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

This is the replay procedure for targeting:

quote:

---

Targeting
ARTICLE 5 a. The replay official shall review all targeting fouls, Rules 9-1-3 and 9-1-4. For a player to be disqualified and the Targeting foul to be enforced, all elements of a Targeting foul must be confirmed by the Instant Replay Official. There is no option for stands as a part of a Targeting review. If any element of Targeting cannot be confirmed, then the Replay Official shall overturn the targeting foul.
Targeting elements include:

. . .

Rule 9-1-4:
(a) A defenseless opponent (Rule 2-27-14).
(b) A player takes aim at a defenseless opponent for the purposes of attacking with forcible contact to the head or neck area.
(c) An indicator of targeting is present.

---

So the replay official would ask:

1. Is the opponent a defenseless player?
Yes.

2. Did the defender take aim at the opponent for the purposes of attacking with forcible contact to the head or neck area?
Well that’s the subjective part. In my opinion, no. I don’t think he was trying to hit the guy in the head. In fact I think he was playing the ball after the tip up until the last second when the ASU guy caught it.

I think you can certainly argue otherwise but I don’t think it’s as “textbook” as y’all are making it out to be.

quote:

---

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 his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck 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 feet are still on the ground Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet Clearly it was targeting because he did lead with the helmet into the head or neck area. That’s indisputable. You DON’T NEED INTENT

---

So lets look at your checklist.

Did not lead with helmet. Tackler was upright when they collided. Contact was eyeball to eyeball and shoulder to chest. In the tackle the defender wrapped the receiver and took him to the ground. If he led with his helmet he could not have done that.

No upward thrust.

No launch. Defender never left his feet

Defenseless player? Maybe. Player had caught the ball and turned squarely upfield. At what point does receiver go from defenseless to a common runner.

If that was my LSU defender there getting called for targeting I would be infuriated.

quote:

---

Did not lead with helmet. Tackler was upright when they collided. Contact was eyeball to eyeball and shoulder to chest. In the tackle the defender wrapped the receiver and took him to the ground. If he led with his helmet he could not have done that.

---

Sure about that?

quote:

---

If that was my LSU defender there getting called for targeting I would be infuriated.

---

LSU would have had that called on them 100/100 times. And this time, it would have been the correct call.

quote:

---

Sure about that?

---

LOL it is hilarious they will still defend blatant cheating so they don't look like fools for thinking CFB is rigged.

I have no dog in that hunt, but it really pisses me off when the powers that be sacrifice a kids health/safety to support their agenda. Just infuriates me.

The guy who made the hit also had dirty plays earlier in the game too. He's a total POS and no doubt is instructed to head hunt because they know they can get away with it.

quote:

---

NCAA Football Rules Book state that the officials should determine

---

The rule book does not state this although it is implied they will make a call based off of video replay.

The rulebook clearly gives examples for guidelines, and one guideline clearly stated “ Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area”.

Based off the replay, he clearly led with the helmet into a defenseless player. It’s indisputable. There should be no other determination based off the rulebook. It’s clear guidance in this case. The rulebook does not imply intent or is it needed in this case. The rulebook is clear.

You clearly haven’t seen the replay or a still shot at the moment of contact.

quote:

---

Did not lead with helmet. Contact was eyeball to eyeball

---

Thisis not true. Literally made helmet to helmet contact first and had his head slightyl down where the upper part of his forehead (more toward top of helmet than facemask) is what initially made contact. The contact was definitely not eyeball to eyeball as the pictures show.

quote:

---

Again, you make assumptions ASU would have failed

---

Good lord dude, I literally am making ZERO assumptions, you are the one saying they would have won the game had the call been made. I'm simply saying thats far from true as they only would start at the 38 yard line of Texas, which is a 55 yard FG at that point and they cant kick FGs well at all. They passed up multiple times taking FGs in that very game and were 11 of 20 on the season. A lot can happen and it was FAR from some guarantee they win the game if they get the call. Yo uact liek it would have put them inside the redzone or something, it would have put them on the 38 yard line and again, they suck at FGs. Thats far from any sort of guarantee.

Stop trying to put words that dont exist in my posts and own up to the fact you were simply way wrong to assume ASU makes an "Easy FG" after the penalty. Nothing comes easy when you're 11/20 on the season and turning to a freshman kicker much less starting from 55 yards out. They still had a ways to go and even if they attempt a FG it's basically 50/50 if they make it.