Hopefully overturning targeting call helps us all

There's an obvious problem when it wasn't overturned during the game.
1. Absolutely no one knows what targeting really is.

2. You are gonna let an umpire that's on the field with the ref that threw the flag review it? Don't you think there is the possibility that the head umpire feels a little protective of his people? Call should be reviewed by someone not emotionally attached to the game/personnel.

3. Players shouldn't be ejected, that's pure bs.

Also there is already an extensive thread about this.

I agree, the fact that it was reviewed and confirmed was just awful.

Has the NCAA come out and made such a strong statement about refs and the review process getting it so wrong? I don’t remember any.
My hope is that maybe this will put refs on notice that if you screw up, you will be called out!

quote:

---

Has the NCAA come out and made such a strong statement about refs and the review process getting it so wrong?

---

Referees are thicker than thieves and cops and politicians. Masters at covering each other's asses.

quote:

---

Definitely not targeting

---

actually, the way the rule is written, that is targeting.


PDF copy of official NCAA rule book

the bold is my emphasis

quote:

---

ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head
or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet,
forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least
one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul
(Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)

---

most people don't realize that you don't have to use your helmet to be guilty of targeting.

quote:

---

Some indicators of targeting include but are not
limited to:

Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack
with forcible contact at the head or neck area

---

he definitely smoked that dude in the head with his shoulders

quote:

---

Examples of defenseless players include but are not limited to:

A player on the ground

---

him being on the ground makes him "defenseless"

but more importantly:

quote:

---

When in question, it is a foul

---

meaning anything even questionably falling into this description is by rule targeting.

I think that the targeting penalty creates a mindset on the defense to not tackle as hard. They are always in fear of being ejected.

I wish they'd take onto account what the offensive player does. How many times have we seen a rb or wide receiver lower their head and create a targeting scenario? That should also be taken into account. Why is it always the defense responsibility to avoid targeting?

He was not defenseless. Not on the ground and thus the NCAA overturned it. I have no issue with rest of your rules interpretation

I was a neutral viewer, but in my opinion that call was just wrong. You're in OT, ball carrier has been physically contacted by a defender but not yet down, and is fighting for the goal line. If this guy doesn't come in to finish him off, the ball carrier may well lunge in for the score, as the play wasn't blown dead yet.
Now imagine for a moment it was a 1 pt game, not 2... like the end of the LSU-Bama game. That makes it a straight W/L event.

What's the rest of the defense supposed to do, just stand there and hope their guy wins that one-on-one fight?

Probably most telling thing about the play is that the announcers had no idea about it being "targeting", until a few seconds into the review, when they were speculating on what the review was for.
This means it wasn't obvious, you had to analyze the thing in slow motion with multiple angles, to even think it might be the case.
And that should NEVER be the case, especially in such a key moment. You call it if it jumps out at you, not if it has to be searched for. What's the saying, you can call a penalty on every play if you search? Any time there's multiple guys in a gang tackle, I'm willing to bet there's helmet to helmet; any time the RB is in the pile and it is moving, there will be a block in the back somewhere in that scrum.

I'm just glad Arkansas wasn't screwed out of the W for that play. I'm curious, since they ruled against the penalty, do they amend the score- as the game should have ended then?