|
Replies: 42
| visibility 3693
|
Game Changer [1739]
TigerPulse: 100%
31
|
Textbook targeting
5
5
Jan 1, 2025, 4:41 PM
|
|
Defenseless player and led with crown of helmet to the WR helmet
|
|
|
|
 |
Walk-On [79]
TigerPulse: 100%
8
|
Re: Textbook targeting
1
Jan 1, 2025, 4:42 PM
|
|
You are right!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [552]
TigerPulse: 100%
20
|
Re: Textbook targeting
2
Jan 1, 2025, 4:43 PM
|
|
Except for SEC teams.
Same as end of GT UGA game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2517]
TigerPulse: 98%
32
|
Re: Textbook targeting
3
Jan 1, 2025, 4:44 PM
|
|
And of course it is called not targeting. Complete. Joke.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Conqueror [11106]
TigerPulse: 98%
46
Posts: 13418
Joined: 2021
|
Re: Textbook targeting
Jan 1, 2025, 8:54 PM
|
|
At the very least it was a personal foul / unnecessary roughness. Not roughing the QB, but personal foul / unnecessary roughness. Had the TX defender led with his forearm and belted the AZ WR into semi-consciousness, then that, too, would have been personal foul / unnecessary roughness. The TX player intentionally launched at the head. Can’t do that.
Whether or not it was targeting was largely irrelevant. AZ State should have been awarded the first down + penalty yardage.
AZ State was robbed of a likely victory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [8066]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Re: Textbook targeting
6
6
Jan 1, 2025, 4:44 PM
|
|
Except he didn’t lead with the crown of the helmet…
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [1089]
TigerPulse: 100%
25
|
Re: Textbook targeting
2
Jan 1, 2025, 4:45 PM
|
|
Yes head was up, didn’t lead with the crown of his helmet. The correct call.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [41569]
TigerPulse: 100%
57
Posts: 11387
Joined: 2015
|
Re: Textbook targeting
2
Jan 1, 2025, 4:58 PM
|
|
Defenseless player and hit him in the head and neck area. That crown BS has not been the criteria it seems for a while. That was easily targeting. Let ASU hit a guy like that and see what happens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [8066]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Re: Textbook targeting
Jan 1, 2025, 5:00 PM
|
|
I guess you like soft football. That wasn’t targeting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7931]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Re: Textbook targeting
1
Jan 1, 2025, 4:46 PM
[ in reply to Re: Textbook targeting ] |
|
Correct call. Not targeting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [8066]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Re: Textbook targeting
Jan 1, 2025, 4:55 PM
|
|
Just a bunch of angry people that want TX to lose. I want them to lose as well but come on, his head was up. Let’s still allow some football in this game that’s getting increasingly soft. I get it, lots of these targeting calls are wrong and suck, but this one was correct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Changer [1864]
TigerPulse: 95%
31
|
Re: Textbook targeting
2
Jan 1, 2025, 5:38 PM
|
|
The rule is defenseless player hit in head or neck area and that is exactly what happened. If they don’t want that to be the rule they need to change it but they call it when they want to and don’t when it’s not the team Esecpn wants to win . Whine all you want but that is the rule
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [8066]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Re: Textbook targeting
Jan 1, 2025, 5:42 PM
|
|
The only ones whining are the ones saying it was the wrong call. I agree it is inconsistently called. If that had been called targeting on Clemson and cost them a game this place would be melting down. It wasn’t targeting. They made the right call, but the rule needs to be changed/clarified.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [1199]
TigerPulse: 100%
26
|
Re: Textbook targeting
1
Jan 1, 2025, 5:49 PM
|
|
Nope, no money on the game at all. Agreeing with the original poster that the no call was wrong. Again, I suggest you read the rule book... which seems to be something you prefer to ignore while attempting (unsuccessfully) to belittle the folk who do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [8066]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Re: Textbook targeting
Jan 1, 2025, 5:52 PM
|
|
Not belittling anyone. Just disagree. I know the rule. They applied it correctly. Do they always? No, not even close.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Conqueror [11106]
TigerPulse: 98%
46
Posts: 13418
Joined: 2021
|
Re: Textbook targeting
Jan 1, 2025, 9:02 PM
[ in reply to Re: Textbook targeting ] |
|
Focusing on the nuance that the refs made the correct call re not-targeting and failing to add the caveat that a personal foul penalty was blatantly obvious, yet uncalled dilutes the value of your post.
As you know, whether the TX defender launched at the head of AZ State WR’s with his (non-crown of) helmet or with his forearm, that is a personal foul penalty. Automatic first down + 15 yards penalty yardage.
Arguing only the targeting call and ignoring personal foul aspect is like watching one man kill the other, but then judging that the killer did not commit murder … so ‘nothing to see here.’ Ignore that the killer committed manslaughter and should have received a lesser, but still very severe, penalty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [1200]
TigerPulse: 100%
27
|
Re: Textbook targeting
1
Jan 1, 2025, 8:10 PM
[ in reply to Re: Textbook targeting ] |
|
secsecsec, the fix is in. I had no dog in this fight but these inconsistencies make me sick. Remember Wayne Gallman getting knocked out by nc state towel snatcher (forgot his name) ? Knocked him out. Refs said no targeting. Same as today. ASU receiver knocked out by a head shot. By the same player, #15 who jerked twice on ASUs #4 running back face mask when he caught long pass. Also, #15 appeared to have tried to trip another ASU receiver as he was heading to the end zone after HB pass. secsecsec. Move along folks, no targeting here. Move along. Nothing to see here. Just sec fix.
Yup, I’m on a roll. Pardon me.🤪
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [1200]
TigerPulse: 100%
27
|
Re: Textbook targeting
Jan 1, 2025, 8:16 PM
|
|
And, players have been busted for far less than that call, some of them definitely incidental.
Somebody help me, I can’t stop!! Go Tigers!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Conqueror [11106]
TigerPulse: 98%
46
Posts: 13418
Joined: 2021
|
Re: Textbook targeting
Jan 1, 2025, 9:07 PM
[ in reply to Re: Textbook targeting ] |
|
It was a personal foul penalty. Automatic first down + 15 yards penalty yardage.
Instead, it was ruled no foul despite the TX defender’s trajectory could have only hit the WR’s head as long as the WR was standing in a straight up position. If the AZ State WR had been in a crouched posture and the TX defender’s had been on the same trajectory, he would have largely missed making contact with the WR.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solid Orange [1365]
TigerPulse: 84%
28
|
Re: Textbook targeting
Jan 1, 2025, 5:00 PM
[ in reply to Re: Textbook targeting ] |
|
Dude, read the #### rulebook before acting like you know what you're talking about. Targeting can be (1) leading with the crown OR (2) hitting a defenseless player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [8066]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Re: Textbook targeting
Jan 1, 2025, 5:04 PM
|
|
Not targeting. Keep crying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14255]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
Posts: 23446
Joined: 2004
|
You don't have to on a defenseless player
1
Jan 1, 2025, 5:00 PM
[ in reply to Re: Textbook targeting ] |
|
Any forcible contact to the head or neck area on a defenseless player is targeting. Launch and crown are NOT necessary to have targeting on a defenseless player. Those are only necessary if the player is not defenseless, ie a ball carrier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [8066]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Re: You don't have to on a defenseless player
Jan 1, 2025, 5:05 PM
|
|
Sorry, not targeting. Y’all are too emotional about this. Man, are yall ASU fans?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14255]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
Posts: 23446
Joined: 2004
|
Just the rules man
1
Jan 1, 2025, 5:21 PM
|
|
Forcible contact and crown are not required to have targeting on a defenseless player. The only thing I can think of here is that things change because the ball appeared to be tipped.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [22555]
TigerPulse: 100%
53
Posts: 13326
Joined: 2018
|
Re: Just the rules man
Jan 1, 2025, 8:16 PM
|
|
Tipped doesn’t matter for targeting. That simply nullifies pass interference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [1199]
TigerPulse: 100%
26
|
Re: You don't have to on a defenseless player
1
Jan 1, 2025, 5:34 PM
[ in reply to Re: You don't have to on a defenseless player ] |
|
Not an ASU fan.
A fan of fairly called game by officials. BS no call. Read the rules and stop making an idiot of yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [8066]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Re: You don't have to on a defenseless player
Jan 1, 2025, 5:37 PM
|
|
Wow, guess you had money on the game too. It was the right call. Just because so many of the other calls are wrong doesn’t make this one wrong. I hate the rule. This one was right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [4618]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
Re: You don't have to on a defenseless player
1
Jan 1, 2025, 5:47 PM
|
|
I had money but that doesn’t change that it was still targeting. The rule
The NCAA targeting rule states that “no player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of their helmet.” It also says “no player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [8066]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Re: You don't have to on a defenseless player
Jan 1, 2025, 5:49 PM
|
|
Yep, I know the rule. Wasn’t targeting. Sorry you lost money. I get it why people get so worked up about it all the time. It’s a crap rule that is very inconsistently called.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [4618]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
Re: You don't have to on a defenseless player
2
Jan 1, 2025, 5:51 PM
|
|
We can agree to disagree. I saw a defenseless receiver (don’t think this is in doubt) and Taffe’s helmet slam into the WR helmet and it snapped back.
I don’t know how that’s not targeting
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [8066]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
|
Re: You don't have to on a defenseless player
Jan 1, 2025, 5:54 PM
|
|
I get it. I saw it different, but yeah that’s why I think the rule sucks. It’s way too subjective when it comes to “forcible contact”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [4618]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
Re: You don't have to on a defenseless player
Jan 1, 2025, 6:01 PM
|
|
I agree there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [1199]
TigerPulse: 100%
26
|
Re: You don't have to on a defenseless player
Jan 1, 2025, 5:54 PM
[ in reply to Re: You don't have to on a defenseless player ] |
|
You know the rule?
Apparently not.
It has been quoted to you scripture and verse.
None so blind as those that will not see. They have baffled their own consciences, and so they walk on in darkness
Another game to watch and enjoy, just as I did the first one.
Happy New Year all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5212]
TigerPulse: 100%
38
|
Re: Textbook targeting
Jan 1, 2025, 4:57 PM
|
|
Not for SEC team
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5212]
TigerPulse: 100%
38
|
Re: Textbook targeting
Jan 1, 2025, 4:58 PM
|
|
Not if you’re in the SEC
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [7003]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
|
Re: Textbook targeting
1
Jan 1, 2025, 4:58 PM
|
|
We've had guys thrown out of multiple playoff games who did far less than that. Guess that Texas money is being well spent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Immortal [61405]
TigerPulse: 100%
60
Posts: 24079
Joined: 2011
|
Re: Textbook targeting
Jan 1, 2025, 4:59 PM
|
|
Let's see how the refs help Texas in OT. This is the first game I've watched since our game. Same ol' crap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [102]
TigerPulse: 92%
11
|
Correct!******
Jan 1, 2025, 5:05 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [4618]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
Re: Textbook targeting
Jan 1, 2025, 5:30 PM
|
|
That was textbook targeting. It cost me $500 because ASU was winning that game if they got the 15yds and a 1st down
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [6946]
TigerPulse: 100%
41
|
Re: Textbook targeting
Jan 1, 2025, 8:12 PM
|
|
I am convinced now, more than ever, that officials in all regions of the country have no idea what targeting actually is, nor do they understand pass interference and what it is. None of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2200]
TigerPulse: 100%
32
|
Re: Textbook targeting
Jan 1, 2025, 8:21 PM
|
|
I agree, it meet the definition on targeting and if it’s not going to be consistently called take the rule away. The other part of the rule I dislike is suspending a player for the first half of the next game when it occurs in the second half. Your next opponent should not benefit from a penalty that didn’t occur to them. That should be amended to suspending the player for the rest of the game they are currently playing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [22555]
TigerPulse: 100%
53
Posts: 13326
Joined: 2018
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Conqueror [11106]
TigerPulse: 98%
46
Posts: 13418
Joined: 2021
|
Targeting aspect is just a red herring
Jan 1, 2025, 9:29 PM
|
|
Even your (excellent link) ignores that the controversial hit was a personal foul penalty.
Unnecessary roughness is not relegated to only roughing the QB or roughing the kicker / punter.
Heck, just go back to our game vs TX on the Mickens INT (that should have been a pik-6). Tre Williams was called for an illegal block against a defenseless defender. (It was a BS call because, Tre Williams’ block of the TX offensive guard-turned-defender was before Mickens had gotten further downfield than Mickens, and because T.Williams’ head was in front of the side … barely, but nevertheless on the front side … of the TX players body.)
Back to the foul. T.Williams was called for a foul because he hit an opposing player who might have been hurt by the hit. The defender was ‘defenseless.’
In the AZ State WR hit situation, the TX defender launched at the head of the WR. Had he been Superman and jumped high enough to intentionally kick the WR on the head with his foot, or had he launched and led with his forearm and hit the WR on the head, then there would also have been no question that the TX defender intended to hit the AZ State player on the head while he was in a defenseless position.
All this talk about ‘was it or was it not targeting’ simply diverts from the real BS. This was an unquestioned personal foul penalty; automatic first down + 15 penalty yards. The only legitimate reason for the replay was whether or not the TX defender should have been ejected from the game for targeting as an additional punishment on top of the personal foul penalty.
AZ State was cheated out of a victory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 42
| visibility 3693
|
|
|
50
