re: that no targeting call clearly show us just how officiating can determine a national title

quote:

---

We all know that could have bee called either way, if called against Texas, ASU would clearly have had an opportunity to make a relative easy game winning FG.

---

While I agree the refs missed that one, the penalty only would have given the ball to ASU 1st/10 at the Texas 37 yard line which is FAR from an easy FG (55 yarder). ASU was 5 for 13 on the season on FGs, they couldnt kick them all season. They would have had to drive another 15-20 yards probably to even feel comfortable taking a FG.

Texas got away with one, but ASU didnt definitely lose because of the no-call. They were far from guaranteed to make a FG starting a the Texas 37 yard line after the penalty, and they would have had to score obviously to put the game away since it was tied.

I'll disagree here. This game has been so pussified. It did not meet the requirements of targeting. The contact was chest to chest and he lead with his facemask. Did not lower his head. So how is it targeting? Anyone remember Devin White? Refs got it right.

quote:

---

Did not lower his head. So how is it targeting?

---

crown of the helmet isn't required when it's a defenseless player. Know the rules.

quote:

---

Texas got away with one, but ASU didnt definitely lose because of the no-call. They were far from guaranteed to make a FG starting a the Texas 37 yard line after the penalty, and they would have had to score obviously to put the game away since it was tied.

---

Honestly, I hate when you true believers make this comment.

Yeah, they cheated, but that doesn't mean the other team would have won....

ASU would have had over a minute of game time to move the ball and put the game away. It was a game-deciding call. Period. Heck, UT got the ball back after and had enough time to down the field again and miss another FG.

Accept it, CFB, the NFL, and other major sports leagues are rigged for certain teams. Once you grasp the obvious, calls like the one yesterday make sense.

quote:

---

It did not meet the requirements of targetin

---

LOL it met every requirement, with every announcer and the official that chimes in instantly saying it was targeting.

"It's all real to me, dammit!"

He made contact with his chest to the receivers chest. the facemask contact was minimal. It just looked bad . Like I said. The refs made the correct call. Devin White much?

quote:

---

He made contact with his chest to the receivers chest

---

Literally the first contact wwas helmet to helmet and he lowered his helmet some, this is not arguable.

LINK

Thats hit helmet smashing into the ASU players helmet first and he lowered it some too. This is targeting. A textbook rule of targeting is no forcible contact to the head/neck area and he literally led with his helmet into the helmet of the ASU receiver.

quote:

---

That's a a huge leap to make to say the game was definitely decided by the call

---

But it is OK for you to assume they wouldn't have won due to the blatant cheating.

This works both ways.

Because of the blatant cheating, ASU never got a chance, so we will never know. Also due to the blatant cheating, UT DID get another chance, drove down the field, and missed another GW FG.

To recap: UT benefitted TWICE due to the blatant cheating, yet, according to you, ASU would never have scored anyway (you have no way of knowing this) so all this was all on the up and up.

Your logic is flawed, but then again, you also want to believe there isn't game fixing happening, despite what your eyes and ears saw yesterday.

quote:

---

He made forcible contact to the head/neck area of a defenseless receiver using his helmet.

Thats a rule of targeting, he led with his helmet and made first contact with his opponents head area with his helmet with first contact.

---

The indicator you’re referencing is:

quote:

---

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

---

The indicator doesn’t just require helmet-to-helmet contact or even helmet-to-helmet forcible contact. It requires attacking and leading with your helmet.

I think you can certainly argue that the defender did attack and lead with his helmet in this case, but I also don’t think it’s as cut-and-dried as people are suggesting.

While the rule itself doesn’t explicitly mention intent, the review criteria in the NCAA Football Rules Book state that the officials should determine whether the player “takes aim at a defenseless player for the purposes of attacking with forcible contact to the head or neck area.” Intent does, in fact, come into play.

I think it’s a 50/50 call even on review. I would go further to say that this type of hit should be legal under the rules. The player keeps his head up and keeps his feet on the ground. At some point I’m not sure how you make a tackle without hitting the guy’s head. This is exactly why the NCAA has recently emphasized (for example) that the crown of the helmet is very specific and doesn’t apply to the facemask. Granted that’s not what came into play on this one.

All of that said, I’ll admit I’m surprised they reversed it in reality.

quote:

---

But it is OK for you to assume they wouldn't have won due to the blatant cheating.

---

I never made any such assumption. Again I just said the assumption it DEFINITELY cost them the game is false because ASU still would have to drive the ball some and hit a FG with their brand new freshman kicker and they were terrible all year on FGs at 11 of 20. That's all I said. You and the OP were the one making blanket statements saying to the effect of "ASU definitely lost the game because of the call". I mean I even quoted "they were in easy FG range" and they most definitely were not, it would have been a 55 yarder after the penalty, they sucked at kicking FGs all season and passed up the opportunity to kick a few FGs in this very game if you forgot already. They had a 36 yarder blocked earlier in the game and it was simply because the kicker blew it and kicked it way too low (nobody penetrated the shield).