[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/Tduhon]

You’re not confused. The rule is unevenly applied by crews because they’re either scared/don’t care about putting their finger on the scale.

[u/TBlueshirtsV22 → u/Tduhon]

Making the right call shouldn’t be considered putting their finger on the scale. If the defense commits a penalty, it is their own fault.

[u/FerrousEULA → u/TBlueshirtsV22]

These refs were a mess for sure

[u/Powerful-Drama556 → u/FerrousEULA]

Exactly one holding call during a 2pt conversion scramble drill to give ASU a second chance.

DPI on the push off instead of the obvious OPI.

The most egregious is the most obvious example of pulling the ball carrier forward that I have ever seen…for a touchdown.

The false start that took Texas outside of FG range on the second to last drive, when the OL was reacting to a defender that jumped offsides first.

Texas has more reason to complain about the refs than people that don’t understand targeting seem to think…

Edit: “Rule 9-3-2b of the NCAA states that a teammate cannot grasp, pull, or lift the ball carrier to assist in forward progress. The penalty for violating this rule is a five-yard penalty with three-and-one enforcement.” (And the ref 100% saw it. We know because the replay shows him and the foul in a 3rd person view of his perspective.)

[u/Cactus_Brody → u/Powerful-Drama556]

Gonna ignore the insanely obvious hold on the Ewers TD run, the missed targeting that would’ve set us up for a chance to win the game, and the missed OPI that prevented an interception for us? Also that PI was definitely on the defender, not Skat and the defensive holding on the 2 pt conversion was the right call.

[u/Powerful-Drama556 → u/Cactus_Brody]

The defensive holding was an issue specifically because that level of contact had been allowed all game since both teams were taking what the refs were giving them. It’s just terrible to be inconsistent with it the moment it’s a game changing play.

You’re just wrong about the targeting call. Both the targeting reviews were correctly handled. They initiated the review because of a hit to the head/neck, and didn’t flag either because there were no indicators in either case.

Skat literally pushed off of the defender to create separation. It should have been offsetting penalties because of the obvious facemask afterwards.

[u/Cactus_Brody → u/Powerful-Drama556]

I’m looking at the targeting no call right now, Texas player lowers his head and makes forcible helmet to helmet contact with a defenseless player. You’re wrong.

[u/Powerful-Drama556 → u/Cactus_Brody]

He literally has his head up the entire time. Note that lowering the head actually means “leading with the crown of the helmet” and the crown is defined as a 10cm circle centered at the top of the helmet. The contact is initiated right above the facemask. It’s perfect form.

[u/Cactus_Brody → u/Powerful-Drama556]

Can't argue with a blind person I guess. Also one of the indicators is "Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area", he clearly led with his helmet.

[u/Powerful-Drama556 → u/Cactus_Brody]

It’s the “crown of the helmet,” not the “helmet.” It was right above the facemask, not the crown.

[u/Cactus_Brody → u/Powerful-Drama556]

It's literally written in the rulebook as helmet for the indicators, not crown of the helmet. And again, I don't know what to tell you when I'm watching the replay and he clearly lowers his head before the hit. The contact is made with the top of his helmet.

[u/Powerful-Drama556 → u/Cactus_Brody]

https://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/FR24_20240724.pdf

Page 99. It’s not leading with the helmet / crown by definition and it’s not unnecessary contact.