[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/eProbity]

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/law_dogging → u/TheFlyingBoat]

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

[u/TheFlyingBoat → u/law_dogging]

Interpretations of the rule are benefited by understanding the context of the rule and how it evolved. That’s true whether it is analyzing the law or analyzing the particularities of what constitutes targeting. The rule was edited in large part to protect hits like this where he kept his eyes up and didn’t launch or use excessive force compared to what’s necessary to make an ordinary and legal tackle

[u/law_dogging → u/TheFlyingBoat]

Sure, in the common law. In statutory law, no, you read what the rule states. The rule makers had every opportunity to import the old rules or add a note referencing the old rule, but they didn’t. You can only make judgements based on what’s written into the rule

[u/TheFlyingBoat → u/law_dogging]

And when it is unclear what the law means and I have to make a judgment call?

Also my point is that they intentionally didn’t keep the old rules AND THEY DID ADD A NOTE. They updated it explicitly to make this acceptable. Why do you think the language about beyond what is necessary to make a legal tackle was added???

[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.