2024-25 College Football Playoff TV Schedule

[HyattsCuse]

Are you not entertained?

STOP telling me what to think!

Would you like to weigh in on this article?

Scott Van Pelt Laments Controversial Non-Targeting Call Late in Peach Bowl

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Again. Why can they make calls like that which change a game and not explain what it was they made the decision on.

It was clearly H2H. The announcers saw it. The replay guy tv uses thought it was clear and obvious.

if it's not a penalty then state the reason being used.

Most every ref site out there I can find says it was targeting. Guys like Terry McAuley as well.

This isnt an example of not seeing it in real time, they reviewed it.

I do not think it was targeting. I was actual upset they even looked at it in the first place.

This ref seemed to side with the call on the field on the replays, even though the video showed otherwise. So the non targeting call was consistent with that.

The call isn't black and white. Any call is an interpretation of a written rule.

H2H alone is not targeting.

This is football. It would be a complete farce to penalize a team for making a tackle. Go to fair catches on any pass where a defender is not in man coverage. No chance at YAC.

The only SME was the actual ref who made the decision. Sorry but a guy like McAuley has never had to make the call one way or the other on the field. So why does the ref have to justify his call but these talking heads can just say it is obvious targeting with no explanation at all? Shouldn't the onus be on the talking heads?

 

[upperdeck]

I do not think it was targeting. I was actual upset they even looked at it in the first place.

This ref seemed to side with the call on the field on the replays, even though the video showed otherwise. So the non targeting call was consistent with that.

The call isn't black and white. Any call is an interpretation of a written rule.

H2H alone is not targeting.

This is football. It would be a complete farce to penalize a team for making a tackle. Go to fair catches on any pass where a defender is not in man coverage. No chance at YAC.

The only SME was the actual ref who made the decision. Sorry but a guy like McAuley has never had to make the call one way or the other on the field. So why does the ref have to justify his call but these talking heads can just say it is obvious targeting with no explanation at all? Shouldn't the onus be on the talking heads?

h2h on a WR making a catch is targeting. Thats why every replay ref agreed with the targeting call.

once he becomes a runner different story.

he knocked the kid out with the contact to the head.

he wasnt making a tackle. He was trying to cause him to not make the catch.

 

[orangefog]

STOP telling me what to think!

Would you like to weigh in on this article?

Scott Van Pelt Laments Controversial Non-Targeting Call Late in Peach Bowl

What do you think?

 

[HRE Otto IV]

h2h on a WR making a catch is targeting. Thats why every replay ref agreed with the targeting call.

once he becomes a runner different story.

he knocked the kid out with the contact to the head.

he wasnt making a tackle. He was trying to cause him to not make the catch.

Everything you wrote is completely wrong.

 

[HyattsCuse]

What do you think?

Haha, just kidding around. I saw the SVP article and thought of your posts from last night.

I do not think it was targeting. I was actual upset they even looked at it in the first place.

This ref seemed to side with the call on the field on the replays, even though the video showed otherwise. So the non targeting call was consistent with that.

The call isn't black and white. Any call is an interpretation of a written rule.

H2H alone is not targeting.

This is football. It would be a complete farce to penalize a team for making a tackle. Go to fair catches on any pass where a defender is not in man coverage. No chance at YAC.

The only SME was the actual ref who made the decision. Sorry but a guy like McAuley has never had to make the call one way or the other on the field. So why does the ref have to justify his call but these talking heads can just say it is obvious targeting with no explanation at all? Shouldn't the onus be on the talking heads?

I 100% thought it was targeting in real time. It's been called that way all year. That's why the ref needs to justify the call. It wasn't just H2H. 1) It was clearly a defenseless receiver and 2) the Texas guy went too high with his tackle causing his head/crown to make solid helmet to helmet contact. It's not like his helmet glanced off the ASU receivers helmet, it was dead on and the first contact that was made with the receiver was the helmet to helmet. The only way that happens is if the Texas guy lowers his head which is indisputable on the replay.

I empathize with the "this is football" opinion. As a spectator, it was a lot of fun to watch Donovan Darius and Ronnie Lott blow people up across the middle. But rules focused on safety have been put into place and the onus has been on the defensive player all year to adjust to them to avoid this exact contact. If they don't, it's a targeting penalty in every game I've watched this year.

It's hard not to think the refs were thinking about the aftermath as it would have resulted in ASU at least getting a shot at a game winning field goal in regulation. No doubt the refs knew the magnitude of the call and swallowed their whistles.

 

[W'boro'Cuse315]

Another layer to this targeting no-call is the fact that ASU starting safety Shamari Simmons was ejected from the Big 12 title game for targeting & had to sit out the 1st half vs Texas. TX picked on his replacement for multiple big plays, including their 1st TD. Simmons entered the game in the 2nd half & caused the fumble that got ASU a safety. He finished with 2 TFLs & a PD.

Can anyone explain to me the difference between this play & the TX hit? Defenseless player & forceable contact to the head/neck area.

 

[W'boro'Cuse315]

Listen to the difference in reaction from the ESPN announcers between the ASU targeting & the TX no-call.

 

[W'boro'Cuse315]

 

[W'boro'Cuse315]

 

[HyattsCuse]

1. He took 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.

This is the only part I will disagree on. To me, "aiming" implies intent. You won't convince me that either one of the Texas or ASU (in the Big 12 CG) players purposefully "attacked" to make a tackle "beyond a legal tackle". I also don't think either player "launched" himself to make the tackle.

However, any time parts 2 and 3 have taken place this year, it has been called targeting. If someone has another replay of this level of helmet to helmet collision on a defenseless player that WASN'T called targeting, I'd love to see it.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Haha, just kidding around. I saw the SVP article and thought of your posts from last night.



I 100% thought it was targeting in real time. It's been called that way all year. That's why the ref needs to justify the call. It wasn't just H2H. 1) It was clearly a defenseless receiver and 2) the Texas guy went too high with his tackle causing his head/crown to make solid helmet to helmet contact. It's not like his helmet glanced off the ASU receivers helmet, it was dead on and the first contact that was made with the receiver was the helmet to helmet. The only way that happens is if the Texas guy lowers his head which is indisputable on the replay.

I empathize with the "this is football" opinion. As a spectator, it was a lot of fun to watch Donovan Darius and Ronnie Lott blow people up across the middle. But rules focused on safety have been put into place and the onus has been on the defensive player all year to adjust to them to avoid this exact contact. If they don't, it's a targeting penalty in every game I've watched this year.

It's hard not to think the refs were thinking about the aftermath as it would have resulted in ASU at least getting a shot at a game winning field goal in regulation. No doubt the refs knew the magnitude of the call and swallowed their whistles.

What constitutes a "defenseless" WR? IMO that play does not apply. Had there been no contact to the head and the ball was let go, would it have been an incomplete or a fumble? He completed the catch. He made a FB move. In fact that move is what caused the H2H contact.

So your point #1 is open to interpretation. Just getting hit hard before you expect it does not constitute being defenseless. Again if that is defenseless, we need to go to fair catches on plays over the middle.

It was a bang bang play. The defender was in the process of breaking down to tackle. Given the spacing and the speed of the play, what exactly is the guy supposed to do differently there? And how exactly does one tackle while moving forward while at the same time having your head behind the initial contact. It is not physically possible. What the defender did was text book, you cannot penalize a player for making a text book play. If you do, just get rid of tackling all together.

The defender did not lead with the crown. The defender did not look to make contact above the shoulders. The defender did not launch himself up high. So if the only issue is H2H, how is it targeting? None of the other criteria required applied.

What is the purpose of the targeting penalty? Is it not to protect players from reckless play? Nothing about the defenders actions was reckless IMO.

 

[SuFTW]

Wow, it's not rage. Relax. I don't care who delivers me scores. I've never cared who delivers me scores. Their job is to deliver me scores, not entertain me. I don't care about their opinion. Do you care what Scott Van Pelt or anyone else thinks about sports scores? If you do, then this is for you. If you don't, it's a waste of time. There is no rage here. I find scores a million other ways. But, I do miss tuning in and knowing exactly when to expect the scores I want, because the American League were all together, then the National League, the NBA was all together...now it's an hour long editorial of them TELLING ME WHAT TO THINK.

Does somebody need a Snickers bar?

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Another layer to this targeting no-call is the fact that ASU starting safety Shamari Simmons was ejected from the Big 12 title game for targeting & had to sit out the 1st half vs Texas. TX picked on his replacement for multiple big plays, including their 1st TD. Simmons entered the game in the 2nd half & caused the fumble that got ASU a safety. He finished with 2 TFLs & a PD.

Can anyone explain to me the difference between this play & the TX hit? Defenseless player & forceable contact to the head/neck area.

It wasn't a bang bang play. He had time to adjust his technique. He launched himself up high. Neither of those happened in regards to the Texas play.

 

[HyattsCuse]

What constitutes a "defenseless" WR? IMO that play does not apply. Had there been no contact to the head and the ball was let go, would it have been an incomplete or a fumble? He completed the catch. He made a FB move. In fact that move is what caused the H2H contact.

So your point #1 is open to interpretation. Just getting hit hard before you expect it does not constitute being defenseless. Again if that is defenseless, we need to go to fair catches on plays over the middle.

It was a bang bang play. The defender was in the process of breaking down to tackle. Given the spacing and the speed of the play, what exactly is the guy supposed to do differently there? And how exactly does one tackle while moving forward while at the same time having your head behind the initial contact. It is not physically possible. What the defender did was text book, you cannot penalize a player for making a text book play. If you do, just get rid of tackling all together.

The defender did not lead with the crown. The defender did not look to make contact above the shoulders. The defender did not launch himself up high. So if the only issue is H2H, how is it targeting? None of the other criteria required applied.

What is the purpose of the targeting penalty? Is it not to protect players from reckless play? Nothing about the defenders actions was reckless IMO.

Just watched the replay again. Whether or not he completed the catch would be open to interpretation. Personally, I think they would have called an incomplete pass if he lost the ball.

However, again, there has been precedent all year to call that targeting. Agree or disagree, that "bang bang" situation has always favored the offensive player and it's up to the defense to adjust to that ruling.

I have not seen another time in college ("targeting") OR the NFL (unnecessary roughness) where that level of helmet to helmet contact was NOT called a penalty.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

1. Is false.
2. Is false.
3. Is questionable.

 

[orangefog]

Does somebody need a Snickers bar?

DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO EAT!!!!

 

[HyattsCuse]

1. Is false.
2. Is false.
3. Is questionable

You seem like a reasonable dude. As I wrote previously, I agree on 1. However, how in the world is this not leading with your head? He is looking down and the helmet to helmet the first contact made.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Just watched the replay again. Whether or not he completed the catch would be open to interpretation. Personally, I think they would have called an incomplete pass if he lost the ball.

However, again, there has been precedent all year to call that targeting. Agree or disagree, that "bang bang" situation has always favored the offensive player and it's up to the defense to adjust to that ruling.

I have not seen another time in college ("targeting") OR the NFL (unnecessary roughness) where that level of helmet to helmet contact was NOT called a penalty.

We had Sharder's hit to the head vs Clemson which was way worse than this.

Unfortunately too many people have been conditioned to hit to the head = targeting. And like you said too many non targeting calls have been ruled as targeting. It is a shame. But at the same time it is impossible to be consistent on this when interpretation is involved.

End of the day this is open to interpretation. There was nothing egregious about that call. So there is no reason for people to be up in arms about it.

IMO that ref giving first downs on those replayed spots after seeing the video was way worse.

 

[kirbivore]

That targeting non call sure was something special

Sankey / ESPN made a phone call on that one.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

You seem like a reasonable dude. As I wrote previously, I agree on 1. However, how in the world is this not leading with your head? He is looking down and the helmet to helmet the first contact made.

View attachment 248330

That isn't leading with the head. Yes the head made contact but he isn't using the helmet to attack the player. Which is what leading with the head means.

Again back text book tackling and physics. Leading with the head means using the crown to make the tackle not having your head in front with incidental helmet contact. You cannot tackle a player without making a motion where your head is slightly down. If that is a foul then you need to remove tackling all together.

There was nothing reckless about the defenders actions. Heads accidentally colliding shouldn't been outlawed.

 

[HyattsCuse]

That isn't leading with the head. Yes the head made contact but he isn't using the helmet to attack the player. Which is what leading with the head means.

Again back text book tackling and physics. Leading with the head means using the crown to make the tackle not having your head in front with incidental helmet contact. You cannot tackle a player without making a motion where your head is slightly down. If that is a foul then you need to remove tackling all together.

There was nothing reckless about the defenders actions. Heads accidentally colliding shouldn't been outlawed.

Watch the slow mo. For the first half second his helmet is the only part of his body he used to tackle. You can see the ASU player was already knocked back just by the helmet to helmet before the rest of the collision. That is not text book tackling. It's leading with the head. His form may look pretty good, but he took a bad angle and got incredibly lucky with the no call.

Anyway, going to have to agree to disagree. Good chat.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Technically for targeting you need to target the head or neck area. So by rule most of these calls should not be targeting given that the defender was not targeting the head or neck and the contact was incidental. The rule has been abused.

We should be upset that the refs have not been following the rule as written. Incidental contact isn't supposed to be called. It needs to be contact outside of a normal tackle.

So what exactly did the Texas player do outside of a normal play?

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Watch the slow mo. For the first half second his helmet is the only part of his body he used to tackle. You can see the ASU player was already knocked back just by the helmet to helmet before the rest of the collision. That is not text book tackling. It's leading with the head. His form may look pretty good, but he took a bad angle and got incredibly lucky with the no call.

Anyway, going to have to agree to disagree. Good chat.

We will have to agree to disagree.

Look at his body motion. He was going in to wrap up the player. Is that not textbook?

He wasn't trying to launch into the guy. Agree? He wasn't trying to hit him in the head or neck. Agree? He wasn't attacking with the crown of his helmet. Agree? He wasn't trying to go beyond a normal tackle. Agree? He wasn't aiming/targeting above the shoulders. Agree?

Those are the possibilities for targeting. IMO not a single one of those was met.

 

[richmondcuse03]

That isn't leading with the head. Yes the head made contact but he isn't using the helmet to attack the player. Which is what leading with the head means.

Again back text book tackling and physics. Leading with the head means using the crown to make the tackle not having your head in front with incidental helmet contact. You cannot tackle a player without making a motion where your head is slightly down. If that is a foul then you need to remove tackling all together.

There was nothing reckless about the defenders actions. Heads accidentally colliding shouldn't been outlawed.

I totally get your rationale and I think this is what the actual rule is designed for and how it's worded.

My issue is that they're inconsistent in how they apply it. I've seen this same type of hit called targeting too. They need to make it crystal clear to folks what is / isn't and enforce it consistently.