rule “when in doubt”?!
cougaman
Jan 2, 8:34am
I don't understand what you're saying.
Roko's Basilisk
Jan 2, 8:35am
You said it’s obvious, then your justification is about doubt, which by
cougaman
Jan 2, 9:12am
It's obvious BECAUSE the rule says if there's any question, it's a foul.
Roko's Basilisk
Jan 2, 12:29pm
The "when in doubt" is intended to show the seriousness of the foul so that if there is doubt, you side on protecting
Spiff
Jan 2, 8:41am
Cool. But that part isn’t needed when “it’s obvious”
cougaman
Jan 2, 10:45am
Which is why it was included.
Spiff
Jan 2, 11:46am
There are basically two rules depending on if the player is defenseless or not,
dYrtbYkerYder
Jan 2, 9:25am
You're wrong on that
StantonMac
Jan 2, 10:01am
Forcible contact with the head or neck area IS one of the indicators
Skeptical Optimist
Jan 2, 10:08am
👆🏻Optimist is right on this. “Forcible contact to the head or neck area…” is one of the “indicators” on the list. For
mvtoro
Jan 2, 10:35am
I didn't like it from the get go. He hit him straight up. It was more of a
Cougarite
Jan 2, 8:42am
If Targeting doesn't protect a defenseless receiver from violent head to head
MaximusMeridius
Jan 2, 9:18am
Intent is not part of the question. Forcible contact to the head/neck.
TailgateU
Jan 2, 9:33am
Hilarious thread. The rule is clear. Everyone is talking past each other.
calbearcoug
Jan 2, 11:46am
Problem is the OP inserting the unnecessary condition of “attempting”, as though intent defines whether or not there was
mvtoro
Jan 2, 1:21pm
The referees can tell what is in their heart.
VenomFarmer
Jan 2, 6:06pm
It’s like when that apostle visited your mission and you knew he could see into your soul.
mvtoro
Jan 3, 10:30pm
This has been an epic thread.
VenomFarmer
Jan 2, 6:07pm
But was there an indicator? Not as clear
reddead
Jan 2, 7:20pm
He led with the helmet. Not even ambiguous.
calbearcoug
Jan 3, 9:13am
Report problem with this ad
Posting on CougarBoard
In order to post, you will need to either
sign up
or
log in
.
Report problem with this ad