Wait

Are sips saying the non targeting on ASU's interception was targeting?

LOL

The ASU guy turned his body away from the WR and ran into him with the side of his body.

No, it as his "armpit" that he used.

classof92 said:

---

The stock market is slow. I'll be here all day. Here's the actual rule

However, if a player is defenseless, you can't initiate contact above the shoulders, even if you don't lead with the crown. Players are also prohibited from targeting and making forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless player with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder.

---

So you're describing the Taafe play. Shoulder to chest doesn't qualify as targeting as was the case on the play you posted of Bond getting blown up.

By the definition of the rule, I believe they were both targeting penalties. All I'm saying is that the game was called equally.

The bottom line is that it was targeting and it's EXACTLY the kind of contact the rule was created to eliminate.

The rule and the punishment needs to be changed.

We also need a professional referee system for brining individuals in that are unbiased and progress through the HS/college ranks so we get the best of the best officiating CFP games. Maybe even partner with the NFL on a promotion/relegation system. A college football commissioner could make this happen.


Finally, all booth reviews need explanations presented in the same way there rules analysts explain things on the network. Not just a stadium announcement by the on-field official. I mean the guy back in the HQ going live, giving a breakdown of what was seen and the decision. TV does it now. Don't tell me it can't be done (they like being on TV anyway).

The replay officials were just doing as they were instructed by the powers that be. You get that, right?

classof92 said:

---

By the definition of the rule, I believe they were both targeting penalties. All I'm saying is that the game was called equally.

---

I replied to your video of the Bond hit in the other thread. Show the slow-mo or you're being disingenuous. I can't find it because the people making the argument it was targeting don't want to show it. He hit with the shoulder to Bond's chest. Just because it was a hard hit doesn't make it targeting.

classof92 said:

---

By the definition of the rule, I believe they were both targeting penalties. All I'm saying is that the game was called equally.

---

Wrong

ASU player as I pointed out changed his body to protect the Texas player and not do a targeting type hit.

Texas player did text book targeting.

It's pretty easy for ALL to see.

In God we trust, all others bring data.

Targeting is the most inconsistent call in football, but most of you here are just mad because texas won another playoff game and we are 8-5.

I think it's a stupid rule that that is too open for controversy. The point I'm emphasizing is that he was a defenseless player.

However, if a player is defenseless, you can't initiate contact above the shoulders, even if you don't lead with the crown. Players are also prohibited from targeting and making forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless player with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder

AustinAg2K said:

---

OBJTEX said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

Also, there's been a ton of complaints on the zoo over the last few weeks about how many games in a row Texas A&M has not had a single holding penalty called against their opponents. I agree it's absolutely ridiculous and doesn't make mathematical sense.

However, ASU had no holding penalties called against them today, and a watched at least five plays where their QB scrambled around extending plays while his OL was damn near tackling Texas defenders. Still, no holding calls.

Don't conflate incompetence with conspiracy. Like I've said before, officiating at every level is a job so thankless and prone to abuse from players, coaches, parents, fans and the media, that the good officials have said, "Forget it. Life's too short to put up with this nonsense."

So now, the best officials we can get are the ones who suck and only do it for the money. Don't blame them. It's our fault.

---

Well said. Btw, skattebos td in ot was a foul. Ol pulled him across. You can push not pull

---

I'm sure any fan would gladly trade the targeting call, which likely would have ended the game, for the pulling the guy across call, which would have never occurred if targeting was called.

---

And the hit on their WR by off ball safety was clearly a PF (likely also targeting) that would have negated the INT and likely made the targeting of Texas S not happen in alternate game script.

Lots of blown calls each game. They even out. There was holding on Quinns TD too likely. And the fake punt had a OL downfield. And ASU's first failed two point conversion at end (texas had a holding that gave them another try) so had Ol downfield.

Lots of blown calls. Its a hard game to officiate.

I agree he was defenseless. But I disagree that he was hit in the head or neck area. The slow-mo confirms it was a clean but hard hit to the chest. His head snapped back because of the force of it, not because he was contacted there.

Agree to disagree. Too close to call. If a flag was thrown, I believe a targeting penalty would have been upheld. Not enough proof. Same with the Taaffe hit.

See above. They didn't even bother to review because when they saw the slow motion, it was obvious where the contact was made.

Your missing the point. He was a defenseless player, as the rule states. I don't agree with the rule but that's what it says.

bslater07 said:

---

I agree he was defenseless. But I disagree that he was hit in the head or neck area. The slow-mo confirms it was a clean but hard hit to the chest. His head snapped back because of the force of it, not because he was contacted there.

---

If you agree he is defenseless, then by rule it is a PF. 15 yards. 1/10 for Texas. Different game. Rule 2-26-14-b.

Defenseless Player ARTICLE 14 A defenseless player is one who because of their physical position and focus of concentration is especially vulnerable to injury When in question, a player is defenseless.

b. A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect themselves or has not clearly become a ball carrier.

You can't jump up and down and cry conspiracy when this call was not called. Now this rule is NOT reviewable. but all 3 rear officials missed it.

I would also say he did make contact with H/N at same time and would ahve reviewed targeting for same hit. but a PF for hitting defenseless player is as clear as day.

Total changes the game. Just like IF they had called targeting. on Texas. But this PF/blown call was before the other and would have changed the outcome one way or another.

Market is starting to move. To everybody on this site, Happy New Year.

classof92 said:

---

Agree to disagree. Too close to call. If a flag was thrown, I believe a targeting penalty would have been upheld. Not enough proof. Same with the Taaffe hit.

---

i think the Taaffe hit was closer to targeting than the one on the ASU player. But there is NO question the hit on the Texas WR was a PF. Would have likely changed the game such that the Taaffe hit would not have occurred.

Explain how it was a personal foul. He can't assume that ball is picked off, he's assuming Bond is going to make the catch and he needs to dislodge it. By definition, a PF needs to be UNNECESSARILY violent. He was necessarily making a hard it in the event of a catch by Bond.

Your logic is whack.

And now you can see by the photo of the instant the hit happened that he was hit with shoulder to chest. That's by definition, NOT TARGETING.

Posted in other thread:

My phone has been burning up all morning.

Yes, this should have been a flag for targeting in #TEXvsASU. It meets all of the criteria of targeting (Rule 9-1-4). pic.twitter.com/tv5HPIQgd0

— Gene Steratore (@GeneSteratore) January 2, 2025

Scott Van Pelt: “I don’t care who it is. That’s targeting 100 times out of 100. It wasn’t [called] in this case.”

Dusty Dvoracek: “I thought it was targeting in the moment. I picked up the phone, made a few phone calls. I talked to Bill Lemonnier, who I think is one of the… pic.twitter.com/Ug0CqFWljR

— CFB Kings (@CFBKings) January 2, 2025

bslater07 said:

---

Explain how it was a personal foul. He can't assume that ball is picked off, he's assuming Bond is going to make the catch and he needs to dislodge it. By definition, a PF needs to be UNNECESSARILY violent. He was necessarily making a hard it in the event of a catch by Bond.

Your logic is whack.

---

It has nothing to do with the result of the play. The ball could hit the turf. The DB could take it to the house. The Texas WR was attempting to catch the ball and had no chance to defend himself. PF 100 times out of 100.

There is NOTHING in the rules that say a PF for defenseless player must be unnecessary. One could argue the status of defenselessness is unnecessary. Regardless, it is not part of the rule.

Again, pasted straight from the rule book:


b-A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect themselves or has not clearly become a ball carrier.

That is the definition of a PF on a defenseless receiver. IMHO, he also hit him in the neck as part of his contact (a hit to the H/N does not have to be solely to the H/N to be counted) but that is where targeting might come into play.

Good lord dude. Which personal foul was it? "Personal Foul" is a category of a number of different infractions carrying a 15 yard penalty, not a catch-all. So which one was it? The only one you can claim is unnecessary roughness which you just said "is not part of the rule." Tell me which infraction was committed, because saying "it was a PF" isn't in the rulebook.

Late hit? No.
UNNECESSARY roughness? No. <------- there's your "unnecessary"
Roughing the passer? No.
Roughing the kicker? No.
Illegal blindside block? No.
Hands to the face? No.
Facemask? No.

I could go on. Answer my question or give up the argument.

He can't because his username does not check out.

Yep.

My dude,
You are one of the most AMAZING goalkeepers I have ever seen

Some Texas fans have made it a profession on covering up the officiating corruption that helps them in games.

Just adds to their overall profile as one of the worst fan bases in ALL of sports.

Would gain a little respect for them if they actually stated, darn right we get help bc we are Texas. To thine own self be true. But that's not an option bc they just cannot do it. They have to believe they won the game bc they were the better team that day.

And even better, there's ALWAYS an excuse when they lose the big game.

riverrataggie said:

---

You need great coaches, great players and refs bought.

---

This. Only "non elite" suckers say it's about the Xs and Os. Sure, you need a decent amount of that, and you need solid coaching.

But you also need the scriptwriters on your side, along the lines of Brad Pitt's character in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, or Steven Seagal in any of his movies.

With movies you always need people willing enough to be deceived to pay $$ for the tickets to the final product. But the problem is that now eSIPn and the conferences are big, opaque entities that have zero accountability and have clearly opted to prioritize their bottom line over the integrity of the sport.

Bill Superman said:

---

classof92 said:

---

The stock market is slow. I'll be here all day. Here's the actual rule

However, if a player is defenseless, you can't initiate contact above the shoulders, even if you don't lead with the crown. Players are also prohibited from targeting and making forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless player with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder.

---

It doesn't say anything about making forcible contact with your armpit, so you're wrong again.

---

as the rule is written imo both are targeting. neither was called.

and you're doubling down on has to be crown of helmet and it isn't limited to that.

AustinAg2K said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

I thought it was a textbook case of targeting. However, a high school referee friend of mine explained it this way:

1. The ball was tipped which eliminates the defenseless receiver rule.
2. The DB never ducked his head and made contact with his facemask and not the crown of his helmet.

By rule, although it looked egregious, it's not targeting. Not sure I agree, but that's what he said.

---

I have never heard of #1. Not saying it's not true, but I need to see the rule before I believe it.

#2 doesn't matter. When the player is defenseless, any forceable contact to head or neck is targeting. It doesn't even have to be with the helmet. A shoulder to the head is also targeting. They've explained this dozens of times on tv.

---

Definitions from the NCAA Football Rule book: (my emphasis added in italics)

Quote:

---

Section 19 Article 1. Passing: Passing the ball is throwing it. A pass continues to be a pass until it is caught or intercepted by a player or the ball becomes dead.

Section 19 Article 2. Forward Pass: A pass is forward if the ball first strikes the ground, a player, an official, or anything else beyond (forward of) the spot where the ball is released.

Section 11 Article 3. Batting: Batting the ball is intentionally striking it or intentionally changing its direction with the hand(s) or arm(s). Batting the ball does not change its status.

Section 27 Article 14. Defenseless player: A defenseless player is one who because of their physical position and focus of concentration is especially vulnerable to injury. When is question a player is defenseless. Examples of defenseless players include but are not limited to...a receiver attempting to catch a forward pass...and has not had time to protect themselves or has not clearly become the ball carrier.

---

This should demonstrate that the above HS Ref is incorrect to say a tipped ball doesn't change the status of the forward pass or the receiver's defenselessness attempting to catch it.

blackshoe10 said:

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

I thought it was a textbook case of targeting. However, a high school referee friend of mine explained it this way:

1. The ball was tipped which eliminates the defenseless receiver rule.
2. The DB never ducked his head and made contact with his facemask and not the crown of his helmet.

By rule, although it looked egregious, it's not targeting. Not sure I agree, but that's what he said.

---

I have never heard of #1. Not saying it's not true, but I need to see the rule before I believe it.

#2 doesn't matter. When the player is defenseless, any forceable contact to head or neck is targeting. It doesn't even have to be with the helmet. A shoulder to the head is also targeting. They've explained this dozens of times on tv.

---

Definitions from the NCAA Football Rule book: (my emphasis added in italics)

Quote:

---

Section 19 Article 1. Passing: Passing the ball is throwing it. A pass continues to be a pass until it is caught or intercepted by a player or the ball becomes dead.

Section 19 Article 2. Forward Pass: A pass is forward if the ball first strikes the ground, a player, an official, or anything else beyond (forward of) the spot where the ball is released.

Section 11 Article 3. Batting: Batting the ball is intentionally striking it or intentionally changing its direction with the hand(s) or arm(s). Batting the ball does not change its status.

Section 27 Article 14. Defenseless player: A defenseless player is one who because of their physical position and focus of concentration is especially vulnerable to injury. When is question a player is defenseless. Examples of defenseless players include but are not limited to...a receiver attempting to catch a forward pass...and has not had time to protect themselves or has not clearly become the ball carrier.

---

This should demonstrate that the above HS Ref is incorrect to say a tipped ball doesn't change the status of the forward pass or the receiver's defenselessness attempting to catch it.

---

I don't think your definitions back your opinion enough.

Here's why. Tipped balls change other things as well. Like pass Interference. It's essentially a free for all if a ball is tipped.

now does that also change defenseless label? it very well might. I will leave it to others to dig through the rulebook.

Im just pointing out that what you posted doesn't really prove your point.

bslater07 said:

---

Good lord dude. Which personal foul was it? "Personal Foul" is a category of a number of different infractions carrying a 15 yard penalty, not a catch-all. So which one was it? The only one you can claim is unnecessary roughness which you just said "is not part of the rule." Tell me which infraction was committed, because saying "it was a PF" isn't in the rulebook.

Late hit? No.
UNNECESSARY roughness? No. <------- there's your "unnecessary"
Roughing the passer? No.
Roughing the kicker? No.
Illegal blindside block? No.
Hands to the face? No.
Facemask? No.

I could go on. Answer my question or give up the argument

---

I did answer it. The call is a personal foul, hitting a defenseless player. My only point is all PFs don't need to be unnecessary to be called PFs. And as I said, one could argue any contact with a defenseless receiver is unnecessary.

Regardless, he hit a defenseless receiver. It is a personal foul. I don't know if that actual words used by the referee woudl be personal foul, UNR, hitting a defenseless player.

2thFixinAg said:

---

blackshoe10 said:

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

I thought it was a textbook case of targeting. However, a high school referee friend of mine explained it this way:

1. The ball was tipped which eliminates the defenseless receiver rule.
2. The DB never ducked his head and made contact with his facemask and not the crown of his helmet.

By rule, although it looked egregious, it's not targeting. Not sure I agree, but that's what he said.

---

I have never heard of #1. Not saying it's not true, but I need to see the rule before I believe it.

#2 doesn't matter. When the player is defenseless, any forceable contact to head or neck is targeting. It doesn't even have to be with the helmet. A shoulder to the head is also targeting. They've explained this dozens of times on tv.

---

Definitions from the NCAA Football Rule book: (my emphasis added in italics)

Quote:

---

Section 19 Article 1. Passing: Passing the ball is throwing it. A pass continues to be a pass until it is caught or intercepted by a player or the ball becomes dead.

Section 19 Article 2. Forward Pass: A pass is forward if the ball first strikes the ground, a player, an official, or anything else beyond (forward of) the spot where the ball is released.

Section 11 Article 3. Batting: Batting the ball is intentionally striking it or intentionally changing its direction with the hand(s) or arm(s). Batting the ball does not change its status.

Section 27 Article 14. Defenseless player: A defenseless player is one who because of their physical position and focus of concentration is especially vulnerable to injury. When is question a player is defenseless. Examples of defenseless players include but are not limited to...a receiver attempting to catch a forward pass...and has not had time to protect themselves or has not clearly become the ball carrier.

---

This should demonstrate that the above HS Ref is incorrect to say a tipped ball doesn't change the status of the forward pass or the receiver's defenselessness attempting to catch it.

---

I don't think your definitions back your opinion enough.

Here's why. Tipped balls change other things as well. Like pass Interference. It's essentially a free for all if a ball is tipped.

now does that also change defenseless label? it very well might. I will leave it to others to dig through the rulebook.

Im just pointing out that what you posted doesn't really prove your point.

---

I am not familiar with a tipped pass changing the protection of a back/receiver.

It does make it a taller obstacle to call the player "defenseless" if they have the ball. There is a reasonable expectation to take a hit. It is not impossible to be defenseless and be a ball carrier, but very subjective and very rare.

Like i said numerous times in this thread, the call of targeting could certainly be applied to the Taaffe hit. It is a really hard call on the field. Don't fault the officials for missing it live. I'd err on the side of calling it if I am in the booth.

But the hit on #7 Texas was as clear a PF as I can find. Text book hit on defenseless receiver. I'd have reviewed targeting on that one. Not as clear as the Taaffe hit. But could easily be called targeting.

Regardless, the missed PF changed the game.

We don't know the outcome of a correct call for either missed call. We do know the victory chances of Texas (first one) and ASU( second one go up quite a bit and the Texas one came first which impacts the probability of the second.

I enjoy discussions on NCAA FB Rules and can't stand when the % of our fans immediately go to "TU CONSPIRACY" anytime something goes their way.

2thFixinAg said:

---

blackshoe10 said:

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

I thought it was a textbook case of targeting. However, a high school referee friend of mine explained it this way:

1. The ball was tipped which eliminates the defenseless receiver rule.
2. The DB never ducked his head and made contact with his facemask and not the crown of his helmet.

By rule, although it looked egregious, it's not targeting. Not sure I agree, but that's what he said.

---

I have never heard of #1. Not saying it's not true, but I need to see the rule before I believe it.

#2 doesn't matter. When the player is defenseless, any forceable contact to head or neck is targeting. It doesn't even have to be with the helmet. A shoulder to the head is also targeting. They've explained this dozens of times on tv.

---

Definitions from the NCAA Football Rule book: (my emphasis added in italics)

Quote:

---

Section 19 Article 1. Passing: Passing the ball is throwing it. A pass continues to be a pass until it is caught or intercepted by a player or the ball becomes dead.

Section 19 Article 2. Forward Pass: A pass is forward if the ball first strikes the ground, a player, an official, or anything else beyond (forward of) the spot where the ball is released.

Section 11 Article 3. Batting: Batting the ball is intentionally striking it or intentionally changing its direction with the hand(s) or arm(s). Batting the ball does not change its status.

Section 27 Article 14. Defenseless player: A defenseless player is one who because of their physical position and focus of concentration is especially vulnerable to injury. When is question a player is defenseless. Examples of defenseless players include but are not limited to...a receiver attempting to catch a forward pass...and has not had time to protect themselves or has not clearly become the ball carrier.

---

This should demonstrate that the above HS Ref is incorrect to say a tipped ball doesn't change the status of the forward pass or the receiver's defenselessness attempting to catch it.

---

I don't think your definitions back your opinion enough.

Here's why. Tipped balls change other things as well. Like pass Interference. It's essentially a free for all if a ball is tipped.

now does that also change defenseless label? it very well might. I will leave it to others to dig through the rulebook.

Im just pointing out that what you posted doesn't really prove your point.

---

How does that not prove my point? The player is defenseless so long as he is attempting to catch a forward pass. The ball being tipped doesn't change it from being a forward pass.
The rules explicitly discuss tipped passes and interference.
The rules do not imply or explicitly say a tipped pass removes a player's defenslessness.