You kind of implied that the injury made the call. People get injured all the

Sign up, and you can customize which countdowns you see. Sign up

Report problem with this ad

Jan 2, 2025
9:37:25am

cougaman Intervention Needed

You kind of implied that the injury made the call. People get injured all the

time on legal hits. Him being injured is not a good argument

This message has been modified

Originally posted on Jan 2, 2025 at 9:37:25am

Message modified by cougaman on Jan 2, 2025 at 9:42:09am

Report problem with this ad

cougaman

Bio page: cougaman
Joined: Mar 11, 2006
Last login: Jan 6, 2025
Total posts: 73,837 (5,627 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.

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.

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 >>

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.

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

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.

Jan 2, 7:57am

People seriously need to learn the rule better. First, you need to determine if

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:

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!!!

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".

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

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

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,

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