Demarvion Overshown makes plays

[TOR 5374]

Demarvion Overshown is killing it in the Name Game.

[MonkeyDoughnut 10145]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

The actual refs on the field didn't throw a flag. So, you're wrong. 

The problem is that a bunch of people, including apparently replay officials, don't understand how the rule works. They think that because one of the indications of targeting exists that defacto that means there was targeting. But that isn't the rule. You can actually have an indication of targeting against a defenseless player and still not have a targeting penalty if it is clear that there was no intention "of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball." While there is a presumption of targeting built into the rules ("When in question, it is a foul"), that can be overcome. 

That's just completely wrong. Intent has nothing to do with targeting, they've made that clear over and over. Any indication of targeting against a defenseless player is by rule targeting period. As the officials like to quote - "the results of targeting don't care if there was intent or not".

Edited September 20, 2022 by MonkeyDoughnut

[dcar00 14036]

1 hour ago, BurntOrange&White said:

No they wouldn't.....if that was the case then why the fuck didn't the official on the field call the penalty? Another dumbass take from you.

because now that targeting is reviewable when a penalty is not called, they can just wait and say if booth doesn't call it then it isn't targeting.

It was helmet to helmet and the QB is in the pocket.  just because the facemask is part of the helmet by rule.  forcible is in the eye of the beholder.  we have a rule because we must save people from literally dying. no helmets must strike each other(except for RB's and OL/DL which happens 70 times a game) or people will die.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Horn Dog said:

Literally the only thing Overshown could of down to avoid that facemask contact was behead himself right before the play.  Fucking ridiculous.

*have done

[BurntOrange&White 39665]

4 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

because now that targeting is reviewable when a penalty is not called, they can just wait and say if booth doesn't call it then it isn't targeting.

It was helmet to helmet and the QB is in the pocket.  just because the facemask is part of the helmet by rule.  forcible is in the eye of the beholder.  we have a rule because we must save people from literally dying. no helmets must strike each other(except for RB's and OL/DL which happens 70 times a game) or people will die.

it wasn't forcible contact, so therefore not a penalty.

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

The actual refs on the field didn't throw a flag. So, you're wrong. 

The problem is that a bunch of people, including apparently replay officials, don't understand how the rule works. They think that because one of the indications of targeting exists that defacto that means there was targeting. But that isn't the rule. You can actually have an indication of targeting against a defenseless player and still not have a targeting penalty if it is clear that there was no intention "of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball." While there is a presumption of targeting built into the rules ("When in question, it is a foul"), that can be overcome. 

He may be wrong, but this winter he’ll be donning hoodies from Ross and Yankees beanies. So he’s doubly wrong and should be roundly ridiculed and probably flogged. 

[dcar00 14036]

7 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

it wasn't forcible contact, so therefore not a penalty.

 

are you the arbiter of "forcible"?  no. the Big 12 replay guys are. I mean the UTSA QB could die from hits like that.  Its been shown(no pun).

[BurntOrange&White 39665]

1 minute ago, dcar00 said:

are you the arbiter of "forcible"?  no. the Big 12 replay guys are. I mean the UTSA QB could die from hits like that.  Its been shown(no pun).

Look at the body language in the replay of the game after he left the booth, he was disgusted b y the booths opinion too. The fools in the booth aren't right here and you're fucking retarded for thinking they are. He didn't die from it so stfu with you're stupid ass fucking argument.

Edited September 20, 2022 by BurntOrange&White

[Zeus 5950]

Not targeting

This same sack happens every game nobody bats an eye

[dcar00 14036]

3 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Look at the body language in the replay of the game after he left the booth, he was disgusted b y the booths opinion too. The fools in the booth aren't right here and you're fucking retarded for thinking they are. He didn't die from it so stfu with you're stupid ass fucking argument.

people will die.  didn't you see the movie which proved it?

Edited September 20, 2022 by dcar00

[Nivek 16861]

59 minutes ago, pacman said:

That defenseless rule for targeting sure fits the hit on Ewers by Alabama. Believe all we got was a personal foul.

 

There is a clause that Texas QBs are never considered defenseless.   

[Zeus 5950]

2 hours ago, ztejas said:

Rule rewriting? As written - that wasn't targeting. Maybe it leads to a ref rehiring. 

Well it somewhat is leading to a team reconferencing

[MonkeyDoughnut 10145]

1 hour ago, pacman said:

That defenseless rule for targeting sure fits the hit on Ewers by Alabama. Believe all we got was a personal foul.

 

It wasn't targeting though... that's the big issue with targeting vs unnecessary roughness, the penalties don't line up even remotely.  If they would have given Overshown only an unnecessary roughness penalty it still would have been wrong in my view due to how he was just making a face to face (not side/behind hit) wrap up tackle even turning so he hits the ground and QB lands on top of him, but at least he wouldn't have been ejected from that game and potentially 1st half of next game.  They have to introduce some level of judgement into the type of targeting with better levels or penalty. Crown of helmet - yeah your gone, incidental - penalty/possible ejection depending on degree.

[Fastbreak 3959]

Is there news about the ref apology yet? He’s playing from snap 1, correct?

[Js1 85113]

9 minutes ago, Fastbreak said:

Is there news about the ref apology yet? He’s playing from snap 1, correct?

The conference has their top men reviewing it. They’re working in shifts 

[Pam Cummings 9582]

12 minutes ago, Fastbreak said:

Is there news about the ref apology yet? He’s playing from snap 1, correct?

Lmao at thinking a group of big 12 refs will ever admit they made a mistake. Get ready to be without 0 for a half, because ref egos are more important than a kid getting to play in a game that he trains year-round for.

[52-80 19096]

Targeting Penalties in a nutjail:

 

[ztejas 43266]

1 hour ago, Pam Cummings said:

Lmao at thinking a group of big 12 refs will ever admit they made a mistake. Get ready to be without 0 for a half, because ref egos are more important than a kid getting to play in a game that he trains year-round for.

UTSA was not a B12 crew. 

[SuckitKevin 915]

9 minutes ago, ztejas said:

UTSA was not a B12 crew. 

Are you sure? I thought Derek Anderson was a Big 12 ref but I could be wrong.

[BurntOrange&White 39665]

11 minutes ago, ztejas said:

UTSA was not a B12 crew. 

The replay officials were

[stork642 4498]

16 hours ago, Slacks said:

face mask to face mask on a QB is going to get a targeting.

Pretend that's Quinn against not Overshown. You'd call it.

I hate it, but it's rule.

 

 

These targeting rules are getting out of control.  In ten years this is what football will look like.

 

and this will be called as targeting.  

Edited September 20, 2022 by stork642

[Pam Cummings 9582]

23 minutes ago, ztejas said:

UTSA was not a B12 crew. 

The fate is still in the hands of the b12 though, so my hope levels are still extremely low.

[ztejas 43266]

18 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

The replay officials were

Ah. I see.

6 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

The fate is still in the hands of the b12 though, so my hope levels are still extremely low.

You're sure as shit right about that. 

[Hammerin Hank 1224]

I heard on the radio yesterday that the Big 12 forwards the appeal to the NCAA to make the decision so maybe we won’t get screwed 

[Deej 76568]

That is correct, but we will still be screwed.

"Did we not submit that? I thought we submitted that?"

[WinningIsHard 4017]

13 hours ago, dcar00 said:

people will die.  didn't you see the movie which proved it?

I can’t tell if this is hyperbole or not based on the fact that you hate every coach we have in most sports and almost all the coaches we’ve ever had lol. Having a hard on for something this odd wouldn’t be that big of a stretch. If you’re trolling, we’ll played. 

[Pato del Muerto 52342]

16 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Screenshot just in case it gets deleted but sheeesh,

 

I like how it looks like the app has a button to accept the apology. 

[NoRagrets 1125]

I think the Big12 replay crew buzzed the field refs to stop play because they wanted to review it. You could tell the field refs thought it was bullshit. The main ref was nodding “no” while watching the replay on the headphones with the horrible big12 replay ass face. 

[Dahobbs 17449]

14 hours ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

That's just completely wrong. Intent has nothing to do with targeting, they've made that clear over and over. Any indication of targeting against a defenseless player is by rule targeting period. As the officials like to quote - "the results of targeting don't care if there was intent or not".

I disagree. Maybe intent is the wrong word, but a mental element is built into the rules. 

There are two different ways targeting can occur:

-------------------------------

1) Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3)

Elements: 

a. forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of their helmet; and

b. at least one indicator of targeting, which is where 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;

2) Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player (rule 9-1-4)

Elements:

a. forcible contact to the head or neck area of opponent

b. opponent is defenseless; and

c. at least one indicator of targeting, which is where 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

-------------------------------

Under either 1(b) or 2(c), targeting, by rule, is when a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or legal block or playing the ball. That implicates some form of intent (i.e., a purpose). The examples in the rule book are supposed to be situations where there is an indication a a player takes aim for purposes beyond making a legal play. Where officials get this wrong is that they believe any contact qualifies, when in fact, for instance, if it is clear that the contact to the head only occurred because of last second actions by the offensive player (e.g., ducking), then it shouldn't be targeting on the defender since it is clear the defender didn't have the purpose of making forcible contact beyond making a legal tackle. 

The reason intent often seems not to matter is that the rule also says that when in doubt, it is a foul (or, in other words, err on the side of calling a foul). But, if any element is clearly missing, then there is no foul. 

Btw, the emphasis on taking "aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking..." is also repeated in the NCAA Case Book (https://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/FBC22.pdf). 

Quote

Targeting is to take aim at an opponent for the purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. For a targeting foul to be enforced and a player disqualified, all elements of targeting must be confirmed by the replay official.

 

Edited September 20, 2022 by Dahobbs

[Dahobbs 17449]

Also, holy shit, this exact fucking play is covered in the Casebook at page 73-74:

Quote

 

165. Targeting and Making Forcible Contact in the Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player

Quarterback A7 drops back to pass. Blitzing linebacker B52 is unblocked [Overshown]. B52, with his head up, runs through A7, wrapping him up and making forcible contact with the facemask to the head of A7. B52's actions do not include an indicator of targeting. The referee throws a flag and (a) announces a foul for targeting a defenseless player; or (b) announces a foul for roughing the passer. RULING: (a) The play is reviewed for all aspects of the targeting ruling: whether there was an indicator of targeting, whether A7 was defenseless, and whether forcible contact was made above the shoulders. Overturn the ruling of targeting and B52 is not disqualified. (b) The replay official confirms the ruling on the field of no targeting. The roughing the passer foul is enforced.

 

Seriously, by the fucking book, this was not targeting!

Edited September 20, 2022 by Dahobbs

[BurntOrange&White 39665]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Also, holy shit, this exact fucking play is covered in the Casebook at page 73-74:

Seriously, by the fucking book, this was not targeting!

So it should have been roughing the passer, not targeting

[Dahobbs 17449]

Just now, BurntOrange&White said:

So it should have been roughing the passer, not targeting

No, what that is saying is that if the official on the field called roughing the passer, roughing the passer has to stand (because it isn't reviewable). 

[BurntOrange&White 39665]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

No, what that is saying is that if the official on the field called roughing the passer, roughing the passer has to stand (because it isn't reviewable). 

Gotcha. Since on field official didn’t call anything but replay bc Allen targeting and by that rule it wasn’t targeting there should be no foul or ejection?

Edited September 20, 2022 by BurntOrange&White

[BB65 476]

4 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

So it should have been roughing the passer, not targeting

Can it be roughing the passer when the passer hasn't pass the ball?

[Loop 1604 227]

4 minutes ago, BB65 said:

Can it be roughing the passer when the passer hasn't pass the ball?

That depends, is Texas on defense? 
 

If so, anything can be called at any time.

[Dahobbs 17449]

6 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Gotcha. Since on field official didn’t call anything but replay bc Allen targeting and by that rule it wasn’t targeting there should be no foul or ejection?

It should get overturned so that Overshown can play the full game on Saturday. Texas should send in the video and that exact section of the casebook. 

[Huckleberry 32704]

22 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Also, holy shit, this exact fucking play is covered in the Casebook at page 73-74:

Seriously, by the fucking book, this was not targeting!

Great find. The Big 12 replay officials completely fucked us either intentionally or because they haven't read the rules. This is absurd. Honestly this finds needs to be published by Longhorn media immediately before the official ruling. THE RULE BOOK LITERALLY FUCKING SAYS THIS WAS NOT TARGETING. 

[Rip76 4914]

2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Great find. The Big 12 replay officials completely fucked us either intentionally or because they haven't read the rules. This is absurd. Honestly this finds needs to be published by Longhorn media immediately before the official ruling. THE RULE BOOK LITERALLY FUCKING SAYS THIS WAS NOT TARGETING. 

It’s intentional 

[Scholz 11934]

Just now, Rip76 said:

It’s intentional 

Has been for over a decade.  Fuck the Big XII.

[Dahobbs 17449]

3 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Great find. The Big 12 replay officials completely fucked us either intentionally or because they haven't read the rules. This is absurd. Honestly this finds needs to be published by Longhorn media immediately before the official ruling. THE RULE BOOK LITERALLY FUCKING SAYS THIS WAS NOT TARGETING. 

Since I actually know nothing about Longhorn media, who should I send it to? 

[Js1 85113]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

Since I actually know nothing about Longhorn media, who should I send it to? 

Derka 

[Cairn Horn88 8186]

4 hours ago, Fastbreak said:

Is there news about the ref apology yet? He’s playing from snap 1, correct?

Hope so.

Edited September 20, 2022 by Cairn Horn88

[Guest]

14 hours ago, dcar00 said:

people will die.  didn't you see the movie which proved it?

[bullet 1596]

3 hours ago, Pam Cummings said:

Lmao at thinking a group of big 12 refs will ever admit they made a mistake. Get ready to be without 0 for a half, because ref egos are more important than a kid getting to play in a game that he trains year-round for.

My understanding is that it was CUSA refs.  If so, there's a much better chance of it being overturned.

[justhookit 4182]

58 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Also, holy shit, this exact fucking play is covered in the Casebook at page 73-74:

Seriously, by the fucking book, this was not targeting!

Wish I could rep you more. If they don’t overturn the targeting call then it’s a deliberate fucking. The asshats tweeting about Overshown;s arrest yesterday damn well better tweet today about that section of the rule book.

[bullet 1596]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

I disagree. Maybe intent is the wrong word, but a mental element is built into the rules. 

There are two different ways targeting can occur:

-------------------------------

1) Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3)

Elements: 

a. forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of their helmet; and

b. at least one indicator of targeting, which is where 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;

2) Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player (rule 9-1-4)

Elements:

a. forcible contact to the head or neck area of opponent

b. opponent is defenseless; and

c. at least one indicator of targeting, which is where 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

-------------------------------

Under either 1(b) or 2(c), targeting, by rule, is when a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or legal block or playing the ball. That implicates some form of intent (i.e., a purpose). The examples in the rule book are supposed to be situations where there is an indication a a player takes aim for purposes beyond making a legal play. Where officials get this wrong is that they believe any contact qualifies, when in fact, for instance, if it is clear that the contact to the head only occurred because of last second actions by the offensive player (e.g., ducking), then it shouldn't be targeting on the defender since it is clear the defender didn't have the purpose of making forcible contact beyond making a legal tackle. 

The reason intent often seems not to matter is that the rule also says that when in doubt, it is a foul (or, in other words, err on the side of calling a foul). But, if any element is clearly missing, then there is no foul. 

Btw, the emphasis on taking "aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking..." is also repeated in the NCAA Case Book (https://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/FBC22.pdf). 

 

bullshit.

Intent has nothing to do with it.  If a tackler is aiming for the shoulder and the runner lowers his head just before the tackle and there is forceable 100% unintentional helmet to helmet contact, it is still targeting.  They are trying to change the way defenders tackle.  And Overshown did a classic perfect tackle.  It was not targeting.

[dcar00 14036]

5 minutes ago, bullet said:

My understanding is that it was CUSA refs.  If so, there's a much better chance of it being overturned.

we're Big 12 refs in the booth?

[Davis Lane 5553]

16 minutes ago, Porterhouse said:

[justhookit 4182]

2 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

we're Big 12 refs in the booth?

After reading what @Dahobbsfound in the rule book, do you want to retract all your posts over the last 2 days about the hit?

[Pam Cummings 9582]

Mother fuckers, read the whole thread before posting shit that's already been discussed and figured out.