Was that targeting by the TX DBack?
- Thread starter uihawk82
- Start date
Correct, crown of the helmet is a decisive determination. And they also look at that launching aspect of tacklers leaving their feet to go high at the neck and head area.
An Ohio St defender may and got away with one of those hits to a defenseless receiver in yesterdays game. He came from downfield like a safety position, jumped and launched, and it was is his forearm that first hit the receiver right around the neck and helmet. It was very close and I thought that one was a personal foul targeting for the launching and first contact.
There was an earlier play where an ASU defender clearly targeted the OSU receiver. That was also uncalled.
Wow. I thought ASU played Texas. Which game were you watching?
If it was on the interception that one was close. Texas receiver definitely was defenseless. ASU guy caught him high, some people are saying chest others saying head with his shoulder. Camera angle wasn’t the best.
The review booth can detect illegal fair catch signals, but it cannot recognize a blatant example of textbook targeting. There should be an investigation into this with all that was riding on that obvious call. How in the hell do the officials on the field NOT flag that? With all the gambling going on, this kind of bullshit cannot just be brushed off. If that wasn't targeting, then nothing is. Look at the bogus calls of "targeting" in the Iowa game, and then look at this. It should have been called by every ref on the field, and it should have been immediately confirmed by the review booth. There are now words, but they're all we have. Would ASU have won the game in regulation if that call had been made correctly? Sadly, we'll never know. But no doubt ASU deserved the opportunity. What a huge crock of bullshit.
ASU should demand some answers from the high and mighty powers that be.
I hope Ohio State drills Texas even worse than they did the posers from Oregon. ASU got hosed. Plain and simple. And to make it worse, not a damn thing will be done about it. Let's call it what it is: cheating for Texas. And it stinks.
Nice try MAGA man, but you're as full of shit as your criminal cult leader. All of ya can go to hell. Just my opinion, though . . .
With observations like that, I think you need to stop watching football and take up something simpler, like checkers. IMHO.
What the hell does the number of penalties have to do with anything? The biggest call of the game was criminally ignored to save Texas from getting beat. That's the discussion here.
Well that’s just stupid, it doesn’t meet all of the criteria. It meets the necessary criteria. But he doesn’t lead with the crown, he doesn’t launch/leave his feet to make the tackle. Honestly, that’s really just a high hit on a defenseless (barely, he’s turning upfield) receiver. But I agree, by definition in rule book, idk why it wasn’t targeting.
Based on the spirit of the rule, I like the no call. No malicious intent. He wraps up, it’s just that it’s a high, hard hit.
The spirit of the rule was to prevent head injuries. That hit created a head injury.
You don’t call a penalty just because a player gets injured though. The point was to draw a line of what goes beyond a legal hit/tackle.
Honestly, they should just adopt rugby style tackling rules. No more subjectivity.
You assessment is not at all what I saw. Have you ever played football? A bang bang play , DB was running to the ball, was a half a step late, and they collided when the receiver caught and turned. It was unfortunate for the receiver but we can call targeting every time 2 people run into each other
The replay officials clearly agree with me. Wait, maybe that’s a bad thing (it wasn’t a fair catch).
The DB should take a lower approach. He didn't and hit the guy in the head. That is targeting and leads to head injuries. That is the reason the rule was created.
Anyone that complains about losing a game because of 1 call is a perfect fit to join Polturd’s minions….maybe even join his press conference.
Play well enough that a few questionable calls don’t decide the outcome.
Bullshit. This is such a weak excuse and makes absolutely zero sense. A single call absolutely can cause a team to lose a close game. No a team cannot simply play better to overcome it if they are playing against a great team. The timing of a bad call can mean everything.
$10 says you were that dad that went off the rails for every questionable call at youth sporting events. Anyone who focuses more on a single call than their team's performance, is a perfect fit for the Whiney B!tch club led by cmhawk & LittleD.
You obviously can’t count. Bang bang from the DB that had at least 5 strides towards the receiver. Granted the contact was shortly after the catch but there was as ample time for the DB to lower his target area.
Yeah I played. Early 70’s to early 80’s. Didn’t have the restrictions back in the day that are present in todays game. Look up some videos on George Atkinson and Jack Tatum Dbs for Oakland Raiders. And how Daryl Stingleys life got fvcked up because of it. Maybe you’ll get it………….or not.
Last edited:
Honestly, this is 100% why they need to change targeting into two separate penalties like roughing/running into kicker.
This was textbook example of defenseless player getting contact to head, but also lack of launching/intent.
Very similar to arm to Texas wr head/neck on int earlier.
Change incidental to 5 yard penalty and make flagrant a full game suspension with the 15 yards.
Having it be 15 yards and ejection causes no calls since refs think punishment too severe.
This was textbook example of defenseless player getting contact to head, but also lack of launching/intent.
Very similar to arm to Texas wr head/neck on int earlier.
Change incidental to 5 yard penalty and make flagrant a full game suspension with the 15 yards.
Having it be 15 yards and ejection causes no calls since refs think punishment too severe.
Honestly the worst officiated game I’ve seen in person will always be the Outback Bowl in Tampa against Florida in 2006. The fix was in.
The only other time I thought an Iowa game might not be on the up and up was watching Iowa Nebraska football on tv in 2019. Game was in Lincoln and the 4th quarter had this crazy horse collar penalty overturned, a Raigani catch overturned, and then this blatant targeting on Smith-Marsette was overturned or not called as well. That targeting and this ASU game yesterday were the two most blatant non targeting calls I can remember.
The only other time I thought an Iowa game might not be on the up and up was watching Iowa Nebraska football on tv in 2019. Game was in Lincoln and the 4th quarter had this crazy horse collar penalty overturned, a Raigani catch overturned, and then this blatant targeting on Smith-Marsette was overturned or not called as well. That targeting and this ASU game yesterday were the two most blatant non targeting calls I can remember.
Last edited:
2005-2006 season was the same year that Michigan and their Refs (Witvoet’s crew) shoved a wire brush up the HAWKEYES backside all game long. No replay at that time I believe. It was easier to screw up and not get call checked.
Jesus!!!! Do you have to revert to your political shit every time someone disagrees with you?
Let it go man.
Last edited:
And you would be wrong so donate that 10 dollars to the children's hospital. You make some sweeping broad statements and think it makes you right. Equating a single call to performance is nonsense. A team can perform at a higher level than their opponent and be taken apart by a single bad call. Uour rhetoric about the whiney bitch club is amazingly ironic as you are bitching over and over again in this thread and whining about people recognizing that these officials were not only wrong they stole an opportunity from Asu to win that game. People all over the country including professionals are saying that one call changed the game in ways that are unacceptable. You are wrong.
Does 2 + 2 = 4?
That play checks every box on the rule book definition of targeting, so there is no debate. Yes, it was targeting. The only debate is why not a single ref on the field or in the replay booth called it. Who's getting paid off? If you're going to ignore the rules, why have refs and replay at all? Just let 'em go after each other, the way football was when Teddy Roosevelt threatened to ban it . . .
Not calling targeting was outright cheating. Plain and simple.
That play checks every box on the rule book definition of targeting, so there is no debate. Yes, it was targeting. The only debate is why not a single ref on the field or in the replay booth called it. Who's getting paid off? If you're going to ignore the rules, why have refs and replay at all? Just let 'em go after each other, the way football was when Teddy Roosevelt threatened to ban it . . .
Not calling targeting was outright cheating. Plain and simple.
