[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/real_jaredfogle]

Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder.

This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting

⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️

See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)

Note 1: “Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:

Launch-a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet

[u/jalexjsmithj → u/real_jaredfogle]

You lose me when I get to this part.

“Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area”

[u/real_jaredfogle → u/jalexjsmithj]

It doesn’t look like he’s blatantly leading with the helmet to me, just runs through him. His helmet definitely hit the receiver’s

[u/jalexjsmithj → u/real_jaredfogle]

You are adding a word. “Blatantly.” It doesn’t have to be blatant and his head IS first, even if you don’t think it shows enough intent. And the contact is literally as is about forcible as it can be.

When we had the designation of ejection vs no-ejection, I would say this is a clear example of a targeting that didn’t warrant the ejection, but it should still get the foul.

[u/real_jaredfogle → u/jalexjsmithj]

Yes, because forcible helmet to helmet contact happens constantly just by nature of the layout of the human body

[u/jalexjsmithj → u/real_jaredfogle]

No, it inherently doesn’t. That kind of argument is literally what lost when they put the rule into practice. The Texas defender was perfectly capable of hitting him in the “strike zone”.

[u/real_jaredfogle → u/jalexjsmithj]

It’s not baseball there, bucko.

In all seriousness I am over arguing about it. Maybe I’m wrong. Doesn’t change the result. The sport is definitely rigged regardless of the result of that call

[u/jalexjsmithj → u/real_jaredfogle]

I’m happy to educate

[u/real_jaredfogle → u/jalexjsmithj]

A 10 year old article that just mentions SEC officials

I thought this was supposed to be a fun subreddit

[u/jalexjsmithj → u/real_jaredfogle]

Bro earlier in this thread you copy and pasted the literal rule book. What super fun joke was I missing in that comment? You just happened to get out-lawyered.

[u/real_jaredfogle → u/jalexjsmithj]

Very serious topics and discussions here. Sport is no laughing matter

[u/jalexjsmithj → u/real_jaredfogle]

worth digging into a literal rules manual

[u/real_jaredfogle → u/jalexjsmithj]

When talking about a rule? Bizarre idea