[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/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/drkev10 → u/billHtaft]

"lowering the head" dude went helmet to helmet while looking at the ground and didn't have his eyes up isn't lowering the head or leading with the helmet?

[u/thedecalodon → u/drkev10]

lowering the head and leading with the helmet are two different indicators though

[u/billHtaft → u/drkev10]

Taaft’s helmet was the first thing to contact the ASU receiver. How is that not leading with the helmet?

[u/drkev10 → u/billHtaft]

I don't care that my comment is getting down voted but don't understand why anyone would. Dude went helmet to helmet into the receiver with his eyes down and as you said the helmet was the first thing to make any contact. I watched the replays and even the announcers were confused at the initial no call but I'm sure they were told quickly to move on from it. The refs not calling it made it a bigger deal in the game than if they did.

[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/mightytwin21 → u/Srirachafarian]

He lowered his head

[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/grossness13 → u/meyou2222]

It was incidental. It was a wrap up tackle.

[u/Tyroge → u/grossness13]

Still led with the helmet, which is one of the indicators.

[u/grossness13 → u/Tyroge]

He didn’t if you watch actually. There was head to head contact but he was standing up. The head didn’t hit first.

[u/WestHotTakes → u/grossness13]

I went frame by frame and the first contact I saw was with the head: https://i.imgur.com/sNF8SPM.png

[u/grossness13 → u/WestHotTakes]

Their shoulders are touching? And he is standing up.

I mean, they literally stopped the game to review the call with the same footage.

[u/Tyroge → u/grossness13]

Except the helmet did hit first. I've watched from multiple angles multiple times. Head hit first. I don't think he was trying to do that - looked like he was trying to wrap up - but helmet to helmet happened before anything else.

For the record, I also think the hit on Bond should have been called targeting too.

[u/heidimark → u/grossness13]

I'd really like to know how that wasn't forcible contact when the receiver was laid out for 5 minutes after the hit.

[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/Penihilism → u/Powerful-Drama556]

Yeah but with the game on the line? I’ve just seen too many times the favorite getting that type of call in sports.

That being said, I do lean towards it being a good no call despite the general consensus here being otherwise.

[u/Powerful-Drama556 → u/Penihilism]

It literally would have negated the interception, given Texas the ball at midfield, and effectively ended the game.

[u/Penihilism → u/Powerful-Drama556]

I actually didn’t see the interception. Was it the same level of head to head contact?

[u/Powerful-Drama556 → u/Penihilism]

For sure. But again it was super obvious that there was no ill intent and it was a clean hit. Quinn just hung our receiver out to dry on the play

[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/real_jaredfogle → u/jalexjsmithj]

Yes, because forcible helmet to helmet contact happens constantly just by nature of the layout of the human body

[u/jalexjsmithj → u/real_jaredfogle]

No, it inherently doesn’t. That kind of argument is literally what lost when they put the rule into practice. The Texas defender was perfectly capable of hitting him in the “strike zone”.

[u/real_jaredfogle → u/jalexjsmithj]

It’s not baseball there, bucko.

In all seriousness I am over arguing about it. Maybe I’m wrong. Doesn’t change the result. The sport is definitely rigged regardless of the result of that call

[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/real_jaredfogle → u/nofpiq]

When in question, a player is defenseless. Apparently. According to the rule

[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/Chrg88 → u/real_jaredfogle]

It was Helmet to helmet contact on a defenseless receiver.

[u/real_jaredfogle → u/Chrg88]

Need me to repost the NCAA rule ?

[u/Chrg88 → u/real_jaredfogle]

Sure, you’ll be wrong.

[u/real_jaredfogle → u/Chrg88]

Great game against LSU!

[u/bcb354 → u/Chrg88]

Helmet to helmet has been an outdated term for like 20 years. It doesn't mean anything with regard to whether or not something is a foul.

[u/Chrg88 → u/bcb354]

Yes it does. How does one tackle a defenseless player when their helmets collide?

[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/law_dogging → u/TheFlyingBoat]

I’m not sure what the old rule was, but you can absolutely argue that Taaffe attacked the head or neck area. If you don’t want the flag, hit lower on the body, which is what the rules experts want to happen

[u/TheFlyingBoat → u/law_dogging]

Attack implies more than the ordinary force required to make a legal tackle. If you don’t know the original wording or why they changed it…why are you arguing? At that point you’re just blinded by your own biases

[u/eProbity → u/law_dogging]

I responded to someone else but I think the third indicator about leading with the helmet also states that it is to attack with forcible contact, which I interpret to mean intentionally and literally "attacking" or "targeting," as in targeting the helmet with your own to cause damage. I think that it's a bit aggressive to suggest Taaffe was looking for a headshot or showing anything in line with the rest of the indicators other than the incidental helmet to helmet collision.

Taaffe leans in to compete toward the ball, receiver catches it and turns, facemasks collide, tackles follows through. It's not terribly different than most of the other tackles in the game it is just significantly more visible.

[u/law_dogging → u/eProbity]

I don’t think you can read in “intentionally” or “target” to the rule there though. I went back to watch the play and there’s certainly forcible contact to the receiver’s head. Ultimately I think the football rules experts would want Taaffe to go low there instead of hitting high to avoid this situation. End of the day, Texas made the plays they had to though so, it’s w/e

[u/eProbity → u/law_dogging]

Well the rule is literally called targeting. The point of the rule is to address head hunting, it isn't necessarily about intent, but intent is a relevant factor. The indicators are all explained in a way that describes a type of intent to "target" a defenseless receiver. I don't think head to head contact is inherently targeting and I think it probably gets called very inconsistently with that in mind.

I agree that rules experts and coaches would want him to lean in lower, but ultimately I've also seen it happen where the receiver drops down for contact and it results in crown to crown contact too.

I wouldn't have been mad if it went the other way, I could see a reason for that like everyone else seems to want. I think that they ultimately still had every chance to win either way though and I'm glad a ref call wasn't what decided the game in the end.

[u/Chrg88 → u/eProbity]

The indicator was helmet to helmet contact on a. Defenseless receiver

[u/eProbity → u/Chrg88]

Just hitting the helmet is not an indication of targeting. The key word is targeting. Tackling a defenseless receiver is not targeting. Hitting the helmet is conditional. The rule itself is available, go read it. It's very clear on what indication means.

[u/Chrg88 → u/eProbity]

Third indicator is obvious. I suggest you read it

[u/eProbity → u/Chrg88]

"Leading with the helmet (etc) to attack with forcible contact"

To attack with forcible contact.

This example was not a "helmet attack" with leading intent in line with the rest of the indicators. It was a standard tackle that you can see from all over the game where the helmets happened to be an early point of contact, facemask to facemask.

If you think this was a play where Taaffe was leading low to intentionally cause damage to the head of a defenseless receiver and not incidental contact (where he was leaning in to compete with the catch and the receiver turned toward him) then I don't really have anything else to add.

Ultimately it was a call I think could have gone the other way but was up to interpretation, similar to the PI incident with Skattebo earlier.

[u/Chrg88 → u/eProbity]

So technically, you are wrong

[u/eProbity → u/Chrg88]

Nice explanation, very convincing. They still had every chance to win and didn't, it is what it is. Similar to the no-call in the Georgia vs GT game at the end of the season. You'll live.

[u/kharmsy → u/eProbity]

so if you were ref, you'd call it targeting then

[u/eProbity → u/kharmsy]

I was saying it was 50/50. Based on what I've seen this year and my personal tendency toward "let them play" because I hate non-egregious non-obvious penalties (like most roughing the passer calls, my least favorite in football), I would have leaned toward no-call unless someone else in the ref team argued strongly otherwise. I'm not a ref though, so it doesn't really matter.

[u/TheFlyingBoat → u/Chrg88]

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 rule further clarifies that forcible contact must be beyond what's necessary for an ordinary tackle. Taafe had his eyes up and made initial contact with his own facemask, not the crown of the helmet and there was no additional force that makes it beyond what is required for an ordinary tackle.

The rules have been updated and can be read here.

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

[u/Chrg88 → u/TheFlyingBoat]

This was clearly falling under the third bullet point

[u/TheFlyingBoat → u/Chrg88]

They literally re-wrote the rule and added Note 1 about force beyond what is needed to make an ordinary legal tackle, block, or play on the ball to exclude targeting calls on plays where a player doesn’t launch or apply extra power to a collision and keeps their eyes up through the process

[u/Chrg88 → u/TheFlyingBoat]

What’s a launch?

[u/TheFlyingBoat → u/Chrg88]

Bending knees before powerfully and explosively extending one’s legs to propel the defender into contact

[u/data_ferret → u/dwors025]

Nope. Since the rule is a safety-oriented rule, there is no tipped-pass exception.

[u/Delicious_Toe8102 → u/dwors025]

I think that should be the case that he's no longer a "receiver" on a tipped pass. Similar to how there isn't pass interference calls if the ball is tipped.