Jump to content

2025 Peach Bowl: CFP QF - Texas vs. Arizona State - 12pm on ESPN


Pancho

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

I remember at least two times where their o-line grabbed our d-line so obviously that the d-lineman's shirt was stretched out.  Of course, no flag.

Oh they called holding.  A completely egregious call on the 2nd punt return.  Of course, there was no replay, but if you have it on DVR, go back and watch.  The ASU player throws a blocker to the ground; blocker gets called for holding.  Ridiculous and cost us, once again, a shitton of momentum.  I think we would have had the ball on their 40 up 14-3.  Instead, we're on our own 30 and go 3 and out.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • immamac featured and unpinned this topic
38 minutes ago, Laxtonto said:

 

Absolutely should have been called there. Defenseless player. Forceful contact to the head and neck area. And every indication of targeting (i.e., indication of something more than a normal football play). He launched himself at Bond's head. I don't understand how that wasn't called. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SuckitKevin said:

Bond looked like he was running a middle post and Quinn threw it to the outside. Despite deep safety help I think the middle was open. I’m not sure if Bond ran the wrong route or Quinn threw a bad pass. This is not the first time this has happened.

Quinn either needed to throw it a beat earlier or put more heat on it. It was a bad throw. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Slacks said:

i think i died on 4th and 13. i don't remember anything from then to this morning. i don't even remember coming home. when i woke up this morning, it was from a dream and we lost.

and my chest hurts.

@Ldogg53 did i die?

I was almost ready to lose. This season has taken years off my life. That game took a few more years off than I’d like to admit. But glad we won with back to back final fours and I think we can beat those assholes up north. We can finally play the no respect card and see how it plays out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fuck all these ding dong dipshits on TV and twitter perpetuating bad interpretations of the targeting rule. I don't think any of them have actually read it but they're all just saying stupid shit like "if that's not targeting I don't know what is" without actually contextualizing said comments through the wording of the rules. 

No launch, no crown of the helmet, no lowering of the head to use his helmet as a weapon. Taaffe did nothing wrong, he just made a hard clean hit and the review was the correct call. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gourmand said:

Fuck all these ding dong dipshits on TV and twitter perpetuating bad interpretations of the targeting rule. I don't think any of them have actually read it but they're all just saying stupid shit like "if that's not targeting I don't know what is" without actually contextualizing said comments through the wording of the rules. 

No launch, no crown of the helmet, no lowering of the head to use his helmet as a weapon. Taaffe did nothing wrong, he just made a hard clean hit and the review was the correct call. 

Yup. The obvious answer to them is, yes, you don't know what targeting is. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dahobbs said:

Yup. The obvious answer to them is, yes, you don't know what targeting is. 

I've had this ongoing argument with my Okie State buddy via text and that's pretty much spot on. Granted, I don't watch as much college football as he does but I did take the time to download the NCAA rulebook and copy paste the actual rule and it's clear that none of the assholes on ESPN have bothered to do the same. The only aspect of the play that could maybe qualify as targeting is the facemask-to-facemask contact of a defenseless receiver BUT when you read Note 1 below the targeting rule it's clear that Taaffe did not commit a penalty. Namely, he was NOT "attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Knoxtnhorn said:

Oh they called holding.  A completely egregious call on the 2nd punt return.  Of course, there was no replay, but if you have it on DVR, go back and watch.  The ASU player throws a blocker to the ground; blocker gets called for holding.  Ridiculous and cost us, once again, a shitton of momentum.  I think we would have had the ball on their 40 up 14-3.  Instead, we're on our own 30 and go 3 and out.

It was in front of me live.  It looked like the ASU player had his gloves caught in the facemask/collar of our player.  They both went down and our guy tried to get get up and pull away and kept getting pulled back down.  There was a tussle like they were stuck and both didn't appreciate it.  When the flag came out I thought either or both players were getting a personal foul.

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

3 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

I've had this ongoing argument with my Okie State buddy via text and that's pretty much spot on. Granted, I don't watch as much college football as he does but I did take the time to download the NCAA rulebook and copy paste the actual rule and it's clear that none of the assholes on ESPN have bothered to do the same. The only aspect of the play that could maybe qualify as targeting is the facemask-to-facemask contact of a defenseless receiver BUT when you read Note 1 below the targeting rule it's clear that Taaffe did not commit a penalty. Namely, he was NOT "attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball."

Yeah, the lawyer in me just looks at like elements. The hit by Taaffe met 1) forcible contact, 2) to the head and neck area, and 3) of a defenseless player. But it didn't meet the 4th element, an indication of targeting. I don't think 1-3 are debatable. And I don't think 4 is either. There was just nothing that he did that could be interpreted as targeting: 

 

Quote

 

This foul requires that there be at least

one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul

(Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)

Note 1: “Targeting” means that 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. Some indicators of targeting include but are not

limited to:

• Launch. A player leaving their feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head orn eck area.

• A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with

forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feeta re still on the ground.

• Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attackw ith forcible contact at the head or neck area.

• Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact witht he crown of the helmet.

 

on the other hand, the hit on Bond clearly met every element. Dude launched and led with his forearm into Bond's head or neck area. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dahobbs said:

No he didn't. The receiver did and their facemasks collided. He didn't lead with his helmet. He was heads up making a normal tackle. If he had lowered his head, absolutely it would have been targeting. 

That's fine. I'm of the opinion that we got away with one, and I have no problem with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mdmost said:

The problem with targeting is it is a stupid rule that needs to only be applied in the most extreme of circumstances when a player is being reckless. A player making a routine tackle like Taafe was doing shouldn't be tossed around as some great crime against humanity. How else is Taafe supposed to make that tackle? Tilt his own head backwards or to the right? 

They want players to lead with the shoulder. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, David Dennison said:

That's fine. I'm of the opinion that we got away with one, and I have no problem with it.

Maybe so, but it was anything but as certain targeting as all the blowhards online are making it out to be. It was close by a fair reading of the rule but I think it's total bullshit how they're all mischaracterizing the play as the "most obvious targeting play ever omg if that's not targeting what is?!!"

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

12 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Taafe led with his helmet. It was targeting. They chose not to call it.

 

 

9 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

And that's fine.

But let's not kid ourselves. If the roles were reversed, this place would be apoplectic.

this is a bad take and you should feel bad. they took a separate look at it and got it right. get over it. lol.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On bang-bang collisions on a contested ball, they really want a clear indication of targeting.  Leading with the helmet is not an indicator.  That bullet point literally lists every body part and the key part of it is "attacking" not "leading."  They want a definitive thrust, not merely a collision.

Bad targeting calls are jading people's opinions of good no-calls.  Everyone wants every hard and high hit to be targeting.

Edited by JBJ
  • Hook 'Em 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, David Dennison said:

I don't feel bad at all. I think we got lucky. That could have easily been called targeting.

it was called. they reviewed it. they changed the call (or at least confirmed it was not targeting). if that tackle is not allowed then we should just fucking switch to flag football. his head was up, he lead with his chest, and tackled the shit out of the tight end/receiver (can't remember which it was). yes their helmets collided, but that happens on like every fucking play. not every play where helmets collide is targeting. glad I could clear that up for everyone.

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

Just now, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

it was called. they reviewed it. they changed the call (or at least confirmed it was not targeting). if that tackle is not allowed then we should just fucking switch to flag football. his head was up, he lead with his chest, and tackled the shit out of the tight end/receiver (can't remember which it was). yes their helmets collided, but that happens on like every fucking play. not every play where helmets collide is targeting. glad I could clear that up for everyone.

It wasn't called. There was no flag on the play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

They want players to lead with the shoulder. 

You know that doesn't change the result, right? A hit by the shoulder in the head or neck area can still be targeting if there is an indicator. There is nothing special about the helmet other than the crown of the helmet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, David Dennison said:

It wasn't called. There was no flag on the play.

Then all the more reason to not use replay to try to create a penalty when it was missed in real time. Pretty sure targeting is the only instance where a penalty is assessed after a review when it's not called on the field. Which is why it's a bad rule that needs fixing because literally no one can agree on what it actually is in real time. Then every asshole in the media runs to their Twitter account to act incredulous about something they actually have no clear concept of. 

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

7 minutes ago, mdmost said:

The problem with targeting is it is a stupid rule that needs to only be applied in the most extreme of circumstances when a player is being reckless. A player making a routine tackle like Taafe was doing shouldn't be tossed around as some great crime against humanity. How else is Taafe supposed to make that tackle? Tilt his own head backwards or to the right? And let's be honest, the media members crying about it wanted to see an upset. They are also the same people who say, "you can't let a penalty decide a game". 

 

1 minute ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

it was called. they reviewed it. they changed the call (or at least confirmed it was not targeting). if that tackle is not allowed then we should just fucking switch to flag football. his head was up, he lead with his chest, and tackled the shit out of the tight end/receiver (can't remember which it was). yes their helmets collided, but that happens on like every fucking play. not every play where helmets collide is targeting. glad I could clear that up for everyone.

textbook tackling by Taaffe. He kept his head up and wrapped up with his arms, did not crouch and launch forward or do anything of obvious intent to attack a defenseless receiver.

  • Hook 'Em 7
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.



×
×
  • Create New...