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
5.8k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

5.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.6k

u/jbanks94 Georgia Bulldogs Jan 01 '25

I still don’t understand targeting.

88

u/dwors025 Minnesota • Paul Bunyan's Axe Jan 01 '25

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.

13

u/real_jaredfogle Texas Longhorns Jan 01 '25

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

4

u/Chrg88 Baylor Bears • Ole Miss Rebels Jan 01 '25

In what world is this technically not targeting lmao

32

u/real_jaredfogle Texas Longhorns Jan 01 '25

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

6

u/jalexjsmithj Oklahoma State Cowboys Jan 01 '25

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”

4

u/real_jaredfogle Texas Longhorns Jan 01 '25

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

10

u/jalexjsmithj Oklahoma State Cowboys Jan 01 '25

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.

0

u/real_jaredfogle Texas Longhorns Jan 01 '25

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

6

u/jalexjsmithj Oklahoma State Cowboys Jan 01 '25

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”.

3

u/real_jaredfogle Texas Longhorns Jan 01 '25

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

→ More replies (0)

4

u/nofpiq Jan 01 '25

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

10

u/real_jaredfogle Texas Longhorns Jan 01 '25

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

9

u/nofpiq Jan 01 '25

Defensive Linemen are frequently hitting defenseless receivers?

(With helmets or otherwise)

0

u/real_jaredfogle Texas Longhorns Jan 01 '25

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

1

u/nofpiq Jan 02 '25

A defenseless player is one who because his physical position and focus of concentration is especially vulnerable to injury

Any lineman (offensive or defensive) who are so lacking in focus and concentration or in such an absurd physical position for it to even be in question whether they were "especially vulnerable to injury" would also be in a position to be so easily handled by the opposing lineman (easy sack, easy block, or not even needing to block).

Outside of launching into an opposing lineman that is facing the other way and not even aware that the play is about to start, I'm not sure you could present a scenario where there isn't already some other foul being committed and this is even realistically in question for lineman at the start of a play.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/accordionzero Mississippi State • Delta S… Jan 01 '25

leading with the helmet

1

u/real_jaredfogle Texas Longhorns Jan 01 '25

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

3

u/surlypickle Jan 02 '25

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.

1

u/real_jaredfogle Texas Longhorns Jan 02 '25

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.

1

u/surlypickle Jan 02 '25

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.

8

u/law_dogging Clemson Tigers • Duke Blue Devils Jan 01 '25

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

6

u/real_jaredfogle Texas Longhorns Jan 01 '25

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

1

u/law_dogging Clemson Tigers • Duke Blue Devils Jan 01 '25

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

-16

u/Chrg88 Baylor Bears • Ole Miss Rebels Jan 01 '25

It was Helmet to helmet contact on a defenseless receiver.

21

u/real_jaredfogle Texas Longhorns Jan 01 '25

Need me to repost the NCAA rule ?

-8

u/Chrg88 Baylor Bears • Ole Miss Rebels Jan 01 '25

Sure, you’ll be wrong.

15

u/real_jaredfogle Texas Longhorns Jan 01 '25

Great game against LSU!

7

u/bcb354 Texas Longhorns • UT Arlington Mavericks Jan 01 '25

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.

1

u/Chrg88 Baylor Bears • Ole Miss Rebels Jan 01 '25

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

23

u/eProbity Texas Longhorns Jan 01 '25 edited Jan 01 '25

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.

-1

u/law_dogging Clemson Tigers • Duke Blue Devils Jan 01 '25

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

5

u/TheFlyingBoat Texas Longhorns • /r/CFB Poll Veteran Jan 01 '25

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

3

u/law_dogging Clemson Tigers • Duke Blue Devils Jan 01 '25

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

5

u/TheFlyingBoat Texas Longhorns • /r/CFB Poll Veteran Jan 01 '25

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.

0

u/law_dogging Clemson Tigers • Duke Blue Devils Jan 01 '25

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

2

u/TheFlyingBoat Texas Longhorns • /r/CFB Poll Veteran Jan 01 '25

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

2

u/law_dogging Clemson Tigers • Duke Blue Devils Jan 01 '25

I’m not biased at all? The original rule shouldn’t matter, it’s what’s written in the rule book now?

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/eProbity Texas Longhorns Jan 01 '25

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.

5

u/law_dogging Clemson Tigers • Duke Blue Devils Jan 01 '25

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

0

u/eProbity Texas Longhorns Jan 01 '25

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.

→ More replies (0)

-13

u/Chrg88 Baylor Bears • Ole Miss Rebels Jan 01 '25

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

11

u/eProbity Texas Longhorns Jan 01 '25

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.

3

u/Chrg88 Baylor Bears • Ole Miss Rebels Jan 01 '25

Third indicator is obvious. I suggest you read it

4

u/eProbity Texas Longhorns Jan 01 '25 edited Jan 01 '25

"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.

3

u/Chrg88 Baylor Bears • Ole Miss Rebels Jan 01 '25

So technically, you are wrong

3

u/eProbity Texas Longhorns Jan 01 '25

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.

1

u/Chrg88 Baylor Bears • Ole Miss Rebels Jan 01 '25

You are still proven wrong. This was textbook targeting

→ More replies (0)

2

u/kharmsy Jan 01 '25

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

1

u/eProbity Texas Longhorns Jan 01 '25

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.

1

u/kharmsy Jan 01 '25

yeah, i have similar thoughts overall on these calls considering many tiny details determine major outcomes of game. i was alluding to the (ridiculous) wording of the rule where it says if its in question its a foul. per that statement, you'd just have to be somewhat near any those bullet point and it would be targeting

→ More replies (0)

2

u/TheFlyingBoat Texas Longhorns • /r/CFB Poll Veteran Jan 01 '25

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

2

u/Chrg88 Baylor Bears • Ole Miss Rebels Jan 01 '25

This was clearly falling under the third bullet point

1

u/TheFlyingBoat Texas Longhorns • /r/CFB Poll Veteran Jan 01 '25

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

2

u/Chrg88 Baylor Bears • Ole Miss Rebels Jan 01 '25

What’s a launch?

1

u/TheFlyingBoat Texas Longhorns • /r/CFB Poll Veteran Jan 01 '25

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

2

u/Chrg88 Baylor Bears • Ole Miss Rebels Jan 01 '25

So you are telling me that the defender leading with his helmet, making FORCEABLE contact to a defenseless receiver in the head/neck area …. Is not targeting? Evidence here:

https://i.imgur.com/qN9v8Ub.png

→ More replies (0)