Football Officiating > NCAA Discussion

Texas vs Az State - No-calls on Possible Targeting

<< < (2/4) > >>

ElvisLives:
Concur with no-targeting on both. In the first one, there is no indicator, and no ‘attacking’ element to the head-neck area. Similar in the second one, although, there is a slight lowering of the head as the opponent was making contact. It just wasn’t distinct enough to positively call it a qualifying indicator.

TxJim:

--- Quote from: ElvisLives on January 02, 2025, 10:08:05 AM ---Concur with no-targeting on both. In the first one, there is no indicator, and no ‘attacking’ element to the head-neck area. Similar in the second one, although, there is a slight lowering of the head as the opponent was making contact. It just wasn’t distinct enough to positively call it a qualifying indicator.

--- End quote ---

Problem is, ESPN is reporting Bill Lemonnier (quoted him) and Matt Austin both said the 2nd one was targeting.
https://x.com/awfulannouncing/status/1874662086997164542

zebrastripes:
According to Dvoracek, Lemonnier said there was an upward thrust? I am sorry and I like Bill but I just don’t see that. I see a defender who keeps his body upright and sees what he hits. There was no change in posture to me that indicates he was attacking. At the very least, there is doubt, and as the rule is written, if you have doubt that it is targeting then it’s not a foul.

The fact that both ESPN rules analysts, plus Terry McAulay, plus a significant number of others in the officiating community, believe this was a foul makes me think there’s going to be more adjustments to the rule in the offseason.

And I agree that Shaw and Co. need to provide more transparency on controversial plays like this. It’s well and good that he does the weekly videos during the season, but he never ever comments on the plays like this one that people actually care about. That needs to change. During the NCAA basketball tournament it is not uncommon for the national coordinator to make a statement on live TV, so why can’t Shaw do that here?

dammitbobby:
Another good example of one he (Shaw) should have gotten out in front of, was the play with Texas and Georgia where it looked like the crew changed their minds in response to the crowd.

Side note on that one - I was correct (in the other thread about that game) where I said it would lead to a lot more instances of crap being thrown on the field in hopes of getting a call changed. There were numerous instances this year after that, where it occurred.

Imperial Stout:
Given how this has confused so many referee pundits, the leading with the head indicator needs to be clarified to put it more inline with Shaw's intent.

This was a heads up form tackle wrapping up the opponent.  This is a behavior we like to encourage rather than the reckless launch of the body into the opponent.  Yes, there was contact made with the facemask, but that didn't result from a clear and obvious attack directed towards the head or neck area.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page