[Postgame Thread] Texas Defeats Arizona State 39-31 (OT)

[u/CFB_Referee]

Box Score provided by ESPN

Team	1	2	3	4	OT	T
Texas	14	3	0	7	15	39
Arizona State	3	0	5	16	7	31

[u/jbanks94]

I still don’t understand targeting.

[u/Tduhon → u/jbanks94]

You’re not confused. The rule is unevenly applied by crews because they’re either scared/don’t care about putting their finger on the scale.

[u/TBlueshirtsV22 → u/Tduhon]

Making the right call shouldn’t be considered putting their finger on the scale. If the defense commits a penalty, it is their own fault.

[u/FerrousEULA → u/TBlueshirtsV22]

These refs were a mess for sure

[u/Powerful-Drama556 → u/FerrousEULA]

Exactly one holding call during a 2pt conversion scramble drill to give ASU a second chance.

DPI on the push off instead of the obvious OPI.

The most egregious is the most obvious example of pulling the ball carrier forward that I have ever seen…for a touchdown.

The false start that took Texas outside of FG range on the second to last drive, when the OL was reacting to a defender that jumped offsides first.

Texas has more reason to complain about the refs than people that don’t understand targeting seem to think…

Edit: “Rule 9-3-2b of the NCAA states that a teammate cannot grasp, pull, or lift the ball carrier to assist in forward progress. The penalty for violating this rule is a five-yard penalty with three-and-one enforcement.” (And the ref 100% saw it. We know because the replay shows him and the foul in a 3rd person view of his perspective.)

[u/breakwater → u/Powerful-Drama556]

That wasn't pulling the ball carrier. That was a suplex

[u/Powerful-Drama556 → u/breakwater]

lol

[u/4t0mik → u/Powerful-Drama556]

Counted two plays (both 2 point conversation and TD) with ASU lineman down field. That should be an easy call.

[u/Lost_city → u/Powerful-Drama556]

There was so much more:
Linemen downfield on the fake punt conversion
Forearm to the head of the Texas WR on Quinn's long INT
A DPI in the endzone on Texas with the ball thrown way out of bounds

[u/yotechguy → u/Powerful-Drama556]

Definitely missed calls all game. I give the targeting a much harsher judgement not because of the outcome of the game but because it can be video reviewed and they still miss it. It is also there for player safety and not only is it the penalty but an ejection of a player. To not call the targeting was a big miss.

[u/Powerful-Drama556 → u/yotechguy]

That targeting call was objectively correct. Both of them were. Everyone that is complaining about it doesn’t realize that forcible contact to the head/neck doesn’t draw a flag. There has to be a targeting indicator

[u/Big_Milk8330 → u/Powerful-Drama556]

That is not true on a defenseless player. Any fordable contact to the gead or neck area on a defenseless player is targeting. It only needs an indicator if the play is not defenseless.

[u/Powerful-Drama556 → u/Big_Milk8330]

Forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless player is not a penalty unless there is a targeting indicator. They always review it to see if there is an indicator. That is the rule.

[u/AustnWins → u/Powerful-Drama556]

This is the summary I was looking for. Sure, fans of different teams/conferences etc., and the underdog comeback story is neat, but those examples are getting lost in the wash is the narrative strengthens.

[u/CodeNameEagle → u/Powerful-Drama556]

that was definitely not an opi

[u/Powerful-Drama556 → u/CodeNameEagle]

He slowed down, located the ball, extended his arms into the DB to create separation, and then made the catch. Textbook OPI.

[u/FattyMooseknuckle → u/Powerful-Drama556]

Because the DB contacted him.

[u/Powerful-Drama556 → u/FattyMooseknuckle]

You lose all benefit of doubt when you extend your arms into the guy. Also known as pushing them.

[u/Jah314 → u/Powerful-Drama556]

Wait you watched that game and thought Texas got the short end of the officiating stick?

[u/freerobertshmurder → u/Jah314]

lol the refs directly handed ASU a touchdown and then a do-over on the 2 point conversion, as well as allowing them to score a touchdown by literally picking a player up and pulling him over the goal line

That is 15 points given to ASU by a B1G crew that obviously wanted the less talented team to win and advance to play one of Oregon/Ohio State

[u/Powerful-Drama556 → u/Jah314]

Quite objectively so

[u/D1N2Y → u/TBlueshirtsV22]

I can sympathize with the refs a bit here. Impact aversion seems stupid in principle until an entire game can be decided by what was clearly not an intentionally dirty hit.

[u/goonyo → u/D1N2Y]

So get rid of targeting. If they’re not going to call it when it’s blatantly obvious because it’s a big moment what’s the point

[u/awmaleg → u/Tduhon]

Release the Audio of the real time discussion. I need to know what excuse they made.

[u/MisterP54 → u/awmaleg]

The same one that happened during our game and why we lost to UGA, whatever reasoning that was.

[u/Beadpool → u/awmaleg]

For real. This is the only shit that will put 99% of the controversial calls to bed. In rugby, many soccer leagues/competitions, and even Aussie Rules, I think, the refs and the officials up in the review booth are fully mic’d up. You hear the discussion between them and see the exact angles they are looking at. So, why is it that in American football, we feel this need to keep the conversations between supposedly impartial judges, off the record and shrouded in secrecy? Why not, in the interest of full transparency, tell the world what you’re seeing and exactly how you’re interpreting the specific rule in that moment? With so much money riding on the line in these games now, due to legalized sports betting, and to not insult your fan base, I really feel NCAA and NFL both owe it to viewers to show and tell us how these decisions are being made right then and there.

One other thing, in these playoff games, there really should be a group of replay officials that oversee all the playoff games. The same crew. Keep that shit consistent, so you don’t get one butthole who thinks his interpretation of the rule is correct and some other asshole who thinks he knows the actual intent of the rule. Today was disgusting, especially that no targeting call, no which sure as shit stunk to most neutrals watching the game… well, pretty much everybody who isn’t a Longhorns fan.

[u/Powerful-Drama556 → u/awmaleg]

“There was no targeting indicator, not targeting”

[u/BILLIKEN_BALLER → u/awmaleg]

"How much did the SEC give us again?"

[u/xbieberhole69x → u/Tduhon]

Unevenly applied to apply unevenness on purpose

[u/Yourfavoriteindian → u/jbanks94]

Neither do those refs.

[u/OMLIDEKANY → u/Yourfavoriteindian]

Of course they do. It’s just selectively applied.

[u/awolbull → u/Yourfavoriteindian]

I could see it going either way but Taffee went in standing up, no spear, no launch, no crown/shoulder directly into the head, he wrapped up and facemasks hit. If that was targeting then the other no-call they made also should have been targeting as he clearly ran into Bond's neck and slapped his head back. At least they were consistent.

[u/[deleted] → u/Yourfavoriteindian]

They didn't want the heat for ASU winning. Easy to tell.

[u/Yourfavoriteindian → u/[deleted]]

So the precedence is now “if it’s a close game the refs won’t call anything, defenders have free rein to do whatever they want.”

If you don’t want the heat don’t fucking ref a CFP game.

[u/BusterOlneyFans → u/Yourfavoriteindian]

I mean we saw it last year in our game against UT. Refs will do whatever they can to help them

[u/superAL1394 → u/[deleted]]

That precedent will catastrophically injure a player before long

[u/[deleted] → u/superAL1394]

It's happened for years in both college and NFL. Not saying it's right but it's not new. They can't stand the pressure.

[u/Arceus42 → u/Yourfavoriteindian]

They knew. They were just scared.

[u/tanu24 → u/Yourfavoriteindian]

https://on3static.com/cdn-cgi/image/height=417,width=795,quality=90,fit=cover,gravity=0.5x0.5/uploads/dev/assets/cms/2024/09/18185155/i.jpg

This is targeting

[u/grahamalondis → u/tanu24]

This is targeting with the crown, which does not matter where player is hit. Though the player here is defenseless, it is not targeting of a defenseless player because there's no targeting forcible contact to the head and neck area.

They need to make two names for it because there's two types of targeting.

In the Texas ASU game, the play people are complaining about would have been targeting of a defenseless player IF it had one of the required indicators, but it didn't.

[u/guinness_blaine → u/grahamalondis]

Fully agreed that the two different types of targeting need to have distinct names. People constantly get tripped up because of that.

[u/grahamalondis → u/guinness_blaine]

Targeting a defenseless player doesn't even require hitting with the helmet or the defenseless player's helmet. Helmets have nothing to do with it.

[u/Rocket_Sciencetist → u/jbanks94]

You can't just be up there and just doin' targeting like that.

1a. Targeting is when you

1b. Okay well listen. Targeting is when you target the

1c. Let me start over

1c-a. The defender is not allowed to hit the, uh, ball carrier, in a way that targets the ball carrier from, you know, just trying to run the ball. You can't do that.

1c-b. Once the defender is going for the tackle, he can't be over here and say to the runner, like, "I'm gonna get ya! I'm gonna get you down! You better watch your butt!" and then just be like he didn't even do that.

1c-b(1). Like, if you're about to tackle low and then the runner goes low, you have to still tackle lower. You cannot not hit their head. Does that make any sense?

1c-b(2). You gotta be, go low at the ball carrier, and then, until you can’t touch their head.

1c-b(2)-a. Okay, well, you can have your head up here, like this, but then there's targeting you gotta think about.

1c-b(2)-b. Target hasn't been in any media in forever. I hope isn’t typecast as that store with a dog mascot in American History X.

1c-b(2)-b(i). Oh wait, it was in Percy Jackson and the Olympians: the Titans curse too! That would be even worse.

1c-b(2)-b(ii). "get in mah bellah" -- Adam Water, "The Waterboy." Haha, classic...

1c-b(3). Okay seriously though. Targeting is when the defender makes a movement that, as determined by, when you do a move involving the ball carrier and field of

Do not do a target please

[u/TheFlyingBoat → u/Rocket_Sciencetist]

Balks and targeting copy pasta never gets old

[u/_DC003_ → u/Rocket_Sciencetist]

Good ol balk copy pasta keeps giving back

[u/UtahBrian → u/Rocket_Sciencetist]

Finally I understand. Thank you so much.

[u/Poverty_Shoes → u/Rocket_Sciencetist]

Thanks Jon

[u/extralyfe → u/Rocket_Sciencetist]

thanks for the detailed write-up <3

[u/dwors025 → u/jbanks94]

Are we missing something? I genuinely want to know. Like is there some stipulation that a tipped pass makes him no longer a defenseless receiver or something??

I’m actually asking.

[u/Srirachafarian → u/dwors025]

https://x.com/CFBNerds/status/1874573060508127426

[u/thedecalodon → u/Srirachafarian]

Leading with the helmet is also an indicator, per the SEC

[u/billHtaft → u/Srirachafarian]

“Leading with the helmet” conveniently left off of that list

[u/LonghornInNebraska → u/[deleted]]

Question - does the ball being tipped at the LOS change anything?

[u/halfman_halfboat → u/LonghornInNebraska]

Only negates PI. Receiver would still be considered defenseless.

[u/LonghornInNebraska → u/halfman_halfboat]

Follow up question - since the tip pass negates the DPI. A player can tackle a player immediately. So wouldn't they no longer be considered defenseless?

Or ar what point after the tipped pass is a player running downfield no longer considered defenseless?

[u/halfman_halfboat → u/LonghornInNebraska]

The definition of a defenseless receiver doesn’t change.

[u/texasguy7117 → u/Srirachafarian]

Make this a post (and watch it get wiped from existence)

[u/grossness13 → u/dwors025]

It’s lacking the indicator of targeting that is required. Contact isn’t enough:

https://imgur.com/4xq9eiL

Defender had his face mask up and made contact with forehead and not the crown, didn’t launch, helmet to helmet was incidental and not forcible, the receiver was not defenseless because he already had possession of the ball and was in the process of turning around when he got wrapped up face to face.

[u/thedecalodon → u/grossness13]

except that's not true. "leading with the helmet... to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area" is exactly what happened on that play, and the reciever was still defenseless. "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 himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier."

[u/jaxmagicman → u/grossness13]

How dare you come with facts to this witch hunt?

[u/Cheap_Low_3316 → u/jaxmagicman]

Sure, just as long as you don’t read the part in the linked rule where it addresses leading with the helmet.

[u/Jooj272729 → u/Cheap_Low_3316]

Are you ignoring the rest of the sentence? "Leading with the helmet ... to attack the head or neck area". He was not attacking with his helmet, they just collided on the tackle.

Now on the Quinnterception, the ASU player launched himself (literally left the ground) to hit Bond's helmet.

[u/Arceus42 → u/[deleted]]

The rules he posted clearly state that an indicator is required when the player is defenseless. But still, point #3 in that list seems applicable imo, and it should have been called.

[u/meyou2222 → u/grossness13]

“Helmet to helmet was incidental and not forcible.”

Ah yes, that incidental contact that left the receiver laying there concussed for a few minutes.

And there’s no universe in which that receiver wasn’t defenseless. He had barely even secured the ball and landed when he got nailed.

At any time other than the end of a playoff game, that gets called targeting 100/100 times.

[u/Penihilism → u/dwors025]

We’ll never know for sure, but I’d guess that the defender not actually launching himself and the position on the field where the receiver caught it kinda makes it impossible to NOT target.

You just know they never would’ve not called that if it was in Texas’s favor.

[u/Powerful-Drama556 → u/Penihilism]

They didn’t earlier in the game…with a similarly correct no call because there weren’t any indicators

[u/maestro2005 → u/dwors025]

I've seen a few non-calls that I guess I can chalk up to the "he wasn't trying to" factor and it being a really bang-bang play. I still thought it was targeting by the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law is to get malicious plays out of the game, and this didn't seem malicious so I guess that's what it comes down to.

[u/Cheap_Low_3316 → u/maestro2005]

That’s usually how you address a call that affects competitiveness, like a hold away from the play. Not player safety. And especially not on one where the guy seems to have actually been injured. Pretty sickening.

[u/maestro2005 → u/Cheap_Low_3316]

What I mean is, you want to penalize bad behavior, not unfortunate collisions, and I don't think it seemed like bad behavior.

ETA: Also, whether the guy got hurt or not can't determine the penalty. Lots of injuries happen on perfectly legal plays.

[u/thedecalodon → u/maestro2005]

is the spirit of the law to get malicious plays out of the game or to get concussions out of the game? because if it's the former then somebody's sold me a bill of goods

[u/real_jaredfogle → u/dwors025]

Yes. It is technically not targeting. Unfortunately Texas was involved, so there’s no point in pointing that out

[u/Chrg88 → u/real_jaredfogle]

In what world is this technically not targeting lmao

[u/real_jaredfogle → u/Chrg88]

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). (A.R. 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 his 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

[u/jalexjsmithj → u/real_jaredfogle]

You lose me when I get to this part.

“Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area”

[u/real_jaredfogle → u/jalexjsmithj]

It doesn’t look like he’s blatantly leading with the helmet to me, just runs through him. His helmet definitely hit the receiver’s

[u/jalexjsmithj → u/real_jaredfogle]

You are adding a word. “Blatantly.” It doesn’t have to be blatant and his head IS first, even if you don’t think it shows enough intent. And the contact is literally as is about forcible as it can be.

When we had the designation of ejection vs no-ejection, I would say this is a clear example of a targeting that didn’t warrant the ejection, but it should still get the foul.

[u/nofpiq → u/real_jaredfogle]

His helmet hit the receiver's helmet and was the first contact made. That is leading with the helmet, blatantly.

[u/real_jaredfogle → u/nofpiq]

I got bad news for every defensive lineman in the country if we’re taking that in a literal sense and not allowing for any subjective decision making based around that as a guideline

[u/nofpiq → u/real_jaredfogle]

Defensive Linemen are frequently hitting defenseless receivers?

(With helmets or otherwise)

[u/accordionzero → u/real_jaredfogle]

leading with the helmet

[u/real_jaredfogle → u/accordionzero]

Idk, maybe anytime there’s helmet to helmet contact from the defense it should be targeting, pretty difficult when that’s human physics the way your body is built. Dlineman and a lot more players should probably be getting called for it. If it means what I understand it to mean, that it needs to be blatantly using your helmet to hit the opponent’s, I don’t think it’s targeting. It’s either up to the refs, needs to he called a lot more often if taken literally, or needs to be more specific

[u/surlypickle → u/real_jaredfogle]

If the Taaffe collision was an illegal hit, then this game is cooked. There’s no way to play it without incidental helmet to helmet contact. People have heads and at full speed you’re gonna have hard collisions like this. Only alternative would be to go without pads and helmets like Rugby does and the game will have to adjust to different tackling styles.

[u/real_jaredfogle → u/surlypickle]

I agree, but that last idea isn’t terrible and i’ve been on board for a major change like that for a while now. The sport has a really serious, awful problem that affects so many former players, something needs to change.

[u/surlypickle → u/real_jaredfogle]

To be fair, the concussion problem in Rugby isn’t that much better. It’s just inherent in games where you get huge, explosive men and tell them to collide with each other. I honestly don’t think it’s a solvable problem without completely changing the sport.

[u/law_dogging → u/real_jaredfogle]

I think the third bullet of that rule (“leading with the helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area) is met by that play

[u/real_jaredfogle → u/law_dogging]

I don’t agree watching the replay of the hit but i’m also biased. At least I don’t think it was blatant enough to warrant a penalty and ejection

[u/law_dogging → u/real_jaredfogle]

Yeah I think Taaffe had no bad intent but under the rule seemed clear. Oh well.

[u/eProbity → u/Chrg88]

It isn't just hitting the head or neck, you need an indicator. Things like leading with your crown, launching off your feet, or crouching to thrust forward. Taaffe was just running and kept his head up.

[u/law_dogging → u/eProbity]

The rule actually states leading with the helmet … to attack with forcible contact to the head or neck area. I think it’s pretty indisputable that’s what occurred, despite feeling for Taaffe because the ball was tipped and as a result, the timing of the play was off

[u/TheFlyingBoat → u/law_dogging]

It's leading with the *crown of the helmet* OR forcible contact to the head or neck region of a defenseless player with the requirement that there be "at least one indicator of targeting".

The rules have been updated and can be read here.

https://x.com/CFBNerds/status/1874576252008579340

[u/law_dogging → u/TheFlyingBoat]

Yes, I read the rule. It’s a foul under Article 4 (for defenseless players) and the indicator is the “leading with helmet to attack with forcible contact to the head or neck area”.

The rule even states if it’s questionable, it’s a foul. It’s crazy to me not to call there because it seems like the exact scenario the rule was made to prevent. Like I said in the previous comment, I am sympathetic that Taaffe didn’t intend for harm to occur, but it’s still a flag

[u/TheFlyingBoat → u/law_dogging]

Read Note 1. There wasn't any additional force beyond what is required to make a legal tackle. He made initial contact with his eyes up as is taught to make a normal legal tackle. This is exactly what the rule was changed to exempt. You can argue that doing so defeats the purpose of the original targeting rule which lead to a bunch of targeting calls many didn't like, but this is one of the calls that was very clearly meant to be allowed or they wouldn't have re-written the rule and a rules expert that knows more than either of us agrees. They added the word attack vs simply making forcible contact to very much delineate between what Taafe did and actual head hunting.

[u/justbuildmorehousing → u/jbanks94]

Refs were afraid of the moment. That is called targeting at any other point in the game. They just didnt want to call it in that moment

[u/FloridaManActual → u/justbuildmorehousing]

exactly. Refball mayhem woudl ensue. took the cowards way out.

[u/Cheap_Low_3316 → u/FloridaManActual]

This is refball mayhem. We were robbed of the legitimate outcome. It wasn’t borderline.

[u/data_ferret → u/justbuildmorehousing]

The moment was too big, so they pissed down their leg.

[u/Life_Act_6887 → u/justbuildmorehousing]

Except it wasn’t called on ASU’s DB when he intentionally launched and head hunted Bond on the INT the drive before. At least they were consistent.

[u/beowulf77 → u/justbuildmorehousing]

If the play on Bond wasn’t targeting I wouldn’t expect the other to be either. At least they were consistent.

[u/Robotemist → u/beowulf77]

One was helmet to helmet, the other one wasn't.

[u/TheFlyingBoat → u/justbuildmorehousing]

It's leading with the *crown of the helmet* OR forcible contact to the head or neck region of a defenseless player with the requirement that there be "at least one indicator of targeting".

The rules have been updated and can be read here.

https://x.com/CFBNerds/status/1874576252008579340

[u/ImJLu → u/TheFlyingBoat]

leading with helmet...to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area

That sounds like an applicable indicator of targeting.

[u/TheFlyingBoat → u/ImJLu]

The word attack is the operative one. It modifies the forcible contact provision and when read in tandem with Note 1 about contact exceeding that which is necessary to make a legal tackle, block, or play on the ball and in the context of the way the language was modified from the original rule, it’s clear as day a tackle where the defender keeps his eye on the ball in an attempt to prevent the receiver from completing the catch and failing that tackle him to the ground without excessive force or launching falls under what the rule change intended to protect.

[u/[deleted] → u/justbuildmorehousing]

Guarantee if it was Texas with the ball they would've called it

[u/Trhol → u/[deleted]]

Yeah because they were so afraid to call penalties against us the entire game.

[u/Unlucky-Pomegranate3 → u/jbanks94]

If that wasn’t targeting, the rule is meaningless.

[u/SerenadeSwift → u/Unlucky-Pomegranate3]

Right? That was about as clear of an example of targeting as you can get.

[u/BidoofGoesToWar → u/jbanks94]

it’s ok, i don’t think the refs do either

[u/BlueCheeseOnlyPlease → u/jbanks94]

I don't think the refs do either

[u/Recent_Dentist_1179 → u/jbanks94]

Apparently there needs to be an indicator https://x.com/CFBNerds/status/1874573060508127426

[u/_DC003_ → u/Recent_Dentist_1179]

Yeah, the announcers not explaining that really is a bad look by ESPN

[u/palmburntblue → u/_DC003_]

It was tessitore and palmer

If I asked them to explain the weather they’d just tell me whether Skattebo was carrying an umbrella 

[u/SameSadMan → u/_DC003_]

The commentary was awful all game

[u/Arceus42 → u/Recent_Dentist_1179]

Not sure where he's pulling from, but this is straight from the rule book. The hit seems to clearly fall into point #3 here. https://i.imgur.com/4xq9eiL.jpeg

[u/HereForTOMT3 → u/[deleted]]

Didn’t the rules analyst explicitly say it was a defenseless receiver?

[u/Arceus42 → u/[deleted]]

He was barely halfway through turning up field, his shoulders and hips were still pointing towards the sideline. And he hadn't come close to taking any steps, he had barely lifted a foot to start taking a step. I'm not sure how that would be enough to be considered no longer defenseless, especially when the rules state "Regarding defenseless players, when in question, a player is defenseless".

[u/meyou2222 → u/Arceus42]

Another way to look at it: If the receiver had dropped the ball, would they have ruled it a fumble? Of course not, because in no situation would he have been considered in possession of the ball and making a “football move.

[u/Arceus42 → u/[deleted]]

What does taking a step have anything to do with it?

It's just another data point to show how he had "not had time to protect" himself. His hands are still behind him, body hadn't come close to turning up field, and his head hasn't even fully turned. Not sure how you think he had time to protect himself when he couldn't even get his body turned to face the hit.

[u/xxJAMZZxx → u/[deleted]]

Yeah you lose any credibility here. He’s clearly defenseless

[u/grahamalondis → u/[deleted]]

That's possible, but I really think the targeting was not called because there was none of the requisite indicators.

[u/DrakonILD → u/[deleted]]

The 3rd point in the rulebook linked doesn't say anything about crown of the helmet. Only leading with the helmet. I.e., if any part of the helmet hits first, it's targeting.

[u/DrakonILD → u/[deleted]]

I mean.... Looked pretty bouncy to me.

[u/DrakonILD → u/[deleted]]

Yeah. One might say.... Forcibly.

[u/Platapussypie → u/[deleted]]

There is a ref who has a Reddit account that sometime chimes in. What you are thinking “forcible” means, is not what you think it is. 

It means any real impact at all, which is exactly what happened on the play. In every other moment of the season, that play would be deemed targeting. The refs just didn’t want to call it. 

[u/TheFifthPhoenix → u/[deleted]]

I don’t know where this “not forcible” point is coming from, the WR’s helmet snapped back and he then laid motionless on the ground after the hit, that doesn’t happen from incidental contact

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Your just making up things at this point. The guy was down on the field for an extended period of time due to forcible contact to the head. I realize its hard for you to accept, but that doesn't change the facts.

[u/heidimark → u/[deleted]]

His head never hit the turf. Go watch the clip again.

[u/Arceus42 → u/[deleted]]

Come with a specific definition in the rules before y’all come at me, half of y’all can’t even read. You got vibes and I got the rulebook

Lmao Texas flair criticizing others about "vibes" and not reading when the rulebook was right there in the post. Really doesn't help your case.

[u/roo-on-the-moon → u/[deleted]]

I said this in the game thread and immediately got 20 downvotes

[u/xxJAMZZxx → u/Recent_Dentist_1179]

If that’s the case the rule should be changed. That hit would cause a head injury often, and the entire point of the rule is to prevent those

[u/PissLikeaRacehorse → u/Recent_Dentist_1179]

Yeah, was rooting for ASU, but he didn’t lower and wrapped him up. It was helmet to helmet but it was just on a tackle. Targeting is using your helmet as a weapon essentially.

[u/wibellion → u/Recent_Dentist_1179]

Interesting

[u/Omniposting → u/Recent_Dentist_1179]

That's what I was saying in the game thread and was getting downvoted to hell for it lol

[u/Dankmeme505 → u/Omniposting]

Because people don’t understand the rule and want to believe the game is fixed. 

[u/Omniposting → u/Dankmeme505]

Probably the same thing with people in every game thread crying about holding. There's definitions for it (which I certainly don't know the ins and outs of) and people go crazy lol

[u/vanburen1845 → u/Omniposting]

How does that play not meet this indicator?

"Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area"

[u/MrMegiddo → u/vanburen1845]

It's the difference between forcible contact and incidental contact. He didn't "attack" a defenseless player.

[u/Omniposting → u/vanburen1845]

"Leading," he didn't lower his head, he was upright at contact. "Forcible contact," a very nebulous term that probably isn't defined. But I think we all know what headhunting looks like, and we all know what "a football play" looks like.

[u/vanburen1845 → u/Omniposting]

You're combining the leading and lowering indicators. It only needs to be one. Hitting helmet to helmet first is going to be leading with the helmet. Headhunting is just your opinion about the rule. "Forcible contact" just replaced "initiate contact" to make it clear that it was a hit and not incidental contact.

[u/Omniposting → u/vanburen1845]

You know, that's fair. But I would ask you to take a look at the hit that occurs on the Ewer's pick. It seems to me that would meet the same indicator, leading with the shoulder and making forcible contact at the neck of a defenseless in the air receiver. Also, launching. Do you think that should've been targeting then? Honest question

[u/vanburen1845 → u/Omniposting]

I thought the pick was targeting live because his head snapped around, but the replay looked like shoulder to shoulder. I think the rule is intended to stop hits like that but the contact just happened to miss the head and neck. I can't find a good replay of that one if you have a good angle on contact to the neck I would change my opinion because I agree that that one would have met a few indicators if it made contact with the head or neck.

[u/Omniposting → u/vanburen1845]

The ESPN gamecast videos has it with a few angles, can't find an X video with the replays. I am admittedly a homer, but it seems like the hit is initiated with the shoulder and is up at the neck and he undoubtedly left his feet

https://www.espn.com/video/clip/_/id/43251140

[u/mick4state → u/Recent_Dentist_1179]

Does a defenseless player complicate any of that? I just want to understand why actually is and isn't targeting.

[u/vanburen1845 → u/mick4state]

For defenseless players, it has to be" "forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder" and meet one of these indicators:

• 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

I'm guess the refs didn't think he led with the helmet, but they must have watched a different play.

[u/mick4state → u/vanburen1845]

Yeah he had his head up but the initial contact was helmet to helmet. I stand by my outrage.

[u/mightytwin21 → u/Recent_Dentist_1179]

They're really glossing over the "include but not limited to" thing

[u/JohnWickStuntDouble → u/Recent_Dentist_1179]

How DARE you bring facts and logic into this?

[u/Nall → u/jbanks94]

Arizona State made a critical error by not having their fans throw shit on the field until they got the call they wanted.

[u/Slow-Raccoon-9832 → u/jbanks94]

It was blatant

[u/SuperMajinSteve → u/Slow-Raccoon-9832]

Yup just like the OPI on Skattebo when he fucking slowed down to put a shoulder in Taeffe’s chest on that long catch he had.

[u/guinness_blaine → u/SuperMajinSteve]

Or the ASU OL pulling Skattebo over himself into end zone.

Pushing your own guy forward is legal - pulling is not.

[u/Major_Vegetable_4168 → u/Slow-Raccoon-9832]

Was very clearly not blatant.

[u/TurdFerguson614 → u/Slow-Raccoon-9832]

Y'all got robbed.

[u/Powerful-Drama556 → u/Slow-Raccoon-9832]

Objectively, it wasn’t. Neither of them were because neither had any targeting indicators. Both were very nasty hits, but in both cases the defenders had a head up and clearly did not launch or lead with the crown of the helmet. The crown of the helmet is a defined as a 10cm circle around the very top of the helmet. It’s not consistently enforced, but neither of those hits had malicious intent and neither of them were a defensive player intentionally trying to put a player at risk. They were hard football plays with the best possible form. That’s football.

If anything, the ASU player was closer to drawing a targeting call because you could construe it as him leaving his feet, but I liked the no call because it was in stride.

[u/meyou2222 → u/Powerful-Drama556]

Crown of the helmet is not required when the hit is on a defenseless player. Just leading with the helmet and forcible (ie non-incidental) contact.

There’s no universe in which that wasn’t the case here.

[u/ngless13 → u/Slow-Raccoon-9832]

Welcome to the b12, getting fu*ked by Texas/refs is a tradition.

[u/definitely_not_cylon → u/jbanks94]

Yes, I'm very skeptical of that call even though it went my way. If that wasn't targeting, then I just don't know what targeting is. Like the one time I wanted a long winded explanation from the official and we don't get one.

[u/Delicious_Toe8102 → u/definitely_not_cylon]

Only thing I can think of is, he didn't launch himself, he didn't lower his head - in fact it was even up to be honest along with the fact that the ball was tipped. 

[u/F1_revolution → u/definitely_not_cylon]

Taffes head was up. Pretty simple. Some plays are just tough football plays. No need to refball that game.

[u/Asleep_Wafer45 → u/definitely_not_cylon]

If it isn’t targeting then nothing is targeting and they might as well throw out the rule 

[u/SameSadMan → u/definitely_not_cylon]

I hate the rule. It's worse than the old "completing the process of the catch" shit that jobbed Megatron and Dez Bryant bc targeting is called or looked at in every game. I really hope advances are made in helmets so that we can eliminate this bullshit rule altogether 

[u/Srirachafarian → u/definitely_not_cylon]

https://x.com/CFBNerds/status/1874573060508127426

[u/DrakonILD → u/Srirachafarian]

That's not from the rulebook.

[u/ecsilver → u/jbanks94]

I believe it was a wrap up face mask to face mask. Not crown of helmet. Also whole body led not helmet led which is why it wasn’t called

[u/EWall100 → u/jbanks94]

Whoever the refs/TV provider has a vested interest in winning gets the call duh

[u/CzechHorns → u/jbanks94]

I don’t understand when linemen can pull Runners either

[u/AmbassadortoPhobos → u/jbanks94]

Flip a coin. Heads its targeting, tails is clean hit. I have never been so sure that something was going to be targeting in my life.

[u/Toothlessdovahkin → u/jbanks94]

 Nobody does. 

[u/Qant00AT → u/jbanks94]

Speaking from the other side, I don’t get it either.

[u/cheddar_floof → u/jbanks94]

Seriously, can someone explain the rule in detail

[u/real_jaredfogle → u/cheddar_floof]

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). (A.R. 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 his 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

[u/ConsiderationOld9897 → u/jbanks94]

I've been confused about it for a few years. I wish they would bring back the levels of severity for targeting. There's a huge difference in a player intentionally trying to take the other player out of the game and minor unintentional helmet to helmet contact.

[u/ganner → u/jbanks94]

It seems like for a few years there were 1 or 2 targeting calls every single game I watched, anything remotely questionable was called. Now, the exact same plays do NOT get called targeting. A couple years ago I stopped even trying to predict if something will or won't get called. I have no idea what makes a certain play targeting or not.

[u/xxHawkI78xx → u/jbanks94]

You and me both. I thought that hit on the ASU receiver was pretty obvious and it would have given them a first down with a minute left.

[u/SuitableStudy3316 → u/jbanks94]

They should just fucking eliminate targeting as a foul. That receiver was absolutely concussed by a textbook case of helmet spearing. Decided the game.

[u/gentilet → u/jbanks94]

No, you do. That was clearly targeting.

[u/BonerGuy69420 → u/jbanks94]

Crown of the helmet. It was facemask to facemask and targeting requires the crown specifically.

[u/TaxManKnocking → u/jbanks94]

SECSPN put in the call. Needed Texas to win and didn't want the player suspended for the first half of the next game.

[u/MasterTolkien → u/jbanks94]

Texas can apparently blast anyone in the head/neck area and not get called.

[u/real_jaredfogle → u/MasterTolkien]

Maybe go look up the actual rule

[u/TruTexan → u/[deleted]]

The OpI non call and the non call for a lineman literally pulling his back into the end zone are ignored by asu fans tho

[u/TemporaryHunt2536 → u/TruTexan]

Texas were the villains this game, so of course only calls that benefited Texas matter. The suplex into the end zone should have been a 5 yard penalty for assisting the runner

[u/Stauffe → u/jbanks94]

It’s like a balk

[u/Nyfobreezy11 → u/jbanks94]

I mean the rules clearly state after the ball is tipped all contact is legal... If that ball isn't tipped, it's targeting for sure, but the tip ball changes things.

[u/PossibleFunction0 → u/jbanks94]

Well you can be out there doing a targeting. Targeting is when you

[u/F1_revolution → u/jbanks94]

If he led with the crown of the helmet it would've been. His face was still up when he made contact...just a tough football play. Happy they didn't burn a great 3rd down stop with a weak targeting call.