Game Thread Texas vs A&M - 6:30pm on ABC

[TrashMaster G 17732]

8 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Yep, Mukuba was clearly delivering a shoulder to the chest and the helmets happened to hit. The issue there is that Lemonnier is correct that intent isn't the rule, what actually happens is and Mukuba did accidentally deliver forcible contact to the head. So the only reason that wasn't targeting is if they ruled that the receiver was no longer defenseless in that instant. It was a very close call and that is a part of the targeting rule that sucks. But I'm not sure changing it makes overall sense because it would decrease player safety.

On that play it would have been better all around for Mukuba to just take out their player's thighs because he was well short of the first down, but that's much easier to say in hindsight than at full speed on the field. 

I take issue with the "forcible contact". It was a glancing blow, incidental at best.

[Auto Driller 2509]

1 minute ago, TrashMaster G said:

That call was 100% in line with how they called it that year. 

IIRC there was a “point of emphasis” in college officiating that year that any helmet to helmet contact against a receiver was an automatic personal foul. It was right around when the CTE lawsuit was filed against the NFL so the NCAA was really trying to crack down.

[Huckleberry 33558]

The receiver's head snapped to the side, it was clearly forcible contact. I think it still isn't targeting though because there's not an indicator. Technically you could argue that Mukuba led with his head because that's what made first contact but he was clearly trying to lead with his shoulder. Again, that's why I say it was a close call, it was absolutely in the gray area of the rule. 

[BabaYaga 15377]

4 minutes ago, Auto Driller said:

IIRC there was a “point of emphasis” in college officiating that year that any helmet to helmet contact against a receiver was an automatic personal foul. It was right around when the CTE lawsuit was filed against the NFL so the NCAA was really trying to crack down.

Yep.  The rules and enforcement are not in a vacuum.  They evolve YOY in their interpretation and how flags are thrown on the field.  Anyone comparing a play today to one over a decade ago has a clear agenda or doesn't know the rules.

[Valmy77 13443]

If that was ruled targeting and A&M got 15 yards and Mukuba was ejected from the game, it wouldn't have changed shit. A&M's offense wasn't going anywhere.

[StassneyHorn 6698]

13 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

 

Get him @Tex Pete

[Bozo_Casanova 26684]

13 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Yep, Mukuba was clearly delivering a shoulder to the chest and the helmets happened to hit. The issue there is that Lemonnier is correct that intent isn't the rule, what actually happens is and Mukuba did accidentally deliver forcible contact to the head. So the only reason that wasn't targeting is if they ruled that the receiver was no longer defenseless in that instant. It was a very close call and that is a part of the targeting rule that sucks. But I'm not sure changing it makes overall sense because it would decrease player safety.

Mostly likely it wasn’t called because for three reasons:

1) the hit did not feature any of the indicators required for a targeting violation, but more importantly 

2) there was no “forcible contact”. There was incidental contact as Makuba hit the ball carrier in the shoulder. Finally,
 

3) the ball carrier was not defenseless, and in fact turns his face (where contact was made) into the side of Makuba’s helmet. While the intent is not the rule, a ball carrier can’t draw a targeting penalty the way a basketball player can draw a charge. 

[Pig Bellmont 8754]

I thought we only argued over shitty calls after losing 

[Tex Pete 20970]

7 minutes ago, StassneyHorn said:

Get him @Tex Pete

Not sure why you keep invoking me. Stop it. 

Ted Cruz seems to be someone nobody of any political stripe wants to go to their games. Post seems apolitical to me. Since you asked. 

[ConferenceRoom 6151]

3 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

I thought we only argued over shitty calls after losing 

We pretty much just argue.

[StassneyHorn 6698]

Just now, Tex Pete said:

Not sure why you keep invoking me. Stop it. 

Ted Cruz seems to be someone nobody of any political stripe wants to go to their games. Post seems apolitical to me. Since you asked. 

You are the CR gatekeeper. Do your damn job

[Bill Lumbergh 7248]

25 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

The receiver's head snapped to the side, it was clearly forcible contact. I think it still isn't targeting though because there's not an indicator. Technically you could argue that Mukuba led with his head because that's what made first contact but he was clearly trying to lead with his shoulder. Again, that's why I say it was a close call, it was absolutely in the gray area of the rule. 

It's the only call I was surprised was overturned.  It wasn't targeting, but it was close enough to the letter of the rule that I assumed they'd keep the call from the field. 

Glad they didn't, but surprised. 

The other two overturned calls were pretty obvious.

[Mitch Cumsteen 18661]

11 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Mostly likely it wasn’t called because for three reasons:

1) the hit did not feature any of the indicators required for a targeting violation, but more importantly 

2) there was no “forcible contact”. There was incidental contact as Makuba hit the ball carrier in the shoulder. Finally,
 

3) the ball carrier was not defenseless, and in fact turns his face (where contact was made) into the side of Makuba’s helmet. While the intent is not the rule, a ball carrier can’t draw a targeting penalty the way a basketball player can draw a charge. 

You forgot:

4) The sips own the refs.

[CurlyDumps 4557]

10 hours ago, B00M said:

Doesn’t he have some made up staff position? Minister of culture or some shit with a low salary? 

That and he's actually a professor now. Not sure if the made up MoC staff position is still a real thing or just a nickname that stuck.

https://moody.utexas.edu/faculty/matthew-mcconaughey

[Tex Pete 20970]

Just now, Bill Lumbergh said:

It's the only call I was surprised was overturned.  It wasn't targeting, but it was close enough to the letter of the rule that I assumed they'd keep the call from the field. 

Glad they didn't, but surprised. 

The other two overturned calls were pretty obvious.

Mukuba didn’t initiate the helmet contact. I think that’s why they didn’t call it. His head was in front of the receiver’s. 

[Bill Lumbergh 7248]

Just now, Tex Pete said:

Mukuba didn’t initiate the helmet contact. I think that’s why they didn’t call it. His head was in front of the receiver’s. 

Agree.  That's why I was hoping they'd overturn it, but honestly didn't think they would.

[Dahobbs 17812]

44 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Yep, Mukuba was clearly delivering a shoulder to the chest and the helmets happened to hit. The issue there is that Lemonnier is correct that intent isn't the rule, what actually happens is and Mukuba did accidentally deliver forcible contact to the head. So the only reason that wasn't targeting is if they ruled that the receiver was no longer defenseless in that instant. It was a very close call and that is a part of the targeting rule that sucks. But I'm not sure changing it makes overall sense because it would decrease player safety.

On that play it would have been better all around for Mukuba to just take out their player's thighs because he was well short of the first down, but that's much easier to say in hindsight than at full speed on the field. 

There was no indicator of targeting. 

[Anastasis 23512]

Best part of that penalty was when it got overturned and the aggies in my house proceeded to lose their minds. That and not giving them the yards and down. 

[utee94 15883]

Just now, Anastasis said:

Best part of that penalty was when it got overturned and the aggies in my house proceeded to lose their minds. That and not giving them the yards and down. 

After the two reversals on the TDs, I expected the Kyle Field crowd to go completely ballistic when that targeting was overturned.  I was pretty disappointed in them that they didn't all throw their water bottles.

[CurlyDumps 4557]

1 minute ago, Bill Lumbergh said:

It's the only call I was surprised was overturned.  It wasn't targeting, but it was close enough to the letter of the rule that I assumed they'd keep the call from the field. 

Glad they didn't, but surprised. 

The other two overturned calls were pretty obvious.

Based on what I've seen this year, officials have actually been better about reversing targeting calls that turn out to be incidental contact. Which is exactly what the Mukuba hit was.

Anything that looks bad still draws a flag, but it seems like it's been a point of emphasis to not be so idiotically strict if two helmets happen to graze each other. Reversing targeting used to be rare. Feels like we've seen it at least 2-3 times in our games this season.

[Tex Pete 20970]

Just now, utee94 said:

After the two reversals on the TDs, I expected the Kyle Field crowd to go completely ballistic when that targeting was overturned.  I was pretty disappointed in them that they didn't all throw their water bottles.

Well, they drink out of jars, so…

[Bill Lumbergh 7248]

Just now, CurlyDumps said:

Based on what I've seen this year, officials have actually been better about reversing targeting calls that turn out to be incidental contact. Which is exactly what the Mukuba hit was.

Anything that looks bad still draws a flag, but it seems like it's been a point of emphasis to not be so idiotically strict if two helmets happen to graze each other. Reversing targeting used to be rare. Feels like we've seen it at least 2-3 times in our games this season.

I hadn't really noticed, but if so that's really good development.  It felt for a while that they'd gone overboard with interpretation of the rule.  There have been plenty of calls in the last few years that clearly were not targeting for what the rule is meant to prevent, but upheld.  It's good to hear if this is changing.  This was definitely a "not targeting by intent" call.

[TOR 5840]

15 minutes ago, ConferenceRoom said:

We pretty much just argue.

Oh bullshit.

[ConferenceRoom 6151]

I'm right, and you're wrong.

[Carl Spackler 3530]

12 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Best part of that penalty was when it got overturned and the aggies in my house proceeded to lose their minds. That and not giving them the yards and down. 

Sir, we have identified your problem.

[gsoda3 3298]

[Native Horn 3518]

3 minutes ago, Carl Spackler said:

Sir, we have identified your problem.

Both sides.

[immamac 43566]

Just now, gsoda3 said:

Was poor aggy taken? 

[Frank Drebin 5686]

20 minutes ago, Tex Pete said:

Mukuba didn’t initiate the helmet contact. I think that’s why they didn’t call it. His head was in front of the receiver’s. 

That's right.  Watch the replay.  The side of Mukuba's helmet contacts the receivers face mask.  I don't think you can really target with the side of the helmet.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11825]

3 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

That's right.  Watch the replay.  The side of Mukuba's helmet contacts the receivers face mask.  I don't think you can really target with the side of the helmet.

Plus Mukuba looked like he was actively attempting to NOT make helmet contact.  He turned his head away a bit or looked like it to me.

[TrashMaster G 17732]

16 minutes ago, ConferenceRoom said:

I'm right, and you're wrong.

*your

 

Wait...

[JBJ 3684]

We've seen similar targeting calls go both ways.  I think it came down to them deciding Mukuba initiated contact to the chest of the WR with his shoulder, though. 

[gsoda3 3298]

14 minutes ago, immamac said:

Was poor aggy taken? 

doesn't fit

[Beau Vine 54877]

2 hours ago, Zeus said:

It wasn’t targeting, the announcers and rules guy are biased and actively rooting for aggy. Maybe because they wanted a good game, more likely because they don’t respect or like Texas. 

[BabaYaga 15377]

If you're gonna target someone, dammit do it right

[Beau Vine 54877]

1 hour ago, BabaYaga said:

Targeting is first and foremost a defenseless player and intent to lead with the crown of the helmet - neither of which applied on that play. 

No, if you have a defenseless player, you don't even have to hit him with your helmet to draw a targeting call.  

 

[utee94 15883]

And one other point on "targeting" is that it now includes "spearing."  They should really be separate rules because their intent is different, but for the spearing portion of targeting, the only requirement is that the defender lowers his head and leads with the crown of the helmet.  It doesn't matter where he hits the offensive player, the penalty is a result of using the crown of the helmet, and the rule's intent is actually to protect the defender from himself, from potential spinal cord injuries, by making that type of hit illegal in order to dissuade the behavior.  They used to be two separate rules for two separate situations, but now the rulebook has (confusingly IMO) lumped it all into the same rule.

 

Edit: I'm not saying this applied in this case, it clearly didn't, but that's what the written portion about leading with the crown of the helmet, is all about.

Edited 3 hours ago by utee94

[Dennis Taylor 19048]

On 12/1/2024 at 10:21 AM, totallynotabuttpirate said:

And spent all your jizz jar money on tickets. 

Conversely, the sperm donor clinics in BCS are completely booked. They just have to constantly remind the patients to not produce their sample in the lobby

[Beau Vine 54877]

50 minutes ago, Tex Pete said:

Not sure why you keep invoking me.

Yeah, it's a real fucking mystery, isn't it?

[Beau Vine 54877]

25 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

I don't think you can really target with the side of the helmet.

Wrong, you can target without even using your helmet if the player is considered defenseless:

[Bozo_Casanova 26684]

17 minutes ago, Tex Pete said:

Not sure why you keep invoking me. Stop it. 

Ted Cruz seems to be someone nobody of any political stripe wants to go to their games. Post seems apolitical to me. Since you asked. 

 

15 minutes ago, StassneyHorn said:

You are the CR gatekeeper. Do your damn job

The Ted Cruz curse is 100% a sports issue

9 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

There was no indicator of targeting. 

This is key. 

[Dennis Taylor 19048]

50 minutes ago, Bill Lumbergh said:

It's the only call I was surprised was overturned.  It wasn't targeting, but it was close enough to the letter of the rule that I assumed they'd keep the call from the field. 

Glad they didn't, but surprised. 

The other two overturned calls were pretty obvious.

When reviewing targeting was first happening, seems like the only thing the review decided was if the player got ejected or not  but the penalty yardage would still apply...is that a recent change or am I misremembering?

[Murfdogg21 4485]

Available. Ball game. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26684]

31 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

That's right.  Watch the replay.  The side of Mukuba's helmet contacts the receivers face mask.  I don't think you can really target with the side of the helmet.

I agree with you but the crown by rule is 6 inch radius from the top of the helmet, going halfway down the side.

[mdmost 43308]

Whining about officiating is the cry of the loser, hence aggy in a nutshell. 

[Tex Pete 20970]

Just now, Dennis Taylor said:

When reviewing targeting was first happening, seems like the only thing the review decided was if the player got ejected or not  but the penalty yardage would still apply...is that a recent change or am I misremembering?

Sounds about right. I think in this case they determined it wasn’t unnecessary roughness and it wasn’t targeting, so no penalty applied. 

[Hagbard Celine 10996]

13 hours ago, dcar00 said:

I think one of the announcers(was it Tirico?) may have read some of the lyrics while they were shown on screen.  where we say "and it's goodbye to A&M" and where they say " Texas University"

Next year we need to pay ESPN Chyron guy to spell their name on the chyron scoreboard "Texas A$M Aggys"

My guess is someone knew the chyron guy and the director and begged them to do it.

dedicating 150 seconds of a pregame OTA national broadcast to extraneous content is not spontaneously or surreptitiously organized or executed

i have watched a thousand college games and never seen this before

speculation:

1 - neither disney, espn, abc, the league or the tower decided to do this for aggy to make them feel better about themselves

2 - after aggy broke the news of our arrival, a few months later texags spontaneously erupted with the 'news' that the first game would be at pyle

3 - aggy pissed, groaned, moaned, whined and bitched about this for a year until the schedule for this year was announced and lo and behold it came to pass

4 - somewhere between 2 and 3, the inclusion of the aggy lyrics and full 2.5 minutes of broadcast time were demanded "or else"

the support for this speculation is the kickoff time - it was pre-set and announced for 6:49pm a week early - following a 230pm broadcast (iron bowl) which was pushed back 20 minutes to 2:50pm and ended around 6:12pm - allowing more than 30 minutes for overtime should it have been neccessary

[Huckleberry 33558]

1 minute ago, Dennis Taylor said:

When reviewing targeting was first happening, seems like the only thing the review decided was if the player got ejected or not  but the penalty yardage would still apply...is that a recent change or am I misremembering?

That's if they call "personal foul with targeting" instead of "personal foul, targeting." In the first case it's a personal foul even if it's not targeting (like a late hit or roughing the passer for example). In the second case it's only a personal foul if it's targeting. 

[Anastasis 23512]

51 minutes ago, Carl Spackler said:

Sir, we have identified your problem.

I thought that most of us had in laws and shit that made questionable life decisions. At least that is what most of the non food related holiday threads seem to suggest. 

[6th Street 6592]

56 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

Let's not do that