ADVERTISEMENT

Was that targeting by the TX DBack?

The rule specifically states the lowering the crown of the helmet. He did not. It was more of a facemask to facemask hit like running into each other.
This is just flat out incorrect. With a defenseless player the crown of the helmet thing plays no part in the rule.

For god's sakes, why can't people just go read the damn rule...so many fools running around X spouting about "crown of the helmet" which has nothing to do with this call. Its maddening!
 
No. Every helmet contact is not targeting.

This is what I thought. The defender didn't lower and lead with the crown of his helmet. Targeting has become anytime helmets collide. Sometimes that happens in the course of a play. I know I'm in the minority on this one but I can see them letting it go.
No. That is not the rule. You have a right to our own opinion, not a right to cite the wrong rule when discussing a penalty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gaines1016
And pussies like you have ruined the sport.
You're on a message board calling people pussies. Hard to imagine a clearer indicator that you...are in fact...someone who frequently got the crap beat of them growing up.

Worse. You're evidently too stupid to read the actual rule or to understand the definition of a defenseless player...and dense enough to think crown of the helmet has anything to do with this play.

Moron.
 
  • Like
Reactions: northernboarderhawk
No. That is not the rule. You have a right to our own opinion, not a right to cite the wrong rule when discussing a penalty.
We know you’re all in for the “big” 12 on this one. Apparently there was enough doubt that the officials and a lot of other folks are OK with the non-call.
 
Official rules noted below. Two types of targeting. One type requires forcible contact with the crown of the helmet (Rule 9-1-3). However, the second type, with respect to a defenseless player, does not require that forcible contact be made with the crown of the helmet (Rule 9-1-4).

If I were to make a case that this was not targeting, I'd say that the "indicators" of targeting (see Note 1 below), requires that the forcible contact "goes beyond making a legal tackle" and the Texas defender is simply running to make a tackle, and the helmet-to-helmet contact is not caused by a launch, crouch, or lowering of the head. Instead, it is simply caused by nature of the players being similar heights and colliding.

However, I think this is targeting because the way the rule is written suggests that any "forcible" contact to the head / neck area of a defenseless is, by default, illegal. Thus, when a defender is dealing with a defenseless player, the defender has an affirmative duty to not make any forcible contact in that area. In this instance, that suggests that the only way the Texas defender could make a "forcible" that is legal is if he hits the WR in the chest or lower. Moreover, Rule 9-1-4 specifies that "[w]hen in question, it is a foul" which tips the scales in favor of these kind of hits being called targeting.

With all that said, if I were drafting the rules, I would not want this kind of play to result in targeting. As written, this rule suggests that the Texas defender should just dive at the knees of the defenseless player, which can be even more dangerous. I think it is a fool's errand to try to eliminate all helmet to helmet hits. The Texas defender executed a pretty good form tackle and wrapped up the WR with his arms. That is different than launching your shoulder or head at a defenseless player to try to get them on the ground with sheer force of the collision.

Source: https://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/FR24_20240724.pdf

RULE 9-1-3.
Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet

ARTICLE 3 No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of their helmet The crown of the helmet is the top segment of the helmet; namely, the circular area defined by a 6-inch radius from the apex (top) of the helmet This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below) When in question, it is a foul (Rule9-6) (AR 9-1-3-I).

RULE 9-1-4.
Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player

ARTICLE 4 No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6) (AR 9-1-4-I-VI).

Note 1: “Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:
  • Launch A player leaving their feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area
  • A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground
  • Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
  • Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet

Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14) When in question, a player is defenseless. Examples of defenseless players include but are not limited to:
  • A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass This includes an offensive player in a passing posture with focus downfield
  • A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect themselves or has not clearly become a ball carrier
  • A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return
  • A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect themselves or has not clearly become a ball carrier
  • A player on the ground
  • A player obviously out of the play
  • A player who receives a blind-side block
  • A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped
  • A quarterback any time after a change of possession
  • A ball carrier who has obviously given themselves up and is sliding feet first
 
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.
Fyi
One of the officials in the outback bowl later became a professional gambler.
 
Anyone that complains about losing a game because of 1 call is a perfect fit to join Polturd’s minioEns….maybe even join his press conference.

Play well enough that a few questionable calls don’t decide the outcome.
One bad call won't affect the outcome of a game, do you by chance remember the name Jim Bain. maybe you are too young. Enough said.
 
You're on a message board calling people pussies. Hard to imagine a clearer indicator that you...are in fact...someone who frequently got the crap beat of them growing up.

Worse. You're evidently too stupid to read the actual rule or to understand the definition of a defenseless player...and dense enough to think crown of the helmet has anything to do with this play.

Moron.
Speaking of getting the crap beat out of you….how about your Clowns bending over for ASU?!
 
One bad call won't affect the outcome of a game, do you by chance remember the name Jim Bain. maybe you are too young. Enough said.
I’m old enough to remember Jim Bain. Still a believer in handling your business enough that a few questionable calls don’t change the outcome…..regardless of when they happen.

Guess I would be a terrible fit for joining the Clown fan base….oh well!
 
How about “bending over” at home for Iowa State…in football AND basketball?
Both of those games were close…..you Clowns couldn’t even compete with ASU! 🤣

Good luck to the Lil12 for the rest of the playoffs though…….oh wait, never mind.
 
Both of those games were close…..you Clowns couldn’t even compete with ASU! 🤣

Good luck to the Lil12 for the rest of the playoffs though…….oh wait, never mind.
Oh wait…Scoreboard.

Top: Trying to make fun of programs that beat your ass in Iowa City AND had a much better season…makes you look sad and whiny.
 
Oh wait…Scoreboard.

Top: Trying to make fun of programs that beat your ass in Iowa City AND had a much better season…makes you look sad and whiny.
Only reason you won that many games is because you didn’t a single good team until ASU took you to the woodshed. The “Lil Bro” conference just can’t compete with the big 2.

Miami was decent, but had terrible D & a QB that abused you so much in one half….decided he didn’t need to play another. My favorite part of that game though was the graphic showing your TWO 1st round picks in program history! 🤣
 
You're on a message board calling people pussies. Hard to imagine a clearer indicator that you...are in fact...someone who frequently got the crap beat of them growing up.

Worse. You're evidently too stupid to read the actual rule or to understand the definition of a defenseless player...and dense enough to think crown of the helmet has anything to do with this play.

Moron.
🤣🤣.. No I was the one beating up pussies like you.
No. That is not the rule. You have a right to our own opinion, not a right to cite the wrong rule when discussing a penalty.
So you said that I have a right to “our” opinion. So you’re a ****ing moron. As long as I agree with your opinion it’s alright right?
 
🤣🤣.. No I was the one beating up pussies like you.

So you said that I have a right to “our” opinion. So you’re a ****ing moron. As long as I agree with your opinion it’s alright right?
Its a typo, idiot. Its "your"...as in the commonly known phrase.

Mental health is real thing...maybe go get yourself checked out.
 
Probably the biggest screw job I’ve ever seen. THAT was classic targeting. What a joke. Not even a flag thrown. Unbelievable. The only positive is Texas is going to get their butts kicked vs the Buckeyes.
Flag would have been thrown if he hadn’t wrapped his arms around him and making a tackle.
Its a typo, idiot. Its "your"...as in the commonly known phrase.

Mental health is real thing...maybe go get yourself checked out.
You don’t know how to complete an error free sentence and you’re calling me an idiot? You’re a dumbass.
 
gutless call by the refs- clearly targeting
Totally agree!! Of course, leave it to a Big 10 crew to miss it. Now in fairness, IDK if the replay official is Big 10 or not? Yet, when everyone pretty much thinks it was, just seemed fitting the guys from the Big 10 don’t see it like that…must have mistaken the TX colors for Scarlett/Gray or Maize/Blue.
 
Most normal Clown fans don’t frequent a rival’s message board. So GTFO
Sure they do. Fans from teams across the country engage on other boards for football discussions. If you don't like that, YOU can "GTFO". Or, like the average adult, you could simply avoid the conversation if it bothers you.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT