forums

Do you realize how one non-call finally went our way...

A

Alaskan Cane

Recruit
Premium
Joined
Oct 6, 2012
Messages
87
It could have been another Ohio State, game changing call. I was happy the announcers decided to leave it alone and not start harping on the possibility that the play by Toure was potential targeting. I still believe that announcers have an effect on what happens up in the booth. If they had spent the time after that play talking about how it was definitely targeting, they probably would have reviewed it. Fortunately they thought it was chest first. In the past, these are the kinds of calls that have killed us.

We forget about these tiny decisions during a game that can change the entire outcome. I'm feeling very fortunate today that we are not spending all our time dissecting that play. And of course it was an amazing play by Toure.
 
Advertisement
Alaskan Cane said:
It could have been another Ohio State, game changing call. I was happy the announcers decided to leave it alone and not start harping on the possibility that the play by Toure was potential targeting. I still believe that announcers have an effect on what happens up in the booth. If they had spent the time after that play talking about how it was definitely targeting, they probably would have reviewed it. Fortunately they thought it was chest first. In the past, these are the kinds of calls that have killed us.

We forget about these tiny decisions during a game that can change the entire outcome. I'm feeling very fortunate today that we are not spending all our time dissecting that play. And of course it was an amazing play by Toure.
Click to expand...
Had the same thought in real time. I hate targeting calls. Not because I don’t care about the players’ safety. Because it’s a severe penalty and oftentimes is extremely difficult for the defender to prevent. I firmly believe that refs should be there to call the egregious penalties and let the game be decided on the field by the players. I thought the refs in that game were pretty darn good.
 
MovingZen said:
**** happened fast as ****. They could have reviewed it without saying anything and come to the correct conclusion.. not targeting. I want those refs for every game.
Click to expand...

I don’t think it was targeting either but I haven’t seen it in slow replay. He was concussed so I figured his head did make contact?
 
We got away with the OJF play and in a regular game, I bet you the Toure hit would have been called targeting in a regular season game.

There’s one theme with these playoff games - the refs have for the most part swallowed their whistles. Yeah, the result is they miss some holding calls and whatnot but it makes for such a better product.
 
Salt said:
I don’t think it was targeting either but I haven’t seen it in slow replay. He was concussed so I figured his head did make contact?
Click to expand...
Seemed like a temple to temple thing. Like his facemask went into the shoulder but there was still a lot of helmet to helmet contact.
 
Advertisement
It was not crown of the helmet, so 9.1.3 doesn't apply.
9.1.4 requires one indicator of targeting.
• 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 or neck area. Nope, he ran right into him.
• 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. Nope, he ran right into him.
• Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area. Nope, he ran right into him.
• Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet. Nope, he ran right into him.



 
Salt said:
I don’t think it was targeting either but I haven’t seen it in slow replay. He was concussed so I figured his head did make contact?
Click to expand...
He definitely made contact with his helmet but never lowered his head. Hit him with his face mask and front part of the top of his helmet. Wouldn't have qualified for crown of the helmet but they could have tried to argue forcible contact to the head/neck area, which I don't think it was. Incidental in my opinion.
 
Definitely wasn't targeting and I wasn't worried about it being called. He didn't lead with his helmet.

Can't believe we got away without anything called on OJ throwing the dude on the sideline. We did get screwed on Reed flopping on Blount's "roughing the passer". Went 50/50 in the typical calls.

Also, I've seen about 10 instances back to November of plays blown dead and the QB getting hit because the defender didn't hear the whistle. The only one ever called was on Lightfoot that cost us the SMU game. Side rant - but really starting to **** me off looking back at it.
 
3rd-43 said:
Game time was a lil over three hours in part because of letting teams play. Our ACC games are typically 4 hours plus. Garbage **** all around in ACC
Click to expand...
Both teams move at slower pace too, that milks the clock also..

OSU is even slower if I am not mistaken..
 
Salt said:
I don’t think it was targeting either but I haven’t seen it in slow replay. He was concussed so I figured his head did make contact?
Click to expand...

Someone posted it in the other thread. I thought they might review it live but after watching the replay I don't think it's targeting at all. All the contact happens with the upper shoulder of the receiver and his helmet is upright when he does it, not down.
 
Advertisement
JD08 said:
It was not crown of the helmet, so 9.1.3 doesn't apply.
9.1.4 requires one indicator of targeting.
• 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 or neck area. Nope, he ran right into him.
• 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. Nope, he ran right into him.
• Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area. Nope, he ran right into him.
• Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet. Nope, he ran right into him.



Click to expand...
This is one (of many) of the problems with the targeting rule.

There are actually two rules.
 
I thought they would at least take a closer look at it but they hit shoulder to shoulder first which took away the leading with part of targeting.
 
Back
Top