2024 non-GT games thread

[Root4GT]

Nobody is going to beat Ohio State.

Well maybe Michigan

 

[wvGT11]

Watching the replay again from the Texas game,
This seems to meet all the criteria for targeting

Just like our game against UGA...

 

[stinger78]

Watching the replay again from the Texas game,
This seems to meet all the criteria for targeting

Just like our game against UGA...

That’s targeting by the rule, but it wasn’t called.

 

[kg01]

Gahdayum, I just woke up. Oregon gettin dat azz whipped. What happened?

 

[stinger78]

Gahdayum, I just woke up. Oregon gettin dat azz whipped. What happened?

tOSU.

 

[wvGT11]

That’s targeting by the rule, but it wasn’t called.

And I said during the UGA game,.why can't a non call like that be challenged?

 

[stinger78]

And I said during the UGA game,.why can't a non call like that be challenged?

Those unbiased refs.

Seriously, I can only guess that the targeting penalty is not popular among coaches and players (and maybe refs, for that matter).

 

[wvGT11]

Those unbiased refs.

Seriously, I can only guess that the targeting penalty is not popular among coaches and players (and maybe refs, for that matter).

After this years season wraps, I think the NCAA needs to have a hard look at officiating . It's quite clear to me, there is bias and rules aren't applied evenly across all games. The officiating has been terrible across the board especially this bowl season

 

[RonJohn]

And I said during the UGA game,.why can't a non call like that be challenged?

It was reviewed, which is what a challenge would be. I don't understand how they could rule that wasn't targeting. It was a defenseless player, buy they rules. It definitely looked like forceful contact with the head. Those combined meet the rule of targeting.

I am not a conspiracy theory type of person, but it is interesting that the SEC and Big10 officials seem to be biased for each other in games that they are officiating. Combine that with the fact that the Big10 and SEC are having meetings about control of NCAA football, and it is extremely easy to make up conspiracy theories about why their officiating is so obviously biased.

 

[Root4GT]

And I said during the UGA game,.why can't a non call like that be challenged?

In the Texas game the game was stopped and the play WAS reviewed for Targeting and determined NOT to be Targeting.

 

[Poodletop]

Back when dinosaurs roamed the earth I officiated at the high school level for a couple of years. It’s really a thankless job. The kids were great but it was the adults who were a-holes. Leaving work early on a Friday to go call a game at Dogsqeeze County High for $75 got old pretty quickly, especially with a bunch of ignorant yahoos screaming at you. I had one horrible woman chase me down in the parking lot after the game and cuss me out for calling a blatant PI on her little darling. So I’m saying I usually side with the refs over the typical fan, who is often fairly ignorant of the rules.
On the other hand, this targeting just seems so arbitrary, especially with obvious video evidence available. I do hope another look is taken regarding this rule.

 

[Speedmodel]

An ACC officiating crew was on field for the Texas vs. Arizona State game. I wonder if it was an ACC review team that called a no-foul on the targeting?

 

[stinger78]

An ACC officiating crew was on field for the Texas vs. Arizona State game. I wonder if it was an ACC review team that called a no-foul on the targeting?

I thought they said it was a B1G crew.

 

[GT33]

I thought they said it was a B1G crew.

They just make **** up to keep people from getting pissed. If it's an ACC crew, they're expected to suck.

 

[Speedmodel]

I thought they said it was a B1G crew.

Stinger, thank you, I stand corrected. It was Ohio St vs Oregon that had ACC.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Well Oregon sucks. Ohio State who was 4th in the Big Ten regular season looks like the best team in the CFP up to this point

so was the Texas play targeting based on all the games that have been shown the past 6 weeks? No way to know. One game it is the next it isn’t. Ditch targeting. Personal foul, unnecessary roughness, 15 yards. Take all the helmet crap out.

In September I would have said absolutely Targeting. Now I don’t know, flip a coin. That is a really bad way for college football to be.

Yes, it’s a mess.

Here is what I honestly think. The medical community, aided by autopsies and years of data, pinpointed the cause of CTE injuries and the cause of 90% of disabilities in former players. Coming up with a strict targeting rule, while not eliminating entirely the threat of traumatic head injuries, could greatly reduce the threat. Thus the rule was formulated using the best available data about preventive measures. The problem was that the new rule had an unintended consequence. It shows how often potentially crippling impacts occur in a game. Enforcing the rule to the letter might protect players but it also sends the message to players, fans, and the families of future players, just how dangerous the sport is. That’s not a recipe for long term viability for the sport.

The hit on the player that we are discussing certainly fits the targeting rule as written. But somebody doesn’t want games constantly disrupted by calls that can change the course of a game, get a key player ejected, and demonstrate again how real the risk is of a disabling injury. The player who was hit, and I’m not being dramatic here, most likely had his lifespan shortened by that one hit. That’s what the data shows.

Again, somebody has decided they don’t want to call attention to that. So here we are.

 

[forensicbuzz]

It was reviewed, which is what a challenge would be. I don't understand how they could rule that wasn't targeting. It was a defenseless player, buy they rules. It definitely looked like forceful contact with the head. Those combined meet the rule of targeting.

I am not a conspiracy theory type of person, but it is interesting that the SEC and Big10 officials seem to be biased for each other in games that they are officiating. Combine that with the fact that the Big10 and SEC are having meetings about control of NCAA football, and it is extremely easy to make up conspiracy theories about why their officiating is so obviously biased.

It depends on how they determine forcible contact. There are a few indicators of forcible contact, such as launching, lowering the head, thrusting upwards. None of those were really evident, but I agree the contact was with force. I'm not saying it wasn't targeting, but that's my take on why it wasn't ruled that way.

 

[RonJohn]

It depends on how they determine forcible contact. There are a few indicators of forcible contact, such as launching, lowering the head, thrusting upwards. None of those were really evident, but I agree the contact was with force. I'm not saying it wasn't targeting, but that's my take on why it wasn't ruled that way.

No reason to guess what the rule is:

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.

He was clearly a "defenseless" player based on "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." He was first hit in the helmet with the defensive player's facemask which is part of the helmet - and according to "• Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area." is an indicator of targeting.

I quoted the rule out of the 2024 NCAA college football rule book. The third listed indicator of targeting is leading with helmet-forearm-fist-hand-or elbow. The initial impact was clearly to the head with the defensive player's helmet. I do not understand how it wasn't ruled as targeting. My non-understanding isn't based on feelings. It is based on reading the actual rule and applying the actual rule to this play.

 

[forensicbuzz]

No reason to guess what the rule is:

He was clearly a "defenseless" player based on "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." He was first hit in the helmet with the defensive player's facemask which is part of the helmet - and according to "• Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area." is an indicator of targeting.

I quoted the rule out of the 2024 NCAA college football rule book. The third listed indicator of targeting is leading with helmet-forearm-fist-hand-or elbow. The initial impact was clearly to the head with the defensive player's helmet. I do not understand how it wasn't ruled as targeting. My non-understanding isn't based on feelings. It is based on reading the actual rule and applying the actual rule to this play.

That's just it, he didn't really lead with his head. They met facemask to helmet. The question is whether the forcible contact went beyond making a legal tackle or playing the ball. I would have called it targeting, but the umpire had a different opinion that you and me. There is enough room for a judgment call on whether is was beyond a legal tackle.

 

[RonJohn]

That's just it, he didn't really lead with his head. They met facemask to helmet. The question is whether the forcible contact went beyond making a legal tackle or playing the ball. I would have called it targeting, but the umpire had a different opinion that you and me.

View attachment 17566 View attachment 17567

I think you are confusing "leading with -- helmet" and "crown of helmet". If you lead with the crown of the helmet, then the person being hit does not have to be defenseless. In the pictures you posted, the first contact is with his helmet to the helmet of the other player. That is "Leading with helmet". In the second picture, the Arizona State player's head is clearly pushed behind his shoulder pads from the helmet to helmet contact, so it is obviously forcible contact.

Purely based on reading the actual rule, it is forcible contact to the head or neck area of the defenseless player, which was initiated with the helmet of the tackler. It most certainly fits the definition in the rule book. I am very interested in what the explanation of the booth review was in not calling this targeting.

EDIT: BTW, if you read the rules, it says "When in question, it is a foul". According to the actual rules, if there is a question about it, it should be called targeting.