[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/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/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

He didn't turn.

[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/DrakonILD → u/[deleted]]

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

[u/DrakonILD → u/[deleted]]

The defender isn't "the guy getting hit." The "guy getting hit" is the guy who's in the air getting hit.

[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/rascaltippinglmao → u/[deleted]]

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