Jump to content

Demarvion Overshown makes plays

zork

By zork
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

dcar00

dcar00 14910

Posted
Posted
1 hour 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.

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.

 

the UTSA QB took a drop and then took 2 steps up like he was going to throw but never got his arm up.  they deemed the facemask to facemask, forcible contact.  they have an accelerometer app in the booth so they can tell exactly how much force is applied.

I'm sure you are all well aware of how good Big 12 booth review refs are.  How are we going to save lives if we let hits like this happen?  won't someone think of the children?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 720
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

OB3
OB3
CTC2
CTC2

District Attorney 

Dahobbs
Dahobbs

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!

Posted Images

Horn Dog

Horn Dog 10157

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

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):

image.thumb.png.56ce7f5b371ab8a3fe7757cbfd4b8e61.png

Well based on the paragraph regarding Appeal Process, Overshown is screwed for 2 reasons:

1.  "If national coordinator concludes that it is clearly obvious..."

-- Nothing is ever clearly obvious, especially on a appeal process.

2. "the conference may vacate the following game suspension:

--B12  has option to vacate, but they don't have to.  They won't vacate shit for TX unless forced. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mrhorn

mrhorn 1429

Posted
Posted

I want to look him straight in the eye, and I want to tell him what a cheap, lying, no-good, rotten, four-flushing, low-life, snake-licking, dirt-eating, inbred, overstuffed, ignorant, blood-sucking, dog-kissing, brainless, dickless, hopeless, heartless, fat-assed, bug-eyed, stiff-legged, spotty-lipped, worm-headed, sack of monkey shit he is! Hallelujah! Holy shit! Where's the Tylenol?"

Seriously what a bunch of old fucks ruining this sport. The future of college football needs to kick the NCAA to the curb. Fucking cunts.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dr Phil WIth Hair

Dr Phil WIth Hair 280

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, HOOKEM4 said:

I would love for them to clarify exactly when he was supposed to do there. Walk me through it like I am 5. Jfc.

He is supposed to pull up right before contact so the QB can spin off of him and make a play that benefits the offense.  The Big XII/NCAA has the false belief that the world wants to see a lot of points.  Unless the QB plays for Texas, then he is fair game to pile-drive, and go ahead and kick him in the nuts while you are at it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bigcigar

bigcigar 1224

Posted
Posted

Seems like banner material. text below:

 

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 playerRULING: (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. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 18212

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, MirrOlure said:

“In this situation, he (UTSA quarterback Frank Harris) was clearly a passer with his eyes focused downfield and thus was defenseless and was hit in the facemask - hit in the head - with significant force,” Burks said.

363588fa6f83758896627e5bb677aaba.jpg

Yeah…clearly a passer with his eyes downfield

It doesn't matter if he was defenseless. There was no indicator of targeting. The NCAA didn't point to one. This is a straight screw job. I literally pulled this exact pull from the NCAA's official case book as an example of NOT targeting. This needs to get in front of Sark and the media. NCAA has to identify the indication of targeting on the play. There was none. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 87055

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

It doesn't matter if he was defenseless. There was no indicator of targeting. The NCAA didn't point to one. This is a straight screw job. I literally pulled this exact pull from the NCAA's official case book as an example of NOT targeting. This needs to get in front of Sark and the media. NCAA has to identify the indication of targeting on the play. There was none. 

You will never see this justification used again, unless it’s to uphold another targeting call on a Texas player. Guarantee that 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hornbeliever

Hornbeliever 727

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, lemonandaturd said:

In Big 12 play this year either Card or Ewers will likely be sacked in exactly that same manner and our opponent will not get a targeting call.  And it will likely happen more than once.  Fuck the Big 12 and the NCAA.  

Like Poona Ford and that defensive holding against OSU, Quinn will no doubt be called for "Offensive Tomfoolery" - 15 yards after getting sacked.  Quinn should not have done that 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Valmy77

Valmy77 13570

Posted
Posted

I am baffled by the idea that a hit on a QB looking downfield about to pass is a hit on a defenseless player. I mean aren't most QBs looking downfield about to pass on passing plays? And that QB was hard as fuck to tackle, I don't see any evidence Overshown was trying to hurt him just bring him down.

Overshown himself thought it was a clean hit. Was that ignorance on his part? Was he poorly coached? Seems more likely the rules are vague and arbitrary in this regard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 18212

Posted
Posted
Just now, Valmy77 said:

I am baffled by the idea that a hit on a QB looking downfield about to pass is a hit on a defenseless player. I mean aren't most QBs looking downfield about to pass on passing plays? And that QB was hard as fuck to tackle, I don't see any evidence Overshown was trying to hurt him just bring him down.

Overshown himself thought it was a clean hit. Was that ignorance on his part? Was he poorly coached? Seems more likely the rules are vague and arbitrary in this regard.

By the rules, it was a clean hit. This is a screw job. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Valmy77

Valmy77 13570

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

By the rules, it was a clean hit. This is a screw job. 

By the rules whatever is arbitrarily judged excessive force than what would normally be required to make a tackle on a QB in the act of passing is targeting. That is vague and arbitrary as fuck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
justhookit

justhookit 4206

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, dcar00 said:

Big 12 was never going to overturn.  if they deem it forcible nothing else matters as it relates to defenseless player.  but hey at least we will save lives, right?  because that was what this was all about.

Good grief you are insufferable. I know you can’t comprehend, but there was nothing that they deemed forcible. It’s the defenseless part they they fell back on and by watching the play and by RULE a face mask that hits the head is not targeting by itself. It’s been spelled out on this thread and the others. I’m sorry you still want to be a jackass. The intent to “save lives” that you’ve mentioned is ok, but that’s not what happened here.

I hope you have your helmet on when Derka shoulder checks you.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ATXhorn17

ATXhorn17 1677

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, 1leggedduck said:

Perhaps in the future the super conferences will conclude that the ncaa is a waste of space and $. It should be gutted and rebuilt, from the ground up, or simply replaced by a new entity designed by the conferences to be independent but not mindless and worthless.

For what it’s worth, I chatted with a retired AD who spent decades overseeing several of the largest programs in college sports… He was confident that the NCAA will eventually be disbanded, and a consortium of the major programs will form an external regulatory body (example he gave was the IRS) to enforce rules, oversee NIL, etc. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cochamps

cochamps 1885

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, stork642 said:

What the hell did Overshown do to the big 12 refs?  That’s 2 out of three games they’ve called him for false targeting.  

I'm convinced that BDF refs decided to emphasize targeting calls on UT's best defensive player and letting our QB's be target practice.  Somebody please prove me wrong.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...