I was thinking that too. This was on the screen play right? I had a buddy who said it may not have been called because it was behind the line of scrimmage.
"Targeting" call on Washington on OSUs first scoring drive
- Thread starter Judoka
- Start date
I was thinking that too. This was on the screen play right? I had a buddy who said it may not have been called because it was behind the line of scrimmage.
This I can almost live with. When I heard "targeting" I assumed it meant going for the head. When I first saw the play I thought it had potential to be a "late hit". But the holding call still sucks!
I seem to remember an announcer explaining the rule that way as well. In my opinion it's a bad rule, which seems to result in calls against us more often than not. Granted, I've never played football beyond the "backyard with friends" level but it seems to me that to make a good play on the ball if it is caught the defender has to be going as fast as possible straight at the reciever. If the reciever then drops or misses the ball, that good defensive hit becomes targetting. In most cases that this has been called, the defender has not had time to see the pass was missed and then react to avoid the hit.
Also on Washington's call he has to play the receiver as if he is going to catch the ball, which I thought he did and if so he has to make that hit in order to separate him from the ball. IMO if the receiver makes that catch and Washington dislodges it with that hit no call would have been the result.
This is my issue with it. You see stuff going on all game, missed calls, bad calls, etc, but why is it more than not, these bad calls or at least questionable calls always seem to go against us? How is it that we can get called for defensive holding when I never saw our guy touch anyone, yet when we are clearly interfered with, they happen to miss it? I understand that things are going to get missed in a game. I understand that penalties do happen, but when can one of these things work out in our favor? It's like you know we are going to get at least 3 calls a game that either didn't happen and go against us, or something gets missed and kills our drive. How many times do we rape a receiver and happen to get a no call?
Correct me if I'm wrong ...
Back Judge - K-State Game is the same Back Judge in the OK-State game.
At a minimum we have gotten no breaks the last few weeks.
Back Judge - K-State Game is the same Back Judge in the OK-State game.
At a minimum we have gotten no breaks the last few weeks.
With these targeting calls, I feel like if the receiver actually caught it, the official would ever throw the flag. Makes it less impressive looking I guess,
While I tend to agree that the calls that go against us really tend to be lodged in our memory, I was pleasantly surprised that Lenz was not called for an obvious offensive PI on his first TD of the TCU game. If that were called, our fast start would have been a lot harder to come by. We as ISU fans might not think so, but generally "bad calls" do even out over the course of a season.
This is something I have a problem with. I understand where you're coming from, but just because we got robbed on a play on the first game of the season, doesn't make it right that we catch a break the last game of the season against another team. I don't just mean morally either, both games are completely independent. If we get screwed in one game and completely kills our momentum and mindset, it sets us up for losing the next game and the next and so forth. Don't get me wrong, when these things happen, it's no excusable, but it's the way things happen more often than not, I mean how often do you see a bad mistake ruin or ice a game in sports?
Four-tenths of a second from the time the ball touched the receiver's hands until Washington contacted the receiver.
Is that really enough time to see the incompletion, process it, and alter your path -- especially if you've already started your motion in that direction?
It wasn't "targeting", it was "launching". The call was correct based on the rules. It's a bad rule.
Defenseless Player: Contact to Head or Neck Area ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (See Points of Emphasis for a description of "Defenseless Player.") PENALTY—(Same as above)
Defenseless Player: Contact to Head or Neck Area ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (See Points of Emphasis for a description of "Defenseless Player.") PENALTY—(Same as above)
I was watching when that call was made and thought it was total ********. Coming on OSU's first drive of the game made it doubly egregious. It seemed to deflate your team some.
There's no arguing it's a rule incredibly slanted towards the receiver, however it's pretty black and white. I agree though, how hard is it for the d-back to pull back during a high speed play like that? Pretty dang difficult.
In my opinion it should have been defensive holding which is still applicable behind the line of scrimmage. Your friend is correct in saying there cannot be defensive pass interference behind the line.
