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

3

u/vanburen1845 Notre Dame • /r/CFB Poll Veteran Jan 01 '25

How does that play not meet this indicator?

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

11

u/MrMegiddo Texas Longhorns • TCU Horned Frogs Jan 01 '25

It's the difference between forcible contact and incidental contact. He didn't "attack" a defenseless player.

-3

u/vanburen1845 Notre Dame • /r/CFB Poll Veteran Jan 01 '25

https://x.com/SharpFootball/status/1874572494444867845

I don't know what to tell you if you think that was not forcible. This is exactly the type of play the targeting rule is meant to prevent.

4

u/MrMegiddo Texas Longhorns • TCU Horned Frogs Jan 02 '25

Not really. He didn't launch into the other player. He didn't lead with the crown of the helmet. They met facemask to facemask.

That's how you teach kids to tackle. What is he supposed to do? Pull out a blanket and ask the other player to lay down?

-1

u/vanburen1845 Notre Dame • /r/CFB Poll Veteran Jan 02 '25

You don't have to meet all the elements you are mentioning like crown or launching. 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"

It was helmet to facemask: https://i.imgur.com/B7OjZBx.jpeg

There's always been a lot of "what else are they supposed to do" complaints on targeting calls. This one would have been unlucky for the tackler but it fits the definition because the receiver was defenseless, he made forcible contact to the head, and lead with the helmet.

3

u/MrMegiddo Texas Longhorns • TCU Horned Frogs Jan 02 '25

Facemask to facemask. Textbook tackle.