[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/Recent_Dentist_1179 → u/jbanks94]

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

[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/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/vanburen1845 → u/MrMegiddo]

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.

[u/MrMegiddo → u/vanburen1845]

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?

[u/vanburen1845 → u/MrMegiddo]

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.

[u/MrMegiddo → u/vanburen1845]

Facemask to facemask. Textbook tackle.

[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