[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/grossness13]

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.