Demarvion Overshown makes plays

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

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

Or don’t, and irritate Pam Cummings. I’m fine either way. 

[TOR 5,837]

Pam Dawber had it going on.

[Dahobbs 17,808]

32 minutes ago, bullet said:

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.

That isn't what the rule says. It says targeting 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. Stop trying to write out that section of the rule. 

Let me be clear here, the contact to the head doesn't have to be intentional. But the there does have to be an intention of "aiming" at the opponent for "purposes of attacking forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle".  If the defender lowers a shoulder to deliver an extremely hard hit vs just wrapping up, and then there is contact to the head, yes, that'll be targeting. If the defender makes a normal attempt to wrap up and the offensive player ducks his head resulting in contact to the head, that isn't targeting. 

[JesusSweatDuck 17,814]

Targeting the mustard 

 

 

[Dahobbs 17,808]

44 minutes ago, bullet said:

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.

Also, your post isn't logical consistent. There was unintentional helmet to helmet contact by Overshown. Under your reasoning, that should be targeting. It isn't of course. But the only way you avoid that is by actually looking at the other elements of targeting. The QB wasn't defenseless, and Overshown was not "aiming for the purposes of attacking with forcible contact beyond making a legal tackle." If Overshown had launched himself or if he had lowered his head those would have been indications that he was "aiming for the purposes of attacking with forcible contact beyond making a legal tackle" and rightfully resulted in a targeting call. 

[dcar00 14,606]

1 hour ago, justhookit said:

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

he's defenseless.  helmets hit.  we must save people's lives.  I'm not sure what you don't understand.

[Huckleberry 33,545]

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

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

Send it to the Texas staff to include in the appeal. 

[Billy Pilgrim 1,991]

Is this a bit? How’s this different than a linebacker standing a running back up in the hole on the goal line or 4th and inches? If that QB is considered defenseless than the RB would be equally defenseless. 

[Dbeasy 15,230]

FYI I vaguely recall the refs during the game say that the QB was defenseless, which of course is ridiculous. 

[89Horn 1,621]

1 hour ago, TOR said:

Pam Dawber had it going on.

Fuck yeah. Nanu nanu.

[Dahobbs 17,808]

18 minutes ago, Billy Pilgrim said:

Is this a bit? How’s this different than a linebacker standing a running back up in the hole on the goal line or 4th and inches? If that QB is considered defenseless than the RB would be equally defenseless. 

 

16 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

FYI I vaguely recall the refs during the game say that the QB was defenseless, which of course is ridiculous. 

Even if he was defenseless, there was still no indication that Overshown was "aiming for the purposes of attacking with forcible contact beyond making a legal tackle."

[MontereyMX 887]

1 hour ago, Porterhouse said:

Or don’t, and irritate Pam Cummings. I’m fine either way. 

yeah that bitch can suck a thousand dicks in front of her mom! 

[Tex Pete 20,957]

32 minutes ago, Billy Pilgrim said:

Is this a bit? How’s this different than a linebacker standing a running back up in the hole on the goal line or 4th and inches? If that QB is considered defenseless than the RB would be equally defenseless. 

All I can say is that back in my day, we enjoyed hitting other players in the earhole. And I gave props to people who managed to do it to me.

[Hornlover 8,849]

3 minutes ago, Tex Pete said:

All I can say is that back in my day, we enjoyed hitting other players in the earhole. And I gave props to people who managed to do it to me.

I can safely assume that @dcar00 was targeted in the earhole a few hundred times. It's the only explanation.

[Fico 1,791]

1

Edited September 20, 2022 by Fico
Idiot 1

[LTtxfan 49,405]

4 minutes ago, Fico said:

 <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/t5jZQZ1GY7Q" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Fico 1,791]

 

[Cairn Horn88 8,434]

"Hello darkness, my old friend / I've come to talk with you again."

[Paco 1,934]

we're Big 12 refs in the booth?

No, we are not.

[4th and 5 4,926]

4 hours 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). 

 

 

 

Do you even culpable mental state, bro?

 

Yes, yes you do.

[Lhorn 5,025]

1 hour ago, Hornlover said:

I can safely assume that @dcar00 was targeted in the earhole a few hundred times. It's the only explanation.

JV track was a different sport back then. 

[Zeus 6,472]

5 hours 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. 

The school should do it on it's own, the Longhorn media is full of dumbasses and snakes. 

[NorthLoop 14,302]

Do we know anything about the appeal? You'd think they'd give us enough time to gameplan our D, but then again it's the BigXIIFuckTexas 

[ousux 5,620]

Do we know anything about the appeal? You'd think they'd give us enough time to gameplan our D, but then again it's the BigXIIFuckTexas 

If the coaches didn't plan for him to miss the first half they're dumbasses

And yeah, they'd have better luck getting a tree to admit a fuckup, Big12 tossed the appeal same day it came in

[JBJ 3,684]

The Big12 will announce Friday evening that they reviewed it internally and didn't feel the need to appeal.

[NorthLoop 14,302]

25 minutes ago, JBJ said:

The Big12 will announce Saturday morning that they reviewed it internally and didn't feel the need to appeal.

fify

[Shaggy3.0 1,695]

21 hours ago, Fico said:

 

 

I miss Patrice.  Old-school, no bs mentality.  He's still the man.  RIP big dog.

[TexLonghorn 5,732]

I'm expecting that the Big12 will announce at halftime in our game on Saturday that the appeal was successful and that Overshown would have been eligible for the first half if we had played him.

[MirrOlure 14,947]

1 hour ago, NorthLoop said:

Do we know anything about the appeal? You'd think they'd give us enough time to gameplan our D, but then again it's the BigXIIFuckTexas 

No shit....HOW FUCKING LONG DOES IT TAKE TO LOOK AT 15 SECONDS OF VIDEO

[bullet 1,605]

23 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Also, your post isn't logical consistent. There was unintentional helmet to helmet contact by Overshown. Under your reasoning, that should be targeting. It isn't of course. But the only way you avoid that is by actually looking at the other elements of targeting. The QB wasn't defenseless, and Overshown was not "aiming for the purposes of attacking with forcible contact beyond making a legal tackle." If Overshown had launched himself or if he had lowered his head those would have been indications that he was "aiming for the purposes of attacking with forcible contact beyond making a legal tackle" and rightfully resulted in a targeting call. 

It was facemask to facemask, not the crown or side that they are trying to avoid.  

I don't know why you have such trouble with the word "intentional."  Perhaps English is not your primary language.  Or you're just being argumentative for the sake of it.  Yes, targeting requires that you intend to tackle someone, but it doesn't require any intent to hit them in the head or with your head.

[bullet 1,605]

On 9/19/2022 at 8:09 PM, Born to Run said:

If that shit was targeting they need to change the rules. Either better define targeting and make it more focused on deliberate helmet to helmet, or make it where just touching the qb behind the line of scrimmage is considered a tackle.

Currently defensive players have two choices: risk getting ejected when trying to tackle a qb behind the line of scrimmage no matter how careful, and going in so soft the qb sheds a weak tackle and smokes the defense.

I don't think anyone really understands the rule anymore.  They keep tweaking it.  But they need to clarify it.

[Davis Lane 5,766]

23 hours ago, TOR said:

Pam Dawber had it going on.

I had a thing for Erin Gray.

[40acredropout 2,908]

How are appeal decisions typically announced?  By league or school?  If latter, I could see scenario where we already know and Sark isn't saying either way out of gamesmanship.  It's ridiculous if we really don't have an answer yet.

[JBJ 3,684]

1 minute ago, 40acredropout said:

How are appeal decisions typically announced?  By league or school?  If latter, I could see scenario where we already know and Sark isn't saying either way out of gamesmanship.  It's ridiculous if we really don't have an answer yet.

To be clear, the NCAA would be reviewing an appeal by the Big12.  It's not a Texas to Big12 appeal.

If it is treated is any other NCAA review, NCAA publishes on Thursday.  This is also new and different.

We might already know.

[JBJ 3,684]

Its been posted several times in the past, but because people are still confused:

There two types of targeting:

1) What used to be spearing, which is striking with the crown of the helmet (6 inch circle around the very top).  Doesn't matter who what or where, this is always a penalty.

2) Striking with forceable contact a defenseless player in the head or neck area.

a) Defenseless players are: (1) passers during/after a throw or in a throwing stance, (2) receivers in the act or shortly after a catch, (3) players currently in the grasp of a tackle, (4) kickers and punters during/after whichever act, (5) the player who was lined up in the typical QB position after a change of possession, (6) any person being blocked from the blindside.

b) Forceable contact is contact beyond what is required for a normal tackle (putting a lick on someone) which must be accompanied by an indicator of targeting: launching, upward thrust, forearm shiver, leading with the crown or shoulder, kick or punch.

 

[Codaxx 5,945]

31 minutes ago, bullet said:

I don't think anyone really understands the rule anymore.  They keep tweaking it.  But they need to clarify it.

They need to scrap it. Any rule that punishes the area of contact and not the process of tackling is going to be arbitrary. They have had a rule on the books for 40 years that is went unenforced that is better than targeting, spearing.

[TrashMaster G 17,730]

On 9/20/2022 at 11:02 AM, dcar00 said:

we're Big 12 refs in the booth?

Were not sure.

[JBJ 3,684]

This NCAA reviewed this hit from last week on the Arkansas QB (not an appeal - it was correctly overturned by the booth).

It's forcible helmet-to-helmet contact, but the QB is not defenseless here and the tackle is not leading with the crown.

[Huckleberry 33,545]

1 minute ago, JBJ said:

This NCAA reviewed this hit from last week on the Arkansas QB (not an appeal - it was correctly overturned by the booth).

It's forcible helmet-to-helmet contact, but the QB is not defenseless here and the tackle is not leading with the crown.

Shit, that should be a penalty on Jefferson. 

[JBJ 3,684]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

Shit, that should be a penalty on Jefferson. 

He's stumbling out of another tackle.  He didn't go low on purpose and isn't striking with his helmet here.  The still makes it look that way.

[Js1 85,748]

4 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Shit, that should be a penalty on Jefferson Overshown. 

-NCAA

Suspended 5 games

[Huckleberry 33,545]

2 minutes ago, JBJ said:

He's stumbling out of another tackle.  He didn't go low on purpose and isn't striking with his helmet here.  The still makes it look that way.

Fair enough, still photos can definitely be deceiving. Counterpoint though - he plays for Arkansas. He should have been ejected for life. 

[Horn Dog 10,035]

9 minutes ago, JBJ said:

He's stumbling out of another tackle.  He didn't go low on purpose and isn't striking with his helmet here.  The still makes it look that way.

 

31 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Its been posted several times in the past, but because people are still confused:

There two types of targeting:

1) What used to be spearing, which is striking with the crown of the helmet (6 inch circle around the very top).  Doesn't matter who what or where, this is always a penalty.

 

I know you are right, and that he is not "striking" whatever that means  (although it sure looks like he is from that photo) but I still find these 2 post amusing.

Edited September 21, 2022 by Horn Dog

[Dahobbs 17,808]

1 hour ago, bullet said:

I don't know why you have such trouble with the word "intentional."  Perhaps English is not your primary language.  Or you're just being argumentative for the sake of it.  Yes, targeting requires that you intend to tackle someone, but it doesn't require any intent to hit them in the head or with your head.

I already said in my previous post that the intent doesn't mean intentionally hitting in the head. Here, let me quote it for you:

On 9/20/2022 at 11:37 AM, Dahobbs said:

Let me be clear here, the contact to the head doesn't have to be intentional. But the there does have to be an intention of "aiming" at the opponent for "purposes of attacking forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle".  If the defender lowers a shoulder to deliver an extremely hard hit vs just wrapping up, and then there is contact to the head, yes, that'll be targeting. If the defender makes a normal attempt to wrap up and the offensive player ducks his head resulting in contact to the head, that isn't targeting. 

The rule, as written, includes an element of scienter. 

The intent/scienter element comes from the definition of targeting, which is "where a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes [i.e., with the intent of] of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball."

What the rule requires is that there an "indication" of targeting. That means, there has to be at least some evidence that the player took took "aim at an opponent" with the intention of  "attacking with forcible contact beyond what was required to make a legal tackle or a legal block of playing the ball."

The rule then goes on to list several of examples of the type of evidence (the indications) that would show that intent. However, that listing is non-exclusive, meaning that there are other actions on the field that could demonstrate the requisite intent. In order to identify them, the officials must understand and apply the definition of targeting above. 

Please note the burden of proof here. There doesn't need to be indisputable, or clear evidence, or even significant evidence of intent. There just needs to be some minimal amount of evidence. This is covered by the last part of the rule,  and the part that I think is confusing you. That is where there is any doubt as to whether a player intentionally "took aim" for purposes of making forcible contact beyond what was required, then the refs should assume that the intent existed. The practical result of this provision is that if there is any evidence of intent, and if the other elements of the targeting penalty are present (e.g., contact to head or neck area of a defenseless player), then targeting must be called. 

Quote

 It was facemask to facemask, not the crown or side that they are trying to avoid. 

You're wrong. Targeting is covered by two separate rules. 9-1-3 covers hits involving the crown of the helmet. 9-1-4 covers other forcible contact to the head or neck area, which includes facemask to facemask contact. The primary difference between the two is that under 9-1-3 hits involving the crown of the helmet do not require evidence that the opponent was defenseless, whereas hits under 9-1-4 do require that evidence.

Let's look at the elements under 9-1-4 again:

(Rule 9-1-4) 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. [Overshown did likely make forcible contact to the head of UTSA's QB with his facemask.]

b. opponent is defenseless; and [I think it is questionable whether the QB was defenseless, but given that the rule states the referees should consider him defenseless when in doubt, let's assume this element is met]

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 [This is where targeting falls apart here, as per the NCAA Casebook example I previously cited. There was no indication that Overshown intended to make forcible contact beyond what was necessary to make the tackle. Hell, I'd argue that the evidence is that he actually held up and tried to make the tackle as gentle as possible. That's why the penalty should be overturned on appeal] 

 

 

Edited September 21, 2022 by Dahobbs

[TOR 5,837]

1 hour ago, Davis Lane said:

I had a thing for Erin Gray.

Those spandex tho.

I'm kind of having a thing for Erin now...

[Codaxx 5,945]

55 minutes ago, JBJ said:

This NCAA reviewed this hit from last week on the Arkansas QB (not an appeal - it was correctly overturned by the booth).

It's forcible helmet-to-helmet contact, but the QB is not defenseless here and the tackle is not leading with the crown.

If they were enforcing the rule correctly the QB would have been given targeting, this just another part of the BS in this rule

 

never mind responding before reading the ret of the chain

Edited September 21, 2022 by Codaxx

[Murfdogg21 4,482]

44 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Fair enough, still photos can definitely be deceiving. Counterpoint though - he plays for Arkansas. He should have been ejected for life. 

That comes every day of his life after he runs out of eligibility. 

[lilMAC25 3,870]

48 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Fair enough, still photos can definitely be deceiving. Counterpoint though - he plays for Arkansas. He should have been ejected for life. 

But not until they crush atm and leave aggy weeping.

 

Edited September 21, 2022 by lilMAC25

[Dahobbs 17,808]

4 minutes ago, Codaxx said:

If they were enforcing the rule correctly the QB would have been given targeting, this just another part of the BS in this rule

Assuming @JBJ is describing the play correctly, then it shouldn't be targeting. Again, the key is there has to be some evidence the player intends to make forcible contact beyond what is necessary for the play. If the QB is stumbling and it is clear that is why his head comes down, then it shouldn't be a penalty. The rub is that if there is any doubt as to whether the QB intentionally lowered the head, then it should be called targeting. 

Oh, and in case @bullet still doesn't believe me that intentional conduct is what is prohibited by the targeting rule, here is the NCAA rulebook where it is made clear that "for the purpose of" means with intent (see yellow highlighting below):

[TOR 5,837]

23 hours ago, LTtxfan said:

 

Possibly best doggo.  Unsure.