***Official ISU vs Texas Meltdown Thread***

[Statefan10]

Not obtuse…I’m being objective. Crappy timing, violent play, but I immediately saw it was a fumble and likely wasn’t targeting when I saw the replay. If it’s that clear to me, I wonder how others can be so blind.

Fumble was what it was: a bang-bang call in which it’s unlikely to be called back due to them calling a fumble on the field. I actually think it’s the right call.

The no-call on the targeting was wrong. It was targeting. In the slow-mo replay look closely at Hunter’s neck in how it compresses right before the Texas player’s helmet slides to Hunter’s shoulder. The guys head made initial contact with Hunter’s side of the head.



It’s a bad call but the frustration comes from the mere fact that if that were Ewers or someone else, it’s a flag with an ejection. For us, it’s a play-on.

 

[Statefan10]

View attachment 104401
Trust the process

I don’t think you understand the meaning behind that phrase.

 

[AlaCyclone]

View attachment 104401
Trust the process

I see 3 winnable games for ISU.
Cyclones are Frisco bound.
Let's Go State!

 

[CyCloned]

Games are won or lost by the entire team and the compilation of plays to execute a game plan. We saw some creative and inspired play calls today and an offense playing to its strengths for the first time in several games.

However, we continue to see the same series of mistakes or missed opportunities in game defining situations by all units that add up as follows:

Game Outcome Defining Events

1. Blocked punt, it was fortunate that did not cost at least 3 points. It nearly cost a very winnable game at Iowa.

2. Missed turnover opportunity with the Texas QB fumble backwards pass.
3. Missed turnover opportunity with the interception in the endzone.
4. Missed touchdown opportunity on a wide-open, coverage beaten long pass that was accurately thrown.
5. Missed touchdown or field goal high percentage make opportunity.

I am not even counting a missed 46-yard field goal after the offense stalled.

Outside Control of the Team

1. Turnover, fumble based on very inconsistent targeting rule and enforcement of this rule. It cost Iowa State the ball on the Texas 32-yard line. This series could have been a touchdown for the win or FG for the tie if the offense continued to drive. The no-call angers all of us after seeing how much they called this in other Iowa State games usually against Iowa State.

Summary

Iowa State had four opportunities to secure the outcome of this game. Event 1 did not cost them anything and they were fortunate. If any one of events 2-5 went for Iowa State, they win this game or at worst they tie it to go to overtime. If Iowa State had any two events of 2-5 go their way, they easily win this game by two scores. This is factoring in the no call fumble. The team simply did not take these opportunities. They played well enough to get the lead but not secure the win.

I have watched Iowa State football since 1986 and questionable/bad calls come with nearly every close game. Go check out the Texas game in 2013. I am not saying it is right or it should endure but it has always been there.

See how this Iowa State team responded to adversity in 2017 when they had a terrible call that cost them a touchdown and the ball in the last quarter. It was clear Montogomery was across the plane. Even Tommy Tuberville could see it!! This is the exact same coaching staff. That 2017 team buckled down and seized their opportunities to win this game even with a terrible call.

The reality is that on the Dekkers fumble the ball went right through the hands of one of the ISU TEs before being recovered by TX. Again, there were a lot of opportunities to win this game and ISU just didn't make the play. The hit of Dekkers was definitely a shot to the head and should have been called. TX fans would be screaming if that happened to their QB, and rightfully so.

 

[ZRF]

I’m sure he knew best if he could catch in stride or needed to jump. We wouldn’t have been within 2-3 scores without him and he caught a clutch conversion a few downs later for a big chunk of yards.

X has to be perfect but apparently the rules of tackling being completely flexible with no logical rational has no outcome on any of our games.

It didnt' look as egregious in real time, but the analyst mentioned it, then the replay confirmed that it looked rather unecessary. Should have been able to catch in stride then walk into the endzone.

We obviously don't win that game without Hutch's other amazing catches/grabs, but that was so perplexing coming from a great receiver.

 

[Statefan10]

Best angle out there. Can clearly see Hunter’s head get hit first. Again, unreal this wasn’t called on the field.

 

[CyCloned]

It didnt' look as egregious in real time, but the analyst mentioned it, then the replay confirmed that it looked rather unecessary. Should have been able to catch in stride then walk into the endzone.

We obviously don't win that game without Hutch's other amazing catches/grabs, but that was so perplexing coming from a great receiver.

It seemed like he just lost the ball for a moment and adjusted when he didn't have to. On a side note, Dekkers was very sharp for most of the game yesterday, so that was good to see.

 

[JM4CY]

Best angle out there. Can clearly see Hunter’s head get hit first. Again, unreal this wasn’t called on the field.

I enjoy the butthurt from Texas fans about us clamoring about how that call may of not been right.

 

[t-noah]

It is tough to slide in all that traffic, but to your point we haven’t really seen him slide at all. I do think he was trying to get down when he took the big hit. He wasn’t trying to truck the guy like Texas fans would have you believe. If it would have been Ewers, they would have ruled he had given himself up at that point and threw the flag for unnecessary roughness and then added the targeting penalty in review.

So true. More than likely anyway.

So you've got these rules to protect the players, and to protect the QB's. Then when a QB (our QB) gets clocked in the head, and the reason he fumbled is because he got clocked in the head, and it's clear that it was helmet to helmet glancing contact, then harder shoulder to helmet impact, this is all OK? The QB lies dead on the field and the refs are only reviewing if the ball came out before or after his knee hit the ground.

Makes perfect damn sense to me.

Not obtuse…I’m being objective. Crappy timing, violent play, but I immediately saw it was a fumble and likely wasn’t targeting when I saw the replay. If it’s that clear to me, I wonder how others can be so blind.

Very clearly a targeting, easy call that gets called and confirmed 99 times out of 100. Easily confirmed in real-time speed and slow motion.

Edit: Wow watching it on replay again, it’s even worse. Hunter is writhing in pain/shock from being absolutely SHASMED in the “head/neck area” - instantly grabs his head/facemask. Literally 100% the exact type of play that a targeting is trying to prevent/warn against. Literally fumbles the ball because of the violent targeting impact to his head/neck area.

Fumble was what it was: a bang-bang call in which it’s unlikely to be called back due to them calling a fumble on the field. I actually think it’s the right call.

The no-call on the targeting was wrong. It was targeting. In the slow-mo replay look closely at Hunter’s neck in how it compresses right before the Texas player’s helmet slides to Hunter’s shoulder. The guys head made initial contact with Hunter’s side of the head.



It’s a bad call but the frustration comes from the mere fact that if that were Ewers or someone else, it’s a flag with an ejection. For us, it’s a play-on.

Best angle out there. Can clearly see Hunter’s head get hit first. Again, unreal this wasn’t called on the field.

I'm watching the Packers v Jets now. Just a minute or so ago, with about 4' left in the 3rd qtr, Lazard got clocked in the head. Penalty called, not sure if they called targeting or not but it went against the Jets. The color guy, Greg Olsen, said it should be targeting with any contact to the head, whether helmet OR Shoulder pad to helmet contact. He said it doesn't matter.. helmet or shoulder.

I guess the NFL rules are different.

I guess that in college you can absolutely clock your opponent in the head, with both the helmet and shoulder, and get away with it.

That is if your name is Texas.

 

[Statefan10]

I enjoy the butthurt from Texas fans about us clamoring about how that call may of not been right.

Iowa State fans can’t talk because we obviously lost the game but for God sakes Texas fans you squeaked out a win at home against a mediocre team and needed a bad call to clinch it.

 

[JM4CY]

Iowa State fans can’t talk because we obviously lost the game but for God sakes Texas fans you squeaked out a win at home against a mediocre team and needed a bad call to clinch it.

Don’t you dare tell us we can’t piss and moan!! We are national championship level good at that!!!

 

[CycloneErik]

Iowa State fans can’t talk because we obviously lost the game but for God sakes Texas fans you squeaked out a win at home against a mediocre team and needed a bad call to clinch it.

A mediocre team that shoots itself in the foot a lot, and they barely squeaked by.

 

[madguy30]

Fumble was what it was: a bang-bang call in which it’s unlikely to be called back due to them calling a fumble on the field. I actually think it’s the right call.

The no-call on the targeting was wrong. It was targeting. In the slow-mo replay look closely at Hunter’s neck in how it compresses right before the Texas player’s helmet slides to Hunter’s shoulder. The guys head made initial contact with Hunter’s side of the head.



It’s a bad call but the frustration comes from the mere fact that if that were Ewers or someone else, it’s a flag with an ejection. For us, it’s a play-on.

Not even really looking at it vs. the roughing call in the first half is pretty mind blowing and I'm not even convinced of targeting or that the roughing was that impactful since UT converted anyway.

It's all just really inconsistent.

 

[Statefan10]

Not even really looking at it vs. the roughing call in the first half is pretty mind blowing and I'm not even convinced of targeting or that the roughing was that impactful since UT converted anyway.

It's all just really inconsistent.

Yeah that’s why it’s frustrating the most probably. Because we are constantly on the other side of the calls.

 

[67CY]

Not even really looking at it vs. the roughing call in the first half is pretty mind blowing and I'm not even convinced of targeting or that the roughing was that impactful since UT converted anyway.

It's all just really inconsistent.

It was an good indication of things to come

 

[CycloneSpinning]

Not obtuse…I’m being objective. Crappy timing, violent play, but I immediately saw it was a fumble and likely wasn’t targeting when I saw the replay. If it’s that clear to me, I wonder how others can be so blind.

As an ISU fan, you have to at least be able to look at the call against us in the Baylor game and say this is much more clearly targeting than that was. If somehow targeting were clearly defined as something other than this…fine. But to say others are blind for thinking this hit was targeting is…well blind to what is otherwise being called.

 

[cyatheart]

Fumble was what it was: a bang-bang call in which it’s unlikely to be called back due to them calling a fumble on the field. I actually think it’s the right call.

The no-call on the targeting was wrong. It was targeting. In the slow-mo replay look closely at Hunter’s neck in how it compresses right before the Texas player’s helmet slides to Hunter’s shoulder. The guys head made initial contact with Hunter’s side of the head.



It’s a bad call but the frustration comes from the mere fact that if that were Ewers or someone else, it’s a flag with an ejection. For us, it’s a play-on.

exactly, if that was reversed...Texas gets that targeting call and they keep the ball.

 

[mkadl]

exactly, if that was reversed...Texas gets that targeting call and they keep the ball.

If a player grabs someone's facemask or horse collar, then punch the ball out recover the fumble and just get a 15 yard penalty? Why didn't someone think of this sooner?

 

[AlCyJim]

Good game yesterday. Didn't expect to win and although we could have and that makes it hurt, overall I am not upset with the outcome. Offense showed a lot of improvement which is what we wanted. Playcall to Noel for the 50+ yard TD was the best playcall from Manning this year.

maybe the players were executing yesterday

 

[isucy86]

The most frustrating aspect of the targeting/hitting QB calls is the inconsistency.

Personnally, I have no issue with the Dekkers no call because I view him as a RB at the time and Dekkers dipped his head. But the Longhorn DB hit Dekkers head/neck area with his helmet. We saw in the Baylor game where ISU was called for a similar hit, but when Brock was hit- no call.

Also, I go back to the first quarter where I believe an ISU linebacker tackled the Longhorn QB as the pass left and was called for a personal foul.

It just seems like targeting & roughing QB calls are called arbitrarily.