By the rule it was 100% targeting. What I don’t think it was is intentional

Jan 2, 2025
7:55:22am

ordinary tri guy Truly Addicted User

I think the defender just went for the tackle and player never went down or went lower than he anticipated but I don’t think it was a malicious hit as some targeting hits are.

Report problem with this ad

ordinary tri guy

Previous username: whiteninja
Bio page: ordinary tri guy
Joined: Nov 24, 2008
Last login: Jan 4, 2025
Total posts: 24,194 (2,169 FO)

Report problem with this ad

Messages

Author

Time

According the way I've seen the rule called for a couple of seasons now, it was

Ghost of Peanut

Jan 2, 7:49am

By the rule it was 100% targeting. What I don’t think it was is intentional

ordinary tri guy

Jan 2, 7:55am

Intent has never been part of equation. Remember our guy getting tossed in Utah game a couple yrs ago? Who was that?

Soupie

Jan 2, 8:56am

I agree, I just felt it wasn't intentional. But I did wonder if that was

ordinary tri guy

Jan 2, 11:00am

It was. Went from 1st down near FG range to 4th and 5 and having to punt

jrifkin48

Jan 2, 7:55am

More than likely all we would have watched was ASU badly missing a FG given

Ghost of Peanut

Jan 2, 8:00am

ASU was in pure 4 down territory unless it was an extra point type field goal

MarylandFan

Jan 2, 9:21am

RE: According the way I've seen the rule called for a couple of seasons now, it was

txblue

Jan 2, 7:59am

The problem is there is absolutely no consistency. By rule, it should have been

Powerbait DPM

Jan 2, 8:06am

Also reading the comments on that video… I think America agrees

Powerbait DPM

Jan 2, 8:07am

By rule is a subjective call, so it depends on who is interpreting it, which is

cougaman

Jan 2, 8:28am

I agree with you that it’s subjective, but it’s such a major penalty for

Powerbait DPM

Jan 2, 8:57am

Right, I think the “lead” part isn’t supposed to mean, hit first. I think it’s

cougaman

Jan 2, 9:10am

I honestly have no idea what targeting is or isn't anymore. There is no

IceCreamButt

Jan 2, 8:07am

“Chickened out” is a good way to put it. The ASU player was not getting the 1st

NOCAL_YFAN

Jan 2, 8:08am

Was Woody Dixon in the review booth?

HuskerFan2

Jan 2, 8:13am

Relevant text from the rulebook:

Narfin'Coug

Jan 2, 8:16am

I like your last sentence. If you can’t explain why it’s not targeting, it’s

Powerbait DPM

Jan 2, 8:24am

"When in question, it is a foul" is key here. It means that the refs didn't have a question

Skeptical Optimist

Jan 2, 8:24am

Yeah, I think by the rule it was targeting.

Yukon

Jan 2, 8:26am

Agree on the offensive player adjusting to basically "draw" the penalty.

Narfin'Coug

Jan 2, 8:32am

100% agree. Make them give an explanation

Goliath

Jan 2, 9:37am

I think it could have been either of these two indicators:

QBarrister

Jan 2, 10:11am

The hit was nowhere close to the crown of the helmet

Skeptical Optimist

Jan 2, 10:17am

How do we read the exact same rules and come to different conclusions: there was

Incentivize

Jan 2, 9:21pm

And hence why I said it was questionable and therefore 100% targeting by rule.

Narfin'Coug

Jan 2, 9:42pm

I saw 4-5 worse that Utah had this year go uncalled.

cougaman

Jan 2, 8:25am

Dillingham sure kept his composure a lot better with this call than the

leanmeanCoug

Jan 2, 8:34am

He probably watched the tape and realized how foolish he looked.

Skywalker's Beard

Jan 2, 9:12pm

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