Aggie1615 said:

---

1) Skattebo didn't push off anymore than he was held as he ran by the defender.
2) ASU player didn't have forcible contact to the player's head and neck on the interception play.
3) Competent refs shouldn't be "bamboozled" by a player keeping his head up during forcible contact to the head and neck - the definition is pretty clear vs a defenseless player, and doesn't include position of defender's head.

Otherwise your post is spot on.

---

Your premise is flawed. If the fix was in, the refs would have just made any one of those calls (or all of them) in the other direction, and would have NEVER had to answer for it. You defending the calls as marginally correct doesn't make sense. An interception or a 65 yard completion were certainly game-changing plays that would have drawn intervention if the refs were throwing the game

And they say WWE is "fake" and boxing is fixed…they are! Just like NCAA football. Follow the $$

UT is a blue blood program. Blue bloods will get calls. We will never be a blue bloods. We'll just continue to be the whiny little brothers hoping big brother fails instead of choosing to excel on our own.

Yeah, it's BS. The sips target on almost every play. They had at least a dozen targetings by my count.

Targeting was not created for receivers. Anyone that is defenseless on the field of play and gets hit up high -- you see a targeting call. Think how many "blind side blocks" you've seen this year that weren't even egregious. But you hit a defenseless linebacker up high, and suddenly the flags fly.

Unless it's a big name team looking to set up ratings for the first ever playoff series in this format. ASU or Texas .. it was an easy call. That replay official will probably get a bonus.

Also, I think the ASU coach should have called timeout and then requested all his fans to throw **** on the field. That seems to be a viable new path for overturning calls 15 minutes after they're made, right sips?

RGLAG85 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.

---

He's wrong.

---

How exactly? He's been a high school referee for 20 years, and is (embarrassingly) a Baylor grad, so he didn't have a dog in this fight. He just happened to be watching the game when I texted, "Dude, WTF? That looked awful."

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

RGLAG85 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.

---

He's wrong.

---

How exactly? He's been a high school referee for 20 years, and is (embarrassingly) a Baylor grad, so he didn't have a dog in this fight. He just happened to be watching the game when I texted, "Dude, WTF? That looked awful."

---

he's wrong because it goes against the narrative.

It seems very clear to me that targeting criteria was met. The receiver was defenseless (2nd bullet under Note 2) and the 3rd bullet of Note 1 was fulfilled by the defender. And while I don't see a question in this case, also the rule reads "When in question, it is a foul."

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)
Note 1: "Targeting" means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:

• Launch-a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area
• A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground
• Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
• Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet

Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14). When in question, a player is defenseless. Examples of defenseless players include but are not limited to:

• A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
• 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 himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
• A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return.
• A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
• A player on the ground.
• A player obviously out of the play.
• A player who receives a blind-side block.
• A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped.
• A quarterback any time after a change of possession A ball carrier who has obviously given himself up and is sliding feetfirst.

The only thing I would add to this discussion is that they have clearly told refs to call this less often. There seem to be a fraction of the targeting calls they used to call. But unfortunately it does not seem to be consistent.

If there was ever an easy example of targeting that was it.

Anton Chigurhs Hair said:

---

It seems very clear to me that targeting criteria was met. The receiver was defenseless (2nd bullet under Note 2) and the 3rd bullet of Note 1 was fulfilled by the defender. And while I don't see a question in this case, also the rule reads "When in question, it is a foul."

Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14). When in question, a player is defenseless. Examples of defenseless players include but are not limited to:

• A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
• 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 himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
• A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return.
• A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
• A player on the ground.
• A player obviously out of the play.
• A player who receives a blind-side block.
• A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped.
• A quarterback any time after a change of possession A ball carrier who has obviously given himself up and is sliding feetfirst.

---

Bolding for emphasis of why this call was completely bull***** These are not the only examples...the point of the examples are to show the intent and spirit of the rule. This was textbook targeting.

Your Baylor grad official buddy is stating a rule that no one has heard ever or noted in the rule books that would twist things in the sips favor.

Go figure

As I said on another thread, sips have become pros at covering up officiating that helps them out.

Budder01 said:

---

Game should've never gone to OT. Texas should never have had the ball back. ASU almost beat these losers and the criminal institution NCAA. Pathetic and terrible result for college sports but just like the corrupt world we live in so to be expected

---

Do you shake your fist at the clouds when it rains?

rsf0626 said:

---

ASU had the chance to win on 4th and 13 and didnt get it done. They were setup perfectly to win and blew it

---

That's a player failure. Not an arbitrary business decision. Most likely would have never come to that if the correct call had been made in the first place. ASU kicker is no Bert Auburn

Ozamataz Buckshank 01 said:

---

tu brings in more viewers than ASU. This is blatant evidence that the refs were trying help tu win this game. It was shocking that tu kept missing field goals every time the refs bailed them out.

---

Given it was a big 10 officiating crew, I highly doubt they wanted Ohio State to play tu over ASU.

Was it targeting? Yes. Was it egregious and intent to hurt? Not really.

But some of you guys need to lay off the conspiracy theories and refs all biased. Just step back and think about what you are saying. Every ref in all of the NCAA is all in this plan to make sure texas wins. If this was the case, why have they sucked so bad for so many years?

Just reading this board, most on here have an unhealthy fixation on what texas does. You guys hate more than texas won than when we lose.

They won. Every close game can have disputed calls debated.

Not a conspiracy theory. Pull your head out of the sand

LOL

It's not just Aggies talking about it. And you must be living under a rock not to understand.

RGLAG85 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.

---

He's wrong.

---

Yeah his referee friend is absolutely wrong. A ball being tipped makes a PI non-punishable, but has zero impact on targeting.

DimebagsGhost said:

---

bryanhome said:

---

They didn't call the deep snapper 10 yards down the field on the fake punt.

---

Deep snapper is allowed.

---

It's amazing how many people really don't know the rules. Yes, many of us as former players have an advantage, but feels like there are a lot that the casual fans are still not familiar with. Not a criticism of them just interesting.

Muy said:

---

RGLAG85 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.

---

He's wrong.

---

Yeah his referee friend is absolutely wrong. A ball being tipped makes a PI non-punishable, but has zero impact on targeting.

---

The hilarious part would be that the whole point of this call is to make the game safer for head injuries. This guy is saying oh well defenseless receiver the ball was tipped so buckle up.

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

RGLAG85 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.

---

He's wrong.

---

How exactly? He's been a high school referee for 20 years, and is (embarrassingly) a Baylor grad, so he didn't have a dog in this fight. He just happened to be watching the game when I texted, "Dude, WTF? That looked awful."

---

He's wrong on both counts.
1. A tipped ball doesn't negate targeting, that only applies to pass interference.
2. He doesn't have to lower his head, he just had to make contact with the head or neck area on a defenseless player.
3. He's a high school official which is just above PeeWee football. So, there that.

To further illustrate how bad of a referee he is, the defensive prayer is guilty of targeting if he'd have blown him up with his shoulder to the head or neck area on a defenseless player. On a non defenseless player, If he launches and leads with the crown of his helmet to the head or neck area, it's targeting.

lagoag said:

---

That non targeting call was the biggest piece of crap I've ever seen. Don't tell me the networks aren't for tu to win.

---

IIRC the "rules expert" said it was targeting before the official review was announced.