Started By
Message
re: The "targeting" call will be forgotten in short order...
Posted on 1/2/25 at 12:21 pm to Darindawg
Posted on 1/2/25 at 12:21 pm to Darindawg
quote:It wasn't even the worst no call on targeting in the football game.
I doubt it will be forgotten by Arizona St fans. I can honestly say that was the worst call I've ever seen in all of my years of watching football...and I'm 55 years old. I've yet to see a commentator or even NFL officials who disagree.
How did you feel about the wrestling move by the AZU OL to lift Scattebo off the ground and pull him into the end zone? 100% a penalty that was not called.
Or the AZU fake punt that had an AZU offensive lineman further downfield than the receiver, or the AZU TD pass with an offensive lineman downfield in the end zone. 100% those are penalties that were not called.
Or the penalty called on the first punt when the punter had clearly moved outside the tackle box, which should have been a no call.
There were plenty of other no calls through out the game. Just live every other game this year.
0
Posted on 1/2/25 at 12:28 pm to Darindawg
quote:
I can honestly say that was the worst call I've ever seen in all of my years of watching football...and I'm 55 years old.
You're old enough to have watched that robbery from GT in Athens a month ago, so I don't believe you when you say it was "the worst call I've ever seen".
Posted on 1/2/25 at 12:29 pm to HTX Horn
quote:
I’ve seen at least a dozen calls this year alone that were malicious hits with intent to harm.
I don’t think so.
Posted on 1/2/25 at 12:33 pm to SteelerBravesDawg
quote:
He did not lead with the crown of his helmet. It was helmet-to-helmet but he led with his facemask.
He was defenseless, which means initial contact to the head neck area is targeting (by rule, defenseless eliminates need for the "crown/intentional" distinction).
Posted on 1/2/25 at 12:34 pm to Darindawg
If you really don’t want it to be forgotten then it needs a nickname.
Posted on 1/2/25 at 12:37 pm to mmmmmbeeer
Defenseless means they did not have time to become a runner. The receiver clearly had time to catch the ball, turn and step. They were a runner.
Posted on 1/2/25 at 12:43 pm to TexasOnTop
quote:
The receiver clearly had time to catch the ball, turn and step. They were a runner.
So if he'd dropped it after the hit it would've been a fumble? 99% of the time it would be called incomplete in that situation. He was defenseless.
That's really the argument....defenseless or non-defenseless.
Posted on 1/2/25 at 12:44 pm to Darindawg
quote:
I can honestly say that was the worst call I've ever seen in all of my years of watching football
It’s the second worst call…the worst was the no-call targeting that saved UGA from a well deserved loss to GA Tech. How embarrassing
Posted on 1/2/25 at 12:46 pm to mmmmmbeeer
quote:
In college football, a receiver becomes a "runner" after a catch once they have secured control of the ball and taken a clear action towards gaining additional yardage, like turning upfield, taking a step forward, or attempting to evade a defender, signifying that they are no longer in the act of catching the ball and are now actively trying to advance the play.
Posted on 1/2/25 at 12:46 pm to Darindawg
By definition of the current rules, it was 100% targeting. What would have happened after a correct targeting call is ASU would likely have won the game in regulation.
The question is: who all got paid?
The question is: who all got paid?
Posted on 1/2/25 at 12:50 pm to Lonnie Utah
The replay official should be fired. He obviously can't use logic in applying rules.
Defenseless player can be a receiver who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself.
Targeting can include leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent.
Defenseless player can be a receiver who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself.
Targeting can include leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent.
Posted on 1/2/25 at 12:53 pm to AUTubaHerd
quote:
forceful contact” to be targeting, which I don’t think it was.
The wr was obliterated.
Posted on 1/2/25 at 12:54 pm to SteelerBravesDawg
quote:
There was no launch.
Irrelevant
quote:
He did not lead with the crown of his helmet.
Irrelevant
quote:
It was helmet-to-helmet
Relevant
Posted on 1/2/25 at 1:03 pm to Darindawg
quote:
I can honestly say that was the worst call I've ever seen in all of my years of watching football
I'm not sure that I'd go that far, but what's the point of having 'targeting' if that's not targeting?
Posted on 1/2/25 at 1:05 pm to SteelerBravesDawg
quote:
He did not lead with the crown of his helmet.
False. I can't believe people are disputing this. He literally led with the crown of his helmet. It's not debatable, it's on video.
Regarding what people keep bringing up about the ASU OL dragging the RB over the goal line, that also was a bad no-call, but that's not reviewable to my knowledge. And the fact the refs on the field didn't initially call targetting isn't what is so outrageous. Refs miss shite all the time, in real time. The fact it was reviewed and the replay official said it was not targetting is what is so fricked up and unbelievable.
Posted on 1/2/25 at 1:15 pm to Lonnie Utah
I'll never forget. Just add it to the other games tx was bailed out of.
Posted on 1/2/25 at 1:22 pm to WoodyOrnamental
quote:
I'll never forget. Just add it to the other games tx was bailed out of
It's the second of the month and your rent is overdue
Posted on 1/2/25 at 1:28 pm to Aubie Spr96
quote:
I'm not sure that I'd go that far, but what's the point of having 'targeting' if that's not targeting?
Exactly. They made that rule for that exact kind of hit.
Posted on 1/2/25 at 1:30 pm to Lonnie Utah
All you bastards sugar coating that is ridiculous. I’ve seen way way WAY softer shite than that and it gets called no question. It’s so fricking obvious it was targeting like if it was flipped narratives, then Texas fans would be in here bitching like a diabetic at Disneyland
This post was edited on 1/2/25 at 1:31 pm
Posted on 1/2/25 at 1:32 pm to djsdawg
quote:
They made that rule for that exact kind of hit.
No they didn't
They made the rule up to protect players from malicious hits. Not to penalize a kid for making a tackle in a bang bang play.
Taffee obviously should have stopped, waited for the receiver to signal they they were prepared for the hit, and then proceeded.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News