I know this - I’m telling you why I think the ref didn’t throw the flag.

Jan 2, 2025
11:58:43am

JoeExotic Truly Addicted User

It was a clear targeting that should have been called and I think the ref refused to call it because he didn’t want to change the outcome of the play - which is the wrong thing to do.

Report problem with this ad

JoeExotic

Previous username: thebruce
Bio page: JoeExotic
Joined: Jul 19, 2014
Last login: Jan 6, 2025
Total posts: 47,448 (2,849 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