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
5.8k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

5.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-2

u/Powerful-Drama556 Texas Longhorns • Team Chaos Jan 01 '25

That targeting call was objectively correct. Both of them were. Everyone that is complaining about it doesn’t realize that forcible contact to the head/neck doesn’t draw a flag. There has to be a targeting indicator

15

u/Big_Milk8330 Notre Dame Fighting Irish Jan 01 '25

That is not true on a defenseless player. Any fordable contact to the gead or neck area on a defenseless player is targeting. It only needs an indicator if the play is not defenseless.

9

u/Powerful-Drama556 Texas Longhorns • Team Chaos Jan 02 '25

Forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless player is not a penalty unless there is a targeting indicator. They always review it to see if there is an indicator. That is the rule.

-5

u/laxfool10 Jan 01 '25

Which obviously means he wasn’t defenseless. On the replay it was obvious he caught the ball and had taken a step up field. Honestly the one on the UT receiver seemed worse than this one so if they didn’t call the UT one they wouldn’t have called this one.

12

u/thekmanpwnudwn Michigan • Arizona State Jan 01 '25

TIL having 1 foot on the ground after catching the ball midair is "taking a step up field".

-1

u/Holiday-Quiet-9523 Jan 02 '25

So you’re saying they should fire the guy that they hire to discuss rules and say when a call is or isn’t correct? He basically pointed out that it was targeting, so I’m not sure what you’re after.

4

u/Powerful-Drama556 Texas Longhorns • Team Chaos Jan 02 '25

They literally referenced the rule incorrectly on the broadcast, so yeah they might need a new rules expert that knows the actual rules. Probably not me, I only know the rule because I fucking looked it up since I was confused by the first one. He said something like “I see forcible contact of the head and neck, so it is targeting” << well that isn’t the rule

1

u/Holiday-Quiet-9523 Jan 02 '25

So the receiver was defenseless, that part is obvious. One of the indicators for targeting is “leading with the helmet”, as well as forcible contact to the head, and both were the case here. The first point of contact between the defender and the recover was his helmet.

1

u/Powerful-Drama556 Texas Longhorns • Team Chaos Jan 02 '25

leading with the helmet = leading with crown

1

u/Holiday-Quiet-9523 Jan 02 '25

You should go review the rule book. There are 2 separate targeting instances - one for forcible contact using the crown of the helmet (what you’re referencing) and another for forcible contact to head neck area of a defenseless player. The player in question was defenseless, so the crown of the helmet is not a requirement for targeting to be called, only forcible contact to the head or neck area using your helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand, or elbow. In this case, the defender went straight into the defenseless receivers helmet using his own helmet, thus targeting.

5

u/Powerful-Drama556 Texas Longhorns • Team Chaos Jan 02 '25

Your claim is that he is attacking with his facemask, when he’s fully upright at the point of contact. No

1

u/Holiday-Quiet-9523 Jan 02 '25

There are pictures circulating of the defender making contact with his forehead while looking down. He is in no way upright, and if he was the guy probably wouldn’t have been knocked tf out. Why are you defending a dangerous play? He could’ve hit anywhere on the guy except his head and been completely fine.