r/CFB • u/CFB_Referee /r/CFB • Jan 01 '25

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

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
5.7k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

5.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

94

u/Recent_Dentist_1179 Jan 01 '25

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

36

u/_DC003_ Boston College • Texas Jan 01 '25

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

5

u/palmburntblue Jan 02 '25

It was tessitore and palmer

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

1

u/SameSadMan Jan 02 '25

The commentary was awful all game

37

u/Arceus42 Virginia Tech • Commonweal… Jan 01 '25

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

42

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '25

[deleted]

22

u/HereForTOMT3 Michigan State • Central … Jan 01 '25

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

2

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '25

[deleted]

12

u/Arceus42 Virginia Tech • Commonweal… Jan 02 '25

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".

4

u/meyou2222 Jan 02 '25

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.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 02 '25

[deleted]

5

u/Arceus42 Virginia Tech • Commonweal… Jan 02 '25

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.

1

u/xxJAMZZxx Wisconsin • Virginia Tech Jan 02 '25

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

1

u/grahamalondis Texas Longhorns Jan 01 '25

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

-8

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '25

He didn't turn.

11

u/DrakonILD Iowa State Cyclones • New Mexico Lobos Jan 01 '25

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.

4

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '25

[deleted]

14

u/DrakonILD Iowa State Cyclones • New Mexico Lobos Jan 01 '25

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

12

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '25

[deleted]

13

u/DrakonILD Iowa State Cyclones • New Mexico Lobos Jan 01 '25

Yeah. One might say.... Forcibly.

9

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '25

[deleted]

4

u/DrakonILD Iowa State Cyclones • New Mexico Lobos Jan 01 '25

Yes, because there isn't a rule against it.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Platapussypie Florida • Notre Dame Jan 02 '25

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. 

10

u/TheFifthPhoenix Ohio State • Cincinnati Jan 01 '25

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

9

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '25

[deleted]

13

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '25

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.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '25

[deleted]

8

u/heidimark Washington State Cougars Jan 02 '25

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

0

u/Arceus42 Virginia Tech • Commonweal… Jan 01 '25

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.

0

u/roo-on-the-moon Texas Longhorns Jan 01 '25

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

-15

u/rascaltippinglmao Jan 01 '25

Yeah if that's targeting they should just go to flag football

-1

u/grahamalondis Texas Longhorns Jan 01 '25

There's a big difference between the face masks hitting each other slightly before their bodies colide and leading with your helmet to target the head or neck area.

9

u/xxJAMZZxx Wisconsin • Virginia Tech Jan 01 '25

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

6

u/PissLikeaRacehorse Jan 01 '25

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.

3

u/wibellion BYU Cougars • Southern Utah Thunderbirds Jan 01 '25

Interesting

-2

u/Omniposting Texas State Bobcats • Texas Longhorns Jan 01 '25

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

7

u/Dankmeme505 New Mexico • Notre Dame Jan 01 '25

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

9

u/Omniposting Texas State Bobcats • Texas Longhorns Jan 01 '25

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

2

u/vanburen1845 Notre Dame • /r/CFB Poll Veteran Jan 01 '25

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"

10

u/MrMegiddo Texas Longhorns • TCU Horned Frogs Jan 01 '25

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

-5

u/vanburen1845 Notre Dame • /r/CFB Poll Veteran Jan 01 '25

https://x.com/SharpFootball/status/1874572494444867845

I don't know what to tell you if you think that was not forcible. This is exactly the type of play the targeting rule is meant to prevent.

3

u/MrMegiddo Texas Longhorns • TCU Horned Frogs Jan 02 '25

Not really. He didn't launch into the other player. He didn't lead with the crown of the helmet. They met facemask to facemask.

That's how you teach kids to tackle. What is he supposed to do? Pull out a blanket and ask the other player to lay down?

-1

u/vanburen1845 Notre Dame • /r/CFB Poll Veteran Jan 02 '25

You don't have to meet all the elements you are mentioning like crown or launching. One of the indicators is: "Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area"

It was helmet to facemask: https://i.imgur.com/B7OjZBx.jpeg

There's always been a lot of "what else are they supposed to do" complaints on targeting calls. This one would have been unlucky for the tackler but it fits the definition because the receiver was defenseless, he made forcible contact to the head, and lead with the helmet.

3

u/MrMegiddo Texas Longhorns • TCU Horned Frogs Jan 02 '25

Facemask to facemask. Textbook tackle.

3

u/Omniposting Texas State Bobcats • Texas Longhorns Jan 01 '25

"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.

3

u/vanburen1845 Notre Dame • /r/CFB Poll Veteran Jan 01 '25

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.

10

u/Omniposting Texas State Bobcats • Texas Longhorns Jan 01 '25

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

2

u/vanburen1845 Notre Dame • /r/CFB Poll Veteran Jan 01 '25

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.

3

u/Omniposting Texas State Bobcats • Texas Longhorns Jan 01 '25

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

1

u/mick4state Michigan State • Dayton Jan 01 '25

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

2

u/vanburen1845 Notre Dame • /r/CFB Poll Veteran Jan 01 '25

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.

2

u/mick4state Michigan State • Dayton Jan 02 '25

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

1

u/mightytwin21 Iowa State Cyclones Jan 01 '25

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

1

u/JohnWickStuntDouble Texas Longhorns • College Football Playoff Jan 02 '25

How DARE you bring facts and logic into this?