Key on 680 The Fan Today

[CEB]

You don't see Kings helmet immediately pop backwards/rotate? It's pretty clear

We are at the point of debating nuance and the nuance is irrelevant.

There is contact to the facemask but I really think it’s incidental
The crown of the helmet is in the upper chest / neck and with King’s helmet down, also the facemask.
I still believe this is targeting because the contact is with the crown and there is a launch.
However, I have watched SEVERAL replay crews pick up flags on similar replays because the contact with the crown is inconclusive. This play looks almost exactly like the play that knocked Jamaal Haynes out of the Miami game. That play was actually flagged on the field and picked up after booth review (by an ACC crew). Here, there is no flag on the field and the replay would have a higher burden of being conclusive.
I do think it was a target.
I don’t think we would’ve gotten the call after five booth reviews unless there is another, conclusive angle.

 

[stinger78]

We are at the point of debating nuance and the nuance is irrelevant.

There is contact to the facemask but I really think it’s incidental
The crown of the helmet is in the upper chest / neck and with King’s helmet down, also the facemask.
I still believe this is targeting because the contact is with the crown and there is a launch.
However, I have watched SEVERAL replay crews pick up flags on similar replays because the contact with the crown is inconclusive. This play looks almost exactly like the play that knocked Jamaal Haynes out of the Miami game. That play was actually flagged on the field and picked up after booth review (by an ACC crew). Here, there is no flag on the field and the replay would have a higher burden of being conclusive.
I do think it was a target.
I don’t think we would’ve gotten the call after five booth reviews unless there is another, conclusive angle.

You may be right, but it is a counterfactual argument.

We know had CBK challenged that it adds another level of light on the matter. They still may not call it, but with the critical fumble their decision is equally critical.

Bear in mind that the NFL rules analyst went ballistic over the call. More light may have popped the right decision.

My opinion is the more light shined in it the better. However, the SECheat now has brass nuts over these things. They think they’re invincible.

 

[Root4GT]

Where did he say that? I've read the exact opposite.

Key thought it was targeting. He said he was told that play and the alleged tipped pass were reviewed and determined the on field calls were correct which is why he did not challenge the tipped pass as the review had occurred.

Reviewing the plays was appropriate and according to CBK they were reviewed.

You can disagree with the call and the review all day but the on field officials made the calls as they saw them and the Review team said the on field calls were correct.

There is no evidence of rigging.

Was a clear holding call missed, sure but that is very common.

All this “The SEC Rigged the Game” is conspiracy theory to the max.

It sucked we lost when we played great. Were there some close calls, but there are in every game.

 

[Jim Prather]

I don't think anyone is saying that the SEC explicitly told the refs to cheat. It's more like, if a referee makes some critical calls against the "home team/current team in favor" then he will find himself not getting asked to referee as many games and/or when he does get the call it is for Vanderbilt vs. the Tennessee Women's College for the Blind. When that happens once or twice, he learns to swallow the whistle and hold the flag in those situations.
Without saying a word the conference has trained implicit bias into their referees.

 

[yeti92]

Key thought it was targeting. He said he was told that play and the alleged tipped pass were reviewed and determined the on field calls were correct which is why he did not challenge the tipped pass as the review had occurred.

Reviewing the plays was appropriate and according to CBK they were reviewed.

You can disagree with the call and the review all day but the on field officials made the calls as they saw them and the Review team said the on field calls were correct.

There is no evidence of rigging.

Was a clear holding call missed, sure but that is very common.

All this “The SEC Rigged the Game” is conspiracy theory to the max.

It sucked we lost when we played great. Were there some close calls, but there are in every game.

lmao ok

 

[stinger78]

Key thought it was targeting. He said he was told that play and the alleged tipped pass were reviewed and determined the on field calls were correct which is why he did not challenge the tipped pass as the review had occurred.

Reviewing the plays was appropriate and according to CBK they were reviewed.

You can disagree with the call and the review all day but the on field officials made the calls as they saw them and the Review team said the on field calls were correct.

There is no evidence of rigging.

Was a clear holding call missed, sure but that is very common.

All this “The SEC Rigged the Game” is conspiracy theory to the max.

It sucked we lost when we played great. Were there some close calls, but there are in every game.

The targeting was textbook. The NFL rules analyst is on record, with nothing to gain, that it was targeting by the rule - striking with the crown of the helmet.

Your issue here is you trust the on-field and review officials. (Or maybe you just live to be contrarian. Hmm?) Many of us do not trust them, and not for no good reason either. Years and years of evidence abound.

However, you are welcome to your opinion.

 

[stinger78]

I don't think anyone is saying that the SEC explicitly told the refs to cheat. It's more like, if a referee makes some critical calls against the "home team/current team in favor" then he will find himself not getting asked to referee as many games and/or when he does get the call it is for Vanderbilt vs. the Tennessee Women's College for the Blind. When that happens once or twice, he learns to swallow the whistle and hold the flag in those situations.
Without saying a word the conference has trained implicit bias into their referees.

Seen it too many times to explain it any other way.

 

[Golden Tornadoes]

The targeting was textbook. The NFL rules analyst is on record, with nothing to gain, that it was targeting by the rule - striking with the crown of the helmet.

Your issue here is you trust the on-field and review officials. (Or maybe you just live to be contrarian. Hmm?) Many of us do not trust them, and not for no good reason either. Years and years of evidence abound.

However, you are welcome to your opinion.

While I 100% agree it was a blown call and clearly targeting, I do remember this year us being introduced to this new nuance where a player can make contact with the crown of the helmet, just as long as he doesn’t launch. Supposedly this is what kept Efford from being ejected at the end of the NCSU game. Again, I’m not sure why that has become a thing this year, but I remember it being said a lot during the Miami game and the Efford hit against NCSU.

While it’s pure conjecture at this point, I feel like that phrase would have been how the $ECheatrefs would have explained it away.

 

[Root4GT]

The targeting was textbook. The NFL rules analyst is on record, with nothing to gain, that it was targeting by the rule - striking with the crown of the helmet.

Your issue here is you trust the on-field and review officials. (Or maybe you just live to be contrarian. Hmm?) Many of us do not trust them, and not for no good reason either. Years and years of evidence abound.

However, you are welcome to your opinion.

Targeting us and has always been very subjective. Having a clear view is really essential to make the call. That King was in the middle of both the OL and DL made having a true clear view very difficult.

We are days out from the hit and there is still no video view that 100% shows it was Targeting. That was the biggest problem with the review. Are you calling a penalty on what you think might be Targeting when on field it was not called? The general rule for reviews is “conclusive” evidence. Of course conclusive is undefined.

I don’t but the conspiracy theory aspect that the officials intentionally tried to influence the game’s outcome.

Now maybe the 1997 PI call but not in Friday’s game. As you say we all have opinions.

 

[yeti92]

While I 100% agree it was a blown call and clearly targeting, I do remember this year us being introduced to this new nuance where a player can make contact with the crown of the helmet, just as long as he doesn’t launch. Supposedly this is what kept Efford from being ejected at the end of the NCSU game. Again, I’m not sure why that has become a thing this year, but I remember it being said a lot during the Miami game and the Efford hit against NCSU.

While it’s pure conjecture at this point, I feel like that phrase would have been how the $ECheatrefs would have explained it away.

Efford didn't hit with the crown of the helmet per the officials, he hit with the side of the helmet.

 

[yeti92]

Targeting us and has always been very subjective. Having a clear view is really essential to make the call. That King was in the middle of both the OL and DL made having a true clear view very difficult.

We are days out from the hit and there is still no video view that 100% shows it was Targeting. That was the biggest problem with the review. Are you calling a penalty on what you think might be Targeting when on field it was not called? The general rule for reviews is “conclusive” evidence. Of course conclusive is undefined.

I don’t but the conspiracy theory aspect that the officials intentionally tried to influence the game’s outcome.

Now maybe the 1997 PI call but not in Friday’s game. As you say we all have opinions.

It's 100% clear. The mutt drops his head right before he makes contact with King. His facemask is pointed straight at the ground. When he comes off of King, again, his facemask is pointed directly at the ground with the crown of his helmet planted against King. It is undeniable by anyone except SEC officials, mutts, and GT-opponent sympathizers such as yourself. NFL refs with absolutely zero skin in the game are calling it out as crystal clear targeting.

 

[UgaBlows]

It's 100% clear. The mutt drops his head right before he makes contact with King. His facemask is pointed straight at the ground. When he comes off of King, again, his facemask is pointed directly at the ground with the crown of his helmet planted against King. It is undeniable by anyone except SEC officials, mutts, and GT-opponent sympathizers such as yourself. NFL refs with absolutely zero skin in the game are calling it out as crystal clear targeting.

He hits King right in the facemask with the crown of his helmet first, then slides down, you can clearly see Kings head jerk back first. How do we not have multiple views of this anyway, didn’t espn have overhead cameras for this game?

 

[stinger78]

Here is a discussion of the rule in 2024.

College football's targeting and related ejection rules in 2024-25, explained

Explaining one of college football’s most controversial rules.

ftw.usatoday.com

Here’s the case example in point (this is exactly what happened):

• Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet.

 

[WreckinGT]

The targeting was textbook. The NFL rules analyst is on record, with nothing to gain, that it was targeting by the rule - striking with the crown of the helmet.

Your issue here is you trust the on-field and review officials. (Or maybe you just live to be contrarian. Hmm?) Many of us do not trust them, and not for no good reason either. Years and years of evidence abound.

However, you are welcome to your opinion.

I saw this elsewhere. Should this also have been targeting? I feel like ducking your head and leading with the crown happens several times a game.

 

[stinger78]

Here’s McAuley’s statement on the hit on King:
“McAulay argued that the SEC showed "utter contempt" in its decision not to review for targeting.”

Again, McAuley is a former NFL official and current NFL rules analyst. He has no dog in this fight. I’d trust him on this.

 

[stinger78]

I saw this elsewhere. Should this also have been targeting? I feel like ducking your head and leading with the crown happens several times a game.

If it’s a targeting rule then call it… whenever it occurs. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

 

[WreckinGT]

If it’s a targeting rule then call it… whenever it occurs. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Im not saying it makes the other one right but targeting is obviously subjective in general even with a rule in a book. I'm pretty sure you could call targeting on 10 players every game going by the crown rule. We would need a mathematician to review the angle of the neck to decide.

 

[UgaBlows]

Im not saying it makes the other one right but targeting is obviously subjective in general even with a rule in a book. I'm pretty sure you could call targeting on 10 players every game going by the crown rule. We would need a mathematician to review the angle of the neck to decide.

If they would call it every single time and keep calling it pretty soon nobody would be hitting with their helmet anymore

 

[stinger78]

Im not saying it makes the other one right but targeting is obviously subjective in general even with a rule in a book. I'm pretty sure you could call targeting on 10 players every game going by the crown rule. We would need a mathematician to review the angle of the neck to decide.

It's not subjective, it's quite explicit. Perhaps there are subjective elements in the minds of officials, but that's all subject to review.

For example, in the photo the mutt provided (and I cannot believe you would toss that trash on this site - kind of shows me where you're coming from) the mutt ball carrier is heading straight into the defender in full sight, while in King's case he just turned without knowledge of the defender about to strike. If a ref wants to make the first one "subjective" he can do that, but it's subject to review. However, the NFL's rules analyst explicitly stated this case (if you will) is outrageous.

 

[WreckinGT]

It's not subjective, it's quite explicit. Perhaps there are subjective elements in the minds of officials, but that's all subject to review.

For example, in the photo the mutt provided (and I cannot believe you would toss that trash on this site - kind of shows me where you're coming from) the mutt ball carrier is heading straight into the defender in full sight, while in King's case he just turned without knowledge of the defender about to strike. If a ref wants to make the first one "subjective" he can do that, but it's subject to review. However, the NFL's rules analyst explicitly stated this case (if you will) is outrageous.

It's not explicit. What diameter of the top of the helmet constitutes the crown? What angle of the neck constitutes attacking with that crown? What if the runner ducks their head at the last second and causes the defender to duck a little lower in defense? Throw more subjectivity like launching and intent and whatever else on top of that and it's all a big mess. College referees are awful in general and we are expecting them to make sense of this. If you personally think its very easy and that you could do it with no problem then go for it. Become a college referee. Otherwise we are just going to have to deal with this nonsense. It's never going to be consistently called no matter how explicit you seem to think it is. If they went the other way and tried to be super strict by the book then everyone on here would be crying about the 10-15 players they had ejected last game. It's a no win situation.