Jump to content

Longhorns 2022 Thread


Stoney
 Share

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, JohnnyFootball said:

Then why did the ref say the original ruling was that the QB was down before losing the ball? 

It was ruled a fumble on the field by refs, they even signaled first down Texas.  That’s what I saw.    The tv screen said ruling on field was runner was down.

Edited by DB2point0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, DB2point0 said:

It was ruled a fumble on the field by refs, they even signaled first down Texas.  That’s what I saw.    The tv screen said ruling on field was runner was down.

Gotcha. Then my only question is why the ref said, "Call on the field stands" instead of "There is no targeting after review" like they normally do. Just confusing. Incompetent communication at best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JohnnyFootball said:

Gotcha. Then my only question is why the ref said, "Call on the field stands" instead of "There is no targeting after review" like they normally do. Just confusing. Incompetent communication at best.

I don't even think they reviewed it for targeting.  Maybe what Campbell meant is it was looked at from the booth but never beeped down to be reviewed??  Seems confusing all the way around.  I think the review was for if it was a fumble or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought they reviewed every play in the booth for targeting and would buzz down if there was a question.  They called fumble first then they reviewed whether or not the guy was down.  So the booth would've had ample time to review and buzz if they thought it was targeting.  After looking at the play it wasn't head to head the dbs helmet hit the qbs shoulder and he punched the ball out with his forearm.  It was a bang bang play does there need to be consistency yes of course but hey I hate targeting call so im glad they let them play.  I don't think overshown should've been called for targeting on the utsa sack either but it happened.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, JohnnyFootball said:

Gotcha. Then my only question is why the ref said, "Call on the field stands" instead of "There is no targeting after review" like they normally do. Just confusing. Incompetent communication at best.

There was never anything on the field about targeting.  Just the commentators guaranteeing it was targeting.  They shouldn’t comment on things they think happen, but only things that did happen or were in question.  It gets people like wetsu all worked up.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, DB2point0 said:

There was never anything on the field about targeting.  Just the commentators guaranteeing it was targeting.  They shouldn’t comment on things they think happen, but only things that did happen or were in question.  It gets people like wetsu all worked up.

I wasn’t basing my opinion on anything that mouth breather RG3 says… My opinion is it was the kind of hit that normally gets called targeting and that the rule is inconsistent. It has nothing to do with the call. 
 

Bama Tennessee also had what I thought was textbook targeting get reviewed and still not called and I have no idea how. There’s just no clear set of rules and it fluctuates from game to game and week to week. Like how do you call the Overshown hit targeting a few weeks ago and this one is a no call? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, WETSU said:

It was clearly targeting. 

I disagree, I don’t think it was “clearly targeting”.  What I saw was a leading with the shoulder pad. I personally don’t think there was a good television angle to justify a targeting call. We don’t know if they didn’t review for targeting.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bordertown said:

I disagree, I don’t think it was “clearly targeting”.  What I saw was a leading with the shoulder pad. I personally don’t think there was a good television angle to justify a targeting call. We don’t know if they didn’t review for targeting.

Clearly was strong. It was questionable. But that’s the rule. You don’t have to leave your feet. He was in a crouching/tackling position and his head/shoulder hit the runners head/neck which by definition “could” be targeting. Like I said that play is targeting one week and not the next. Because the rule is stupid. It’s impossible to determine “intent” and what is the offensive player just falling or ducking into the hit. Like I’ve said before it’s stupid we ask these guys to make these guys moving full speed to not only use perfect control of their own bodies but also anticipate the moves of the runner all in fractions of a second. It’s a stupid rule. 

3B21DE89-AC66-4F32-AE01-452B55BD4E28.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, WETSU said:

I wasn’t basing my opinion on anything that mouth breather RG3 says… My opinion is it was the kind of hit that normally gets called targeting and that the rule is inconsistent. It has nothing to do with the call. 
 

Bama Tennessee also had what I thought was textbook targeting get reviewed and still not called and I have no idea how. There’s just no clear set of rules and it fluctuates from game to game and week to week. Like how do you call the Overshown hit targeting a few weeks ago and this one is a no call? 

It is inconsistent, which is why the dumb commentators should keep their mouths shut on it if it isn’t flagged.  If there’s no flag, and the booth calls down and they announce it’s being reviewed for targeting, then discuss it.  
 

the hit on Dekkars looked bad full speed, but when it’s slowed down there’s no targeting at all.  So your first thought was targeting?  Mine wasn’t.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, WETSU said:

Clearly was strong. It was questionable. But that’s the rule. You don’t have to leave your feet. He was in a crouching/tackling position and his head/shoulder hit the runners head/neck which by definition “could” be targeting. Like I said that play is targeting one week and not the next. Because the rule is stupid. It’s impossible to determine “intent” and what is the offensive player just falling or ducking into the hit. Like I’ve said before it’s stupid we ask these guys to make these guys moving full speed to not only use perfect control of their own bodies but also anticipate the moves of the runner all in fractions of a second. It’s a stupid rule. 

3B21DE89-AC66-4F32-AE01-452B55BD4E28.jpeg

He didn’t launch, nor lead with the crown of the helmet.  The QB was not defenseless.  He was past the line of scrimmage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DB2point0 said:

He didn’t launch, nor lead with the crown of the helmet.  The QB was not defenseless.  He was past the line of scrimmage.

Those rules are not just for QBs. The wording for a protected ballcarrier is the same. 
 

  • 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

That’s from the ncaa rule book. The hit absolutely was crouch moving forward and there was contact with the shoulder to head/neck area. Targeting by rule is not just helmet to helmet like everyone thinks. Hitting shoulder to opposing players helmet/neck by definition is targeting. It’s a questionable call, but by definition that IS targeting. I’m fine with the no call if you never call plays like that, but it’s called one day and not the next. Hell it’s called inconsistently several times in the same game most days. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the 2022 NCAA rule book:

“Targeting and Making Forcible Contact
With the Crown of the Helmet
ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of their helmet. The crown of the helmet is the top segment of the helmet; namely, the circular area defined by a 6-inch radius from the apex (top) of the helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 9-6) (A.R. 9-1-3-I)
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 their 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.
Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14). When in question, a player is defenseless. Examples of defenseless players include but are not limited to:
• A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass. This includes an offensive player in a passing posture with focus downfield.
• A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect themselves or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
• A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return.
• A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect themselves or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
     
 FR-94 RulE 9 / ConduCt oF PlayERs and othERs subJECt to thE RulEs
• A player on the ground.
• A player obviously out of the play.
• A player who receives a blind-side block.
• A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward
progress has been stopped.
• A quarterback any time after a change of possession
• A ball carrier who has obviously given themselves up and is sliding
feet-first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, WETSU said:

Those rules are not just for QBs. The wording for a protected ballcarrier is the same. 
 

  • 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

That’s from the ncaa rule book. The hit absolutely was crouch moving forward and there was contact with the shoulder to head/neck area. Targeting by rule is not just helmet to helmet like everyone thinks. Hitting shoulder to opposing players helmet/neck by definition is targeting. It’s a questionable call, but by definition that IS targeting. I’m fine with the no call if you never call plays like that, but it’s called one day and not the next. Hell it’s called inconsistently several times in the same game most days. 

Targeting was not called. I’d quit worrying about it.  It didn’t cost Texas the game or a starter next week.  You should be happy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DB2point0 said:

Targeting was not called. I’d quit worrying about it.  It didn’t cost Texas the game or a starter next week.  You should be happy

I’m not “worried” about it. I’m trying to talk about football on an otherwise slow night with my team not playing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note there are two parts to the rule.

1) Leading with the crown of the helmet.

2) targeting a defenseless player. 

Question is whether the ISU QB was a defenseless player. The only one I think comes into play is “a ball player in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped”. He was in the grasp of a Texas defender, but was his forward progress stopped?  I would have to look at the tape again. But in the course of every game you see a running back running low and contact above the shoulders. Was the QB a running back on this play?
 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iowa St coach Matt Campbell reaffirmed what many thought when he said in the post game conference the officials were reviewing targeting. He did not seem upset with the outcome of the call, but he was upset that there would be no clarification of the call. Another thing most of us agree. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Mr. P locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...