Targeting question

[Rockethorn1978 6,203]

So about those missed calls. Can out coach call a timeout if he can see they aren’t reviewing it? And wtf does it take to get a review? Anyone know why two very clear head to head contact wasn’t reviewed? I’m really confused on what makes the batcave red light to blink so they fucking review this shit? 
 

any resident refs here that will know. And anyone have the still frames showing how horrific the no reviews were.

[Billy Pilgrim 2,058]

There’s NO EXCUSE for missing the one on the goal line. They spent 10 minutes reviewing that one to move the ball back 6 inches. I’d think if you tell the refs you want them to specifically look at targeting than they would.

What conference were those officials from? 

[Rockethorn1978 6,203]

4 minutes ago, Billy Pilgrim said:

There’s NO EXCUSE for missing the one on the goal line. They spent 10 minutes reviewing that one to move the ball back 6 inches. I’d think if you tell the refs you want them to specifically look at targeting than they would.

What conference were those officials from? 

Ok so that’s what I’m asking, Is this a sark didn’t ask and it’s on him? I thought they are reviewing up in a super secret batcave booth and decide if it is and buzz the head ref? 

[Beau Vine 55,840]

This is front and center why NCAA replay review needs to be coach-initiated.  

If you have any time outs left, you're allowed to challenge.  If you're wrong you lose the TO; if you're right, you get it back.  

It's not fucking complicated.

[Nueces River Rat 5,762]

15 minutes ago, Billy Pilgrim said:

There’s NO EXCUSE for missing the one on the goal line. They spent 10 minutes reviewing that one to move the ball back 6 inches. I’d think if you tell the refs you want them to specifically look at targeting than they would.

What conference were those officials from? 

Big 12…..  surprised?

[Nueces River Rat 5,762]

But I think the booth might have been SEC Refs if we used the same formula when we played LSU in Austin a couple of years ago when the field Refs were SEC and booth was Rig 12

[Deej 77,677]

Does it matter what conference the refs were from? I'm starting to believe there's an executive order from the President to give any Texas opponent the benefit of the doubt. 

[Surly Bevo 25,662]

It certainly wasn't the reason we lost (though we would have gotten a first down on the one on Bijan that may have helped the final score a bit) but it was fucking ridiculous that a kicker for USC gets bounced for targeting last night and on neither occasion did a single official bother to throw a flag or review two of the most textbook targeting cases you will ever see.  I hate the ejection part of the rule (seriously that needs to die in a fire) but I don't see how officials miss that....twice.

[Had Enough 2,109]

It certainly wasn't the reason we lost (though we would have gotten a first down on the one on Bijan that may have helped the final score a bit) but it was fucking ridiculous that a kicker for USC gets bounced for targeting last night and on neither occasion did a single official bother to throw a flag or review two of the most textbook targeting cases you will ever see.  I hate the ejection part of the rule (seriously that needs to die in a fire) but I don't see how officials miss that....twice.

The ejection part is legit when using the helmet as a weapon.

They’ve forgotten that the rule is to protect.

[Rockethorn1978 6,203]

I told a friend last night it’s clear they don’t even know what to look for since they flip flop game to game on what gets a review and what doesn’t. 

[hayden_horn 11,402]

9 minutes ago, Rockethorn1978 said:

I told a friend last night it’s clear they don’t even know what to look for since they flip flop game to game on what gets a review and what doesn’t. 

i mean, both of those were clear as day. head down, leading with the crown. It's as textbook as the rule is written. 

[dcar00 14,908]

SEC in the booth. They arent going to review targeting against an sec team playing Texas.

[dcar00 14,908]

11 minutes ago, Rockethorn1978 said:

I told a friend last night it’s clear they don’t even know what to look for since they flip flop game to game on what gets a review and what doesn’t. 

The SEC refs know what targeting is. They just dont call it when it would hurt an sec team they want to win.

[wood 11,747]

4 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

This is front and center why NCAA replay review needs to be coach-initiated.  

If you have any time outs left, you're allowed to challenge.  If you're wrong you lose the TO; if you're right, you get it back.  

It's not fucking complicated.

That would be fine. Or just ditch replay altogether. They miss shit and / or get obvious shit wrong more often than not. It just flat does not work. They're fucking morons. They can't even get obvious shit right with multiple angles and super-duper-extra-slow-slo-mo.

[OU Sucks 9,327]

Arky fans have a poor understanding of targeting....

 

[Zeus 6,762]

3 hours ago, Deej said:

Does it matter what conference the refs were from? I'm starting to believe there's an executive order from the President to give any Texas opponent the benefit of the doubt. 

Big 12 officials are way way way biased against Texas. It's a bunch of farm boys from Lubbock and Odessa or other empty shit holes that hate Austin and Texas.

[Deej 77,677]

1 minute ago, Zeus said:

Big 12 officials are way way way biased against Texas. It's a bunch of farm boys from Lubbock and Odessa or other empty shit holes that hate Austin and Texas.

I'd like to see how many Big 12 refs attended aggy.

[Gut Wagon 8,214]

I don't know who calls what. But I've never seen two such clear "crown of the helmet" go uncalled in any game since targeting became a penalty. Regardless of game situation, road/home team, etc., those were clear misses by the stripes. 

[Rockethorn1978 6,203]

Targeting for Arkansas only matters when it’s against them. They are the definition of they call a “dumb motherfucker”.

 

[hookem48 4,808]

they had 2 targetings in their first game, were those called on the field or review?

[DFW Horn 6,637]

Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet

ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of their helmet. The crown of the helmet is the portion of the helmet above the level of the top of the facemask. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul. 

[dcar00 14,908]

43 minutes ago, Gut Wagon said:

I don't know who calls what. But I've never seen two such clear "crown of the helmet" go uncalled in any game since targeting became a penalty. Regardless of game situation, road/home team, etc., those were clear misses by the stripes. 

Maybe if refs got fired because they didnt call targeting, which has become the biggest OMG player safety issue of all time it might change. It's hilarious that there was this huge outcry that it was literally leading to deaths and suicides and they cant be bothered to call it when a texas player gets nailed.  Happened to Sam multiple times. Get rid of the fucking rule until they decide they are actually serious about life or death.

[dcar00 14,908]

50 minutes ago, Gut Wagon said:

I don't know who calls what. But I've never seen two such clear "crown of the helmet" go uncalled in any game since targeting became a penalty. Regardless of game situation, road/home team, etc., those were clear misses by the stripes. 

Uh happens all the time. Happened to Sam against OU.

[Gut Wagon 8,214]

37 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

Uh happens all the time. Happened to Sam against OU.

I do see it missed pretty often in CFB. But rarely as blatantly as the two by Arky, given the amount of analysis in the booth. Pereira had zero doubt a call should have been made on one, and he may have said it of the other. 

[bullet 1,629]

2 hours ago, dcar00 said:

SEC in the booth. They arent going to review targeting against an sec team playing Texas.

In fairness, SEC refs don't give a shit about the players.  They allow a lot of late hits and hits out of bounds that they would even call in the Big 12 if Oklahoma St. did it against Texas.

[Nivek 17,354]

I don't know who calls what. But I've never seen two such clear "crown of the helmet" go uncalled in any game since targeting became a penalty. Regardless of game situation, road/home team, etc., those were clear misses by the stripes. 

They were not missed.

[TexArcher 38,834]

14 hours ago, dcar00 said:

The SEC refs know what targeting is. They just dont call it when it would hurt an sec team they want to win.

This is correct.

An Arkansas player could've run in from the sideline and hit one of our guys with a folding chair and he wasn't getting a flag.

[Nueces River Rat 5,762]

16 hours ago, Zeus said:

Big 12 officials are way way way biased against Texas. It's a bunch of farm boys from Lubbock, COLLEGE STATION, WACO,  and Odessa or other empty shit holes that hate Austin and Texas.

Fixed.

[Beau Vine 55,840]

A big problem is that the replay refs are former field officials who are friends with the guys who they're reviewing and don't want to embarrass them by publicly reviewing their work.  Another reason why review needs to be coach-initiated...

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

Coaches should absolutely have the right to question a non target call. Get it right, and you don't lose your timeout.  There were at least 2 they missed in the UT Arky game.

[Nueces River Rat 5,762]

28 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Coaches should absolutely have the right to question a non target call. Get it right, and you don't lose your timeout.  There were at least 2 they missed in the UT Arky game.

They should get challenge on any call which is subjective....   And while we are listing  BS calls don't forget the blindside hits, blocks in the back when the block has not impact on the play, etc.  

Away from that, the Targeting call rule needs a serious revamp.    Especially where its's called when the defensive player can not stop himself from completing his tackle and it's a timing issue such as when a QB at the last minute decides to slide and the defensive player is obviously set up to tackle the QB correctly.  That's a pile of steaming BS right there and I have to think offensive coaches are very much coaching this move to get this result. 

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

17 minutes ago, Nueces River Rat said:

They should get challenge on any call which is subjective....   And while we are listing  BS calls don't forget the blindside hits, blocks in the back when the block has not impact on the play, etc.  

Away from that, the Targeting call rule needs a serious revamp.    Especially where its's called when the defensive player can not stop himself from completing his tackle and it's a timing issue such as when a QB at the last minute decides to slide and the defensive player is obviously set up to tackle the QB correctly.  That's a pile of steaming BS right there and I have to think offensive coaches are very much coaching this move to get this result. 

Yeah, the problem is where do you stop  ?  I think if it's related to a safety issues those would all be legit though.  

Yeah hard to stop when you've set yourself up for a legal tackle, and a guy slides under you.

[XForce 218]

This is going to be a season or two of Texas not getting the benefit of the doubt on any call. The sooner the move is made to the SEC, the better. 

[sith_horn 2,487]

3 hours ago, Nivek said:

They were not missed.

Guarantee too that if Klatt had been calling the game, he would have done more than just a mention of it. He would have called the no-calls and the trend for them for the BS it was. Not that it decided the outcome of the game, but bad calls should always be called out, especially personal fouls with big penalty outcomes.

[sith_horn 2,487]

11 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yeah, the problem is where do you stop  ?  I think if it's related to a safety issues those would all be legit though.  

Yeah hard to stop when you've set yourself up for a legal tackle, and a guy slides under you.

... or steps out of bounds at the last instant.

[elguapo 4,620]

The application of the targeting rule in college football is laughably inconsistent. If college refs can't get their shit together and figure out how to consistently penalize targeting then just do away with it as a penalty.

[wood 11,747]

1 hour ago, Beau Vine said:

A big problem is that the replay refs are former field officials who are friends with the guys who they're reviewing and don't want to embarrass them by publicly reviewing their work.  Another reason why review needs to be coach-initiated...

Yep. Or replay should just go away until they're serious about actually getting shit right. They clearly are not serious about it now.

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

8 minutes ago, elguapo said:

The application of the targeting rule in college football is laughably inconsistent. If college refs can't get their shit together and figure out how to consistently penalize targeting then just do away with it as a penalty.

Nope.

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

16 minutes ago, sith_horn said:

... or steps out of bounds at the last instant.

Yeah another tough one.

[dcar00 14,908]

15 minutes ago, elguapo said:

The application of the targeting rule in college football is laughably inconsistent. If college refs can't get their shit together and figure out how to consistently penalize targeting then just do away with it as a penalty.

this.  they could start by removing the ejection for first offense and make the penalty 30 yards from LOS or 15 from spot, whichever is better.  ejection for second offense and 1st quarter of next game if it is in 4th quarter.

they don't want to call it mainly because the ejection can effect the game so much.  but we are dealing with life and death here so someone should tell them to stop overlooking it.  maybe have one replay official whose sole job is to look for targeting.

that said the dumbass Big 12 officials on the field didn't throw flags either so it gave the SEC replay guys an out to avoid reviewing it.  I am assuming it was Big 12 field and SEC replay, because that is the way it ha been previous years in OOC, but haven't seen it confirmed

[wood 11,747]

10 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

maybe have one replay official whose sole job is to look for targeting.

This is a really great idea. It also potentially adds a higher degree of accountability. If a targeting call is missed, everyone will know the targeting replay ref missed it. With such a system, certainly every targeting on the ball carrier should at least be reviewed.

Edited September 13, 2021 by wood

[dcar00 14,908]

Just now, wood said:

This is a really great idea.

and in an OOC game have one from each conf reviewing targeting....again if they really give a shit about life and death.

they could also probably get someone to do a software package that can immediately tell if a certain portion of a helmet hit the other helmet.  If yes, then move to the more subjective aspects.  you have targeting UNLESS there is some other mitigating circumstance to change it.

[wood 11,747]

5 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

and in an OOC game have one from each conf reviewing targeting....again if they really give a shit about life and death.

they could also probably get someone to do a software package that can immediately tell if a certain portion of a helmet hit the other helmet.  If yes, then move to the more subjective aspects.  you have targeting UNLESS there is some other mitigating circumstance to change it.

In F1 they can tell exactly how many G the driver or any part of the car are subjected to at any given time. I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that a system to monitor helmet impacts could be developed. Probably not even that difficult for the engineer nerds to come up with something pretty great.

What's happening right now is not done out of concern for the players. It's done as cya lip service. They've never been serious about this shit, so we likely won't see any serious, significant, adult improvements.

[Goredho 17,631]

If the refs are not going to call that, then Texas needs to adapt within the game to lax rule enforcement.  Start targeting Arkie players and see if the refs want to continue to be laissez faire.  If they still let it be a head-trauma fest, make it so egregious that it can’t be ignored after the fact.

Thats not how it should be, but if the rules don’t matter, it’s kind of dumb for one team to continue to abide by them.  See Chicago/Pistons & the Jordan rules.

[Zeus 6,762]

Targeting sucks

They need "spearing" to differentiate incidental contact with obvious malicious intent. Don't throw guys out of the game because the recovery ducks down as the defender goes in for the tackle. It's also not called the same at all between leagues.

In the SEC you have to kill the QB on purpose obviously to get tossed for targeting. In the big12 you blow up a screen pass you get tossed.

[Nivek 17,354]

The application of the targeting rule in college football is laughably inconsistent. If college refs can't get their shit together and figure out how to consistently penalize targeting then just do away with it as a penalty.

For decades we have watched them fuck up taunting penalties and they still don’t get it right.

[Nivek 17,354]

If the refs are not going to call that, then Texas needs to adapt within the game to lax rule enforcement.  Start targeting Arkie players and see if the refs want to continue to be laissez faire.  If they still let it be a head-trauma fest, make it so egregious that it can’t be ignored after the fact.
Thats not how it should be, but if the rules don’t matter, it’s kind of dumb for one team to continue to abide by them.  See Chicago/Pistons & the Jordan rules.

Um they do have two different rule books in the b12 regarding holding.

[Surly Bevo 25,662]

It was a Big 12 field crew.  Head ref was Brandon Cruse.  He (and I assume this crew) worked the Alabama-Ohio State Title Game.  For fucks sake.  

[C-Man 27,699]

21 hours ago, Had Enough said:

The ejection part is legit when using the helmet as a weapon.

They’ve forgotten that the rule is to protect.

I hate the ejection rule. The suspension for a half rule is even dumber -- unless it's a repeat offender, or it's particularly egregious. But that was an obvious one they missed the other night.

[dcar00 14,908]

1 hour ago, C-Man said:

I hate the ejection rule. The suspension for a half rule is even dumber -- unless it's a repeat offender, or it's particularly egregious. But that was an obvious one they missed the other night.

the ejection part of the rule is what makes them not call it.  they know the huge impact it can have on the specific game(and next game if 2nd half). 

our guys should go full soccer mode when they feel helmet to helmet and lay on the ground.  that is what forces them to review it.  I wouldn't act woozy because then you will hear the "I can't believe they are playing him".

its all bullshit.