It's different in that there was way less helmet to helmet contact in Baylor game incident and it looked like our player was trying to avoid any helmet to helmet contact instead of launching his helmet straight into the ball carrier's helmet.
**** the refs
- Thread starter CoKane
- Start date
It's different in that there was way less helmet to helmet contact in Baylor game incident and it looked like our player was trying to avoid any helmet to helmet contact instead of launching his helmet straight into the ball carrier's helmet.
The thing the really gets at all of us is they stopped the Baylor game to review the play to see if it was targeting, it wasn't called on the field. In the Texas game, they didn't pay any mind to the targeting, they reviewed to see if he was down or not when he fumbled. Forget the fact that yes indeed it was clearly targeting and should have been called on the field, they didn't even review it!!! Why? Why the inconsistency?
I thought he was deemed defenseless in that situation because he was already being tackled. Maybe that definition has changed.
It’s super close. Rule says momentum has to be stopped or in the grasp. I would argue he was.
Iowa State shouldn't have to be perfect to win these games. That's my biggest beef.
No, the targeting review would have had to have been buzzed in from upstairs since it wasn't called on the field. I don't give a sh!t what the conference said, they 100% did NOT review that for targeting, they were only reviewing the fumble.
My biggest gripe (and probably most fans of college football) is how inconsistent targetting is called. It literally changes throughout the course of a game, and is different if you watch two different games. Either protect the players or don't (prerably do protect them), but be consistent about it.
CampbellBall requires near perfection to work.
Iowa and conference foes have figured that out.
It’s not roughing the passer anymore since the QB became a runner. It is, however, targeting as the defensive player lowers his helmet and connects with Dekker’s head.
You are sooo right my friend...Every referee crew has a different version of what targeting is or is not. In the big 12 when or if the conference office gets involved, THEY WILL ALWAYS GIVE THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT TO TEXAS OR OKLAHOMA!!
KidSilverhair
Well-Known Member
Yeah, the majority of targeting calls I see with running backs has them churning down the field and usually lowering their head, then there’s contact with the helmet and the foul is called (targeting on receivers is often more with them being defenseless). I just don’t see how “defenseless” is a requirement for targeting with the way I’ve seen it called. Even the Baylor call when Freyler got ejected, that runner wasn’t any more “defenseless” than Dekkers here.
Not perfection IMHO...Just better players than what we have right now!!
This is the DONNIE DUNCAN YEARS REDUX...GO OVER TO IOWA CITY AND BEAT THE HOKS AND THEN BOMB IN CONFERENCE PLAY!!
If this was targeting.... The hit on Dekkers needed to be targeting. Always complaining about the refs does get annoying, but when they screw up at critical moments of a game they deserve to be called out. The Baylor game and this sequence of the game Saturday are just flat out incompetence that changed the outcome of the game. The bad call in Kansas, while being bad, didn't really change much. That also doesn't mean that the team didn't make the necessary plays to win when needed either. The pick in the end zone, the drop, the blocked punt etc... A team isn't ever gonna be perfect at all times and either are the refs. The fact that they can review the targeting and fumble and still not get it right / and or screw up the explanation is mindboggling.
Attachments
I agree. BUT when you live on a concept to keep games low scoring and very tight AND then don't win in the margins, any single call can impact the game a huge amount. That's a losing concept if you can't win in the margins. We're 1-8 in the last 9 close games because we lost in the margins (aka fundamentals, ST, etc) in all of them.
With NIL in college athletics now, calls like these can effect more then the outcome of one particular game. Now more then ever, a lot can change over a win or loss. Officiating will never be perfect but in critical moments that can be reviewed, things need to be better. The targeting rule needs to be reviewed in general. It is not all on the refs because the rule is so screwed up. As has been said before on CF and other places. There needs to be a Targeting A and B differential. The kicking someone out of a game if he didn't intend to cause harm is dumb. 15 yards and play on.
Yeah right? If Dekkers isn’t defenseless here…the only “defenseless” player being tackled is a receiver leaping for a ball. He’s already down, he has no arms to defend himself because he’s holding the ball, he’s already being tackled by another player and has almost no ability to move.
That’s why I think you play to the offensive strengths and stop forcing plays that aren’t. Manning before Texas game tries to do 16-20 play drives. That isn’t the team strength plus you have a stellar defense. Keep scoring and the defense will do it’s job.
While I don't disagree with you It's not like the staff is purposely keeping games close. Special Teams are clearly an issue though.
