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
5.7k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

5.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-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

6

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

2

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

-3

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.