Doesn't matter, but two official review calls confused me ....

[Hawk_4shur]

These have probably both been brought up in other threads. Sry.

The review for targeting on the Iowa defender (Castro?) that "led" with the crown is helmet. Announcers thought it was targeting. The RB was clearly not defenseless, no where near the head and neck. Don't players use their helmets to try to create a fumble all the time?

The review of the spot after the next play (sort of, a penalty on Neb). What? How was Neb allowed to do that? What would they have done if it was a first down?

Neither mattered in the end, but I was mystified at the time.

Just when I think I understand football, something like these pop up (not to mention a certain illegal fair catch).

 

[BioHawk]

It was a dangerous play for Castro to tackle him the way he did, but it was dangerous for Castro, not the Nebraska player. Castro is lucky he didn't get his neck broken. But it looked to me like his back and shoulders made first contact with the player.

 

[Hawkeyes4Life247]

I can’t answer the targeting one. I thought it was crown to the shoulder head area. My friend thought it was crown to anywhere to protect the defender. Both of us Iowa fans. The other scenario happened earlier this year too. If it’s a dead ball penalty, which false start is, you can challenge a play prior to the penalty because no time came off the clock.

 

[DooBi]

I think if they had gotten a first down the flag would have counted and it would have been 1st and 15.

 

[BlIIlken2]

It was Harris not Castro.

 

[jonesy5960]

I don't believe I have ever seen a targeting penalty called for contact below the chest.

 

[BioHawk]

I forgot to mention this in the previous post, but what gets me is they reviewed the hit from Harris, which doesn't bother me by itself, but did not review the hit where the Iowa player was blatantly hit in the facemask with the crown of the helmet from the Nebraska player. I can't remember who it was but it was replayed on social media quite a bit because people were upset that everything Iowa was doing was getting reviewed but Nebraska wasn't being judged by the same lens.

 

[uihawk82]

These have probably both been brought up in other threads. Sry.

The review for targeting on the Iowa defender (Castro?) that "led" with the crown is helmet. Announcers thought it was targeting. The RB was clearly not defenseless, no where near the head and neck. Don't players use their helmets to try to create a fumble all the time?

The review of the spot after the next play (sort of, a penalty on Neb). What? How was Neb allowed to do that? What would they have done if it was a first down?

Neither mattered in the end, but I was mystified at the time.

Just when I think I understand football, something like these pop up (not to mention a certain illegal fair catch).

The maybe targeting review was on JHarris if I am thinking of the same play as you. The rule is like the old Spearing call so basically if you spear someone, no matter when, first with the crown/top and top front of the helmet it could be called targeting. Even in the abdomen or the back. Many times the targeting comes from the tackler launching their body or taking several strides before impaling the runner, I jest. But Harris was just sort of standing there holding the edge and the play came to him and he lowered his head which is why I think it wasnt targeting and according to the rules guy. A perfect form tackle would have had his eyes up and head a little off to the side of the runner.

The explanation of Nebby coach challenging the next play spot of the ball was legal because there was a false start and the next play snap never occurred. It was a somewhat stupid move by coach Ruhle to gain a yard and a first down while risking losing a timeout. I have never seen that happen but according to the rules you can challenge or the booth can review a play as long as the next snap has started.

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

These have probably both been brought up in other threads. Sry.

The review for targeting on the Iowa defender (Castro?) that "led" with the crown is helmet. Announcers thought it was targeting. The RB was clearly not defenseless, no where near the head and neck. Don't players use their helmets to try to create a fumble all the time?

The review of the spot after the next play (sort of, a penalty on Neb). What? How was Neb allowed to do that? What would they have done if it was a first down?

Neither mattered in the end, but I was mystified at the time.

Just when I think I understand football, something like these pop up (not to mention a certain illegal fair catch).

Yeah, so even further confusing is that element of "what if they ruled it a 1st down gain?".............because this is what we know:

- the runner was short
- they were called for a false start on the next play
- the officials reviewed the play and determined he was short
- somewhere in there, Iowa was charged a timeout for what reason, or why Iowa would call it there, who f***ing knows

- this is the biggest part here......after the stoppage, it was 2nd and 6, not 2nd and 1, meaning they enforced the false start penalty as if it did happen..................

Are they then telling us that had replay overturned the call on the field and ruled that Nebraska got a 1st down, that they would've taken that penalty away?

If so, that's another bullsh** technicality in the rules.


Or.......the refs just f**ed up. Probably on a number of things.

 

[uihawk82]

I don't believe I have ever seen a targeting penalty called for contact below the chest.

Me neither but technically if a player were to launch themselves or take several strides or more and "Spear" a player in the stomach or lower back it should be called. That is way more forcible than JHarris just playing his edge position and tackling the runner who came to him.

 

[Herky T Hawk]

Bad play by Harris, but this call the review got correct. He led with the crown of his helmet, but not with forceable contact. He was standing and the player ran into him. Both things need to happen for that to be a targeting penalty if he isn’t headhunting.

Needs to learn not to drop his head though.

 

[bansheexyz]

Yeah Wetjen got lit up with what appeared to be a helmet to helmet hit just before halftime, and it wasn't reviewed. Not saying it wasn't clean, but it looked a lot worse than the Harris one did in real time and the Harris hit didn't cause a fumble.

I'm also not sure what the rule is anymore, because if you try to tackle someone by their legs, you are by definition lowering your head and shoulder. And that's going to cause a lot of incidental contact.

 

[jamesvanderwulf]

I don't believe I have ever seen a targeting penalty called for contact below the chest.

This was not called targeting either. Refs got it right...

 

[cubsMDdmb]

Yeah Wetjen got lit up with what appeared to be a helmet to helmet hit just before halftime, and it wasn't reviewed. Not saying it wasn't clean, but it looked a lot worse than the Harris one did in real time and the Harris hit didn't cause a fumble.

I'm also not sure what the rule is anymore, because if you try to tackle someone by their legs, you are by definition lowering your head and shoulder. And that's going to cause a lot of incidental contact.

I think it was the Wetjen play where the official actually send the Nebbie player off the field to check for concussion. But yet they didn’t review it as a targeting call. I was also confused about how adamant the color guy was that Harris targeted but the play on Wetjen was more “questionable”.

 

[jonesy5960]

This was not called targeting either. Refs got it right...

Correct.

 

[OutbackBowl2017]

This was not called targeting either. Refs got it right...

But the color guy Ross Tucker was so adamant that it was targeting. I was yelling at the tv…” you dumb shiat, targeting is leading with the crown at the upper torso of a defenseless player.” Which none of the requirements were met but he called it the most blatant and obvious case of targeting. What a dumb a$$.