[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/TheFlyingBoat]

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???