***2024-25 CFB Playoff/Bowl (Dec. 17-Jan. 20) Games Thread***
- Thread starter BigJCy
- Start date
To be fair... while I think it was targeting, I was okay with it not being targeting...
Reason?
It's a **** can enforced rule all year. Sure, by the letter it was targeting and it was targeting.
But for all of us who watch a fair amount of college football every year... this is hardly the first time we've watched a play and thought
"Dang. That's targeting, certainly..." only for a moment later to say "really? how's that not targeting?"
Or have the opposite.
I totally respect the intent of the rule. Buts its so randomly enforced and called that its a joke.
Reason?
It's a **** can enforced rule all year. Sure, by the letter it was targeting and it was targeting.
But for all of us who watch a fair amount of college football every year... this is hardly the first time we've watched a play and thought
"Dang. That's targeting, certainly..." only for a moment later to say "really? how's that not targeting?"
Or have the opposite.
I totally respect the intent of the rule. Buts its so randomly enforced and called that its a joke.
'But Mr. Peesident, why did they avoid playoffs for years over concerns for player safety with added games, but then not call targeting when an opponent experienced an injury to the head?'
'Nobody knows'.
Also, just for clarification
NCAA 9-3-2b states:
"A teammate cannot grasp, pull or lift the ball-carrier to assist in forward progress"
I'm sure Texas would argue, Skattebo's last touchdown where the guard basically WWE suplexed him into the endzone would be counted as either grasping, pulling or lifting if not all three.
Maybe they score a TD there anyways, IDK. Point is... refs get crap wrong.
NCAA 9-3-2b states:
"A teammate cannot grasp, pull or lift the ball-carrier to assist in forward progress"
I'm sure Texas would argue, Skattebo's last touchdown where the guard basically WWE suplexed him into the endzone would be counted as either grasping, pulling or lifting if not all three.
Maybe they score a TD there anyways, IDK. Point is... refs get crap wrong.
I think this is why ASU and others should look at the 4th and 12 in OT as their chance blown, as opposed to the refs and targeting. Albeit a bad non-call on the targeting
KidSilverhair
Well-Known Member
I’ve seen dudes pulling ball carriers forward throughout the bowl season. I think a lineman pulled Hansen forward into the end zone to give Iowa State a touchdown (or maybe it was just a first down, but I did see it). Nobody’s throwing flags for that nowadays, apparently.
When I see a man with a jet black goatee I think, “wow! What a verile man in his sexual prime!!”
Did they review if the runner was pulled?
If they reviewed it and then didn’t call it, that would be an egregious error and incorrect to not follow the rule.
Missing a never ever enforced call in live action vs having a CFP appointed “official” reviewing a targeting call is apples and oranges.
Not if you watch college football and see the dozens of times officials review targeting, and either decide it isn't based on no apparent logic. I've seen players ejected for trying to avoid helmet to helmet and I've seen dudes lower their head like a billy goat and stay in the game.
My guess on the official explanation is that since the ball was tipped, it wasn't targeting. Which is dumb, because it was targeting, but that would be my expectation of why that call was made, somewhat similar to how pass interference is at times not called if the ball is deflected at the LOS
Targeting by its definition or any head to head contact is always reviewed. So that argument is a little loaded since it literally states it has to be reviewed to determine what to call it. That would be like a pitcher throwing the ball in baseball and the umpire decide to neither call it a ball or a strike. The rules states that you have to look at it and call something.
Comparing your example of a missed call on an obscure never enforced rule doesn’t apply.
Yes, I watch a lot of CFB and yes it’s frustrating with the targeting calls, no calls, reversals etc. that’s a better argument.
Part of my reply insinuated the review of targeting is controlled specifically by a CFP appointed official. No transparency. No accountability. I do not trust it. The agenda is to favor the pecking order. Texas > ASU.
Just like UGA (SEC) > Ohio St.
Look at this Overturn. Gross.
Conspiracy Theory maybe.
I don’t think so.
I disagree that it doesn't apply. Ask Notre Dame if it doesn't apply or if they still don't talk about the Bush-push. If Arizona State had won the game, 100%, Texas and social media would be lighting it up about that play. And saying that they were screwed.
Just like the conversation here.
There's no transparency for any call on the field though. Sure, we get to "See" the white hat make an announcement but who made the call, what did they see, what was said when they all huddle together before the announcement is made, we have no idea. They could, in theory, be talking about whose cooking breakfast in the morning or the huge chest of some cheerleader. We have no idea.
I was literally told in a game by an official once that if we didn't stop gyrating (as coaches) on the side line that we'd get flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct as we were trying to rally from a 21-0 deficit and cut it to 21-14. Now, believe it or not, most coaches are not out on the sideline "gyrating" during a football game. So, who was gyrating, or what happened.... I've also asked ref's for clarification on a call and they just look at me and shake their head.
To do another story, there was a game where the right guard was flinching before he pulled, every damn time. Like, would rock back in his stance - never was called. I talked to the sideline ref, and was told " its not my call to make coach" I asked who would, he said pointed out the ref. During a time out, I talked to that official and he told me " its not my call to make so I'm not making that call."
My point in all of this, be it at the collegiate level as with those, albeit small college, HS, pro, etc.. there is no transparency in officiating. They are judge, jury and executioner. So to argue that the replay lacks transparency, you are 100% correct.
My point is... they can give whatever Bullcrap explanation they want and there's nothing you can do about it.. Its a cabal. That's my point.
In one game you'll have a crew that lets the wide receiver get molested without a flag.
Next game, the safety breathes on him its pass interference. Sometimes the next half.
They can enforce the rules however they see fit - or not.
And they can give you whatever explanation they want, or not - and if you argue too much, you get penalized for it, potentially even ejected - and nothing happens to them. At least in that particular game. And very rarely, overall.
That's why I hate complaining about calls.
Because it changes weekly what's allowed and what's not. Sometimes in the middle of the damn game.
The explanations range from valid to just insane (Ie gyrating on the sideline). Cause nothing's going to fire up 20 yea olds like bunch of 30 and 40 year old men humping the air.
To non at all.
Expecting to get a favorable call from the refs or a consistent call? Buddy, flip a coin. That's the reality. That's what the reality of the game is. You get a great or above average crew? You have a well officiated game. You get a bad crew... oh man.
Like I get, as fans we like complaining about calls and the refs. But this idea that reviews have less transparency than any other call? NONE of it has transparency,
If you get lucky, they over turn a really bad call by replay. That's if your lucky. Otherwise, what they do is say... ahem...
"After review, the call on the field stands." aka yeah, we F'ed up by F you by pointing it out, you a**-hat.
I respect refs. Most of them are decent people doing a hard job. But man... transparency and officiating? There is none. On any call.
ASU is not in the SEC or BIG so it was obviously not targeting.
The only issue here is that there was a flag thrown for targeting (IIMC) and then overturned. If the flag was never thrown, that is one thing, but to go back an review the play and overturn the ruling on the field was BS. Why have the rule if you pick and choose the call. Get rid of the video review to confirm the call on the field.
