Championship games

[bke1984]

My point was that it should have been given a full review, by the refs and the viewers on tv.

This is the main problem with all of it. The fumble, the tipped pass PI, and the targeting were all plays that warrant serious reviews given the impact on the game. They were dismissed by a remote group of people employed by the conference that benefits from the non look. So they can simply say, “we looked at it” and move on. Play should have stopped for the reviews and the on field officials should be the ones to make the final call.

The same thing happened a couple times last night - particularly the fumble in the red zone. Didn’t even stop to look at it. SEC was in better shape with uGA winning…so why stop.

You want to stop some of this speculation? Get officials that are not associated with the conferences. Gambling still will tinker, but at least the conferences would be independent.

 

[MountainBuzzMan]

He also said we had zero chance against uGA to begin with in the week leading up to the game. His takes are pretty horrible and simply align with talking heads in college football.

If you notice he is also a very binary thinker. it MUST be one way or the other and you are correct he usually parrots talking heads. I dont have him on ignore, but I know most all of his posts have zero or little value toward a thought provoking conversation.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Both calls warranted a full review. For Key to say he didn’t think they would be overturned based on the officials we had was telling. Just because they didn’t talk about it on the broadcast doesn’t mean we didn’t all see what happened, and just because the upstairs review team gave it a quick look before the play clock ran out doesn’t mean much to me either. I’m 100% confident on both calls. Because I saw them both live and on replays, which the booth had access to both. Still shots after the game reflect what I’m saying. Look it up.

Yep.

It’s hard for me to believe that anyone could watch a close up / slow motion replay of either play and not conclude that both plays should have been overturned due to targeting and a tipped ball. My deep seated belief is that if the refs had called both plays instantly we would not even be having this conversation. By not calling both plays they simultaneously planted seeds of doubt about what our eyes were telling us as well as moving the narratively quickly onto Georgia made plays when they had to and Tech didn’t. I will never be able to think of this game in the future as either a Tech loss or a Georgia win but rather a victory for the refs and the playoff committee.

 

[awbuzz]

The committee already indicated that they wouldn’t drop a team out for losing a CCG, didn’t they?

Yes... But... Well you know...

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Puts Clemson & SMU in different brackets also.

What bracket is the two loss Miami team in?

 

[awbuzz]

I hateee Uga, but that was 1000% targeting on Texas.

Just have to flat out disagree. Read the current rule and watch the various camera angles.

 

[Thwg777]

FWIW, this is my guess at the final bracket. I’m using implied odds to make this guess.

No. 1 Oregon

No. 2 u(sic)ga

No. 3 Boise State

No. 4 Arizona State

==============

No. 12 SMU vs. No. 5 Texas

No. 11 Clempson vs. No. 6 Notre Dame

No. 10 Indiana vs. No. 7 Penn State

No. 9 Tennessee vs. No. 8 Ohio State

===

Edit to add, the only uncertainty per the betting market appears to be No. 6/7 seeds. (I have ND/PSU in that order but it could be the other way around).

I suspect this stuff gets leaked… below is the updated bracket based on odds changes over the last hour…

No. 1 Oregon

No. 2 u(sic)ga

No. 3 Boise State

No. 4 Arizona State

==============

No. 12 SMU vs. No. 5 Texas

No. 11 Clempson vs. No. 6 Penn State

No. 10 Indiana vs. No. 7 Notre Dame

No. 9 Tennessee vs. No. 8 Ohio State

===============

SMU vs Clempson for 11/12 is still debatable too. I personally like SMU as 12. But there’s a 30% chance it’ll be SMU 11 and Clempson 12.

A 60% chance Penn St 6 / Notre Dame 7 and 40% chance the other way around.

Everything else is 90-95% certain.

Edit to add… so certain that Ohio State v Tennessee already has odds set. (Ohio State is favored by 7.75)

 

[Northeast Stinger]

If you notice he is also a very binary thinker. it MUST be one way or the other and you are correct he usually parrots talking heads. I dont have him on ignore, but I know most all of his posts have zero or little value toward a thought provoking conversation.

Oh, he’s not that bad. He often has very good insights. He’s just dead wrong on this one.

I’m glad he’s on here. But I do wonder, as others also apparently wonder, why he periodically has such negative takes on the Jackets while seeming to always give SEC teams the benefit of the doubt.

But I’m a homer.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Just have to flat out disagree. Read the current rule and watch the various camera angles.

Since I didn’t watch the game I just watched the replay of this. The tackler launched for sure. But he led with his shoulder and not his head. If both players are moving their heads and make secondary contact, which this was, it’s not targeting as I understand the rule.

 

[GT33]

We're all sitting here pissed because Tx, big bad uber talented Tx, with their humongous NFL OL could not run the damn ball. They have Choise as the RB coach & a stable of 5 star RBs. Their 5 star RB who is better than their other 5 star RBs had 50 yds on something like 20 carries. Jamal Haynes had 3-4x the amount of yards against that porous DL by himself. Sickening they were coached that poorly. They should have been able to just ram the ball down those bastards throats all night long, then gash them with throws like we did. No they scored less points in regulation than we scored against those bastards in the first quarter. Tx sucks, neeed to be sent to the ****ing Shreveport as a punishment.

 

[awbuzz]

Since I didn’t watch the game I just watched the replay of this. The tackler launched for sure. But he led with his shoulder and not his head. If both players are moving their heads and make secondary contact, which this was, it’s not targeting as I understand the rule.

This^^^

 

[JoJaTeck]

We're all sitting here pissed because Tx, big bad uber talented Tx, with their humongous NFL OL could not run the damn ball. They have Choise as the RB coach & a stable of 5 star RBs. Their 5 star RB who is better than their other 5 star RBs had 50 yds on something like 20 carries. Jamal Haynes had 3-4x the amount of yards against that porous DL by himself. Sickening they were coached that poorly. They should have been able to just ram the ball down those bastards throats all night long, then gash them with throws like we did. No they scored less points in regulation than we scored against those bastards in the first quarter. Tx sucks, neeed to be sent to the ****ing Shreveport as a punishment.

The difference is UGA had to account for a mobile QB in our game - That is their Achilles heel - Texas had such QB but refused to play him most of the game..

 

[Northeast Stinger]

We're all sitting here pissed because Tx, big bad uber talented Tx, with their humongous NFL OL could not run the damn ball. They have Choise as the RB coach & a stable of 5 star RBs. Their 5 star RB who is better than their other 5 star RBs had 50 yds on something like 20 carries. Jamal Haynes had 3-4x the amount of yards against that porous DL by himself. Sickening they were coached that poorly. They should have been able to just ram the ball down those bastards throats all night long, then gash them with throws like we did. No they scored less points in regulation than we scored against those bastards in the first quarter. Tx sucks, neeed to be sent to the ****ing Shreveport as a punishment.

The little bit of replay I watched was incredibly bad football. If it had been a regular season game with non-SEC teams and nothing on the line nobody would have watched to the end.

 

[4shotB]

The little bit of replay I watched was incredibly bad football. If it had been a regular season game with non-SEC teams and nothing on the line nobody would have watched to the end.

I said this earlier but I watched that game. Plus OSU - Michigan. I honestly believe that we have a team right now, that if healthy and given a slot amongst the 12 teams we would be on par with at least OSU, Uga, Texas, ND and Clempson. I haven't seen all the teams that will be in the playoffs so there may be one or two that stand heads and shoulders above the rest but I remain convinced that we are on equal footing with some?most? all? of them. I don't think it's gold colored glasses either. But I could be wrong.

 

[AugustaSwarm]

The problem is the video does not clearly show what part of the helmet hits King and exactly where it hits him. What part of the helmet hit King can only be inferred from that video angle. This is not dissimilar to Efford's hit in the NCST game where they said the side of Efford's Helmet hit the NCT player in the helmet. King was not defenseless as he was running.

Targeting is a judgment call. I wish it had gone Tech's way. It could easily been called Targeting and many review teams would see it that way. That is the issue with Targeting. There is no standard, it is 100% up to the review team to determine if it was Targeting. Targeting calls vary greatly from game to game.

I get you believe it was Targeting and the officials are biased and influenced by their Conference. We simply disagree. I have no issue with disagreeing.

Targeting - in it's many forms - can be called for a player leading with the crown of his helmet *REGARDLESS* of where the contact is initiated.

What is Targeting? - Southeastern Conference

www.secsports.com

"Targeting - NCAA Rule Book 2019

Rule 9 - Conduct of Players and Others Subject to the Rules

Section 1. Personal Fouls

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 his 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)

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 his 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"

The GA safety led with the crown of his helmet. Notice that the rule doesn't say it has to be helmet to helmet contact - it simply says "make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of his helmet". A flag SHOULD have been thrown. When the booth reviewed the fumble, a flag should have been thrown for targeting. The fact that a flag was never thrown shows the gross bias that the officials had. I don't even think they ever considered looking at the play for targeting. There is no counter argument that hold water.

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

So Texas has 0 top 25 wins, played terribly in their conf championship, and has already lost to Georgia TWICE. Why do they deserve a spot in the playoff?

I’m with you.

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

UGA should be eliminated from the playoffs due to Becks injury.

It was even referenced by the Oregon - PSU announcers.

 

[g0lftime]

I’m with you.

Justice would be for them to play a 3rd time and TX win it. It's happened before. Lose the SEC championship, and beat them in the rematch for the national championship.

 

[g0lftime]

It was even referenced by the Oregon - PSU announcers.

I think it was Biggers that got a somewhat similar hit on Beck's arm in our game. Beck came off rubbing his elbow. May have already been a little tender this week. The backup actually looked better than Beck.

 

[yeti92]

Targeting - in it's many forms - can be called for a player leading with the crown of his helmet *REGARDLESS* of where the contact is initiated.

What is Targeting? - Southeastern Conference

www.secsports.com

"Targeting - NCAA Rule Book 2019

Rule 9 - Conduct of Players and Others Subject to the Rules

Section 1. Personal Fouls

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 his 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)

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 his 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"

The GA safety led with the crown of his helmet. Notice that the rule doesn't say it has to be helmet to helmet contact - it simply says "make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of his helmet". A flag SHOULD have been thrown. When the booth reviewed the fumble, a flag should have been thrown for targeting. The fact that a flag was never thrown shows the gross bias that the officials had. I don't even think they ever considered looking at the play for targeting. There is no counter argument that hold water.

Don't you know that Root is an officiating guru? Ya know, like how TFG was a defensive guru.