Texas vs Az State - No-calls on Possible Targeting

[bctgp]

Interested in hearing what other officials think about the possible Targeting no-calls in the Texas vs Arizona St. Rose Bowl game  yesterday.  There were two that were in question in the game, one by each team. Ultimately, neither were deemed to be a foul.

[oldtimerref]

Not the only things that they probably missed. Several OPI and white hat may have missed holding calls if he had moved. He is what we used to call a spot official, killing the grass in one spot.

[DallasLJ]

Interested in hearing what other officials think about the possible Targeting no-calls in the Texas vs Arizona St. Rose Bowl game  yesterday.  There were two that were in question in the game, one by each team. Ultimately, neither were deemed to be a foul.

  Good no calls on both plays.  Both reviewed by replay and still no targeting.  No indicator - no attacking action - on either play.

[zebrastripes]

I’m stunned at how many in the officiating community believe the no-call at 1:03 in the 4Q was incorrect.

Where is the indicator on this play? There’s no launch, crouch, or attacking posture by the defender. He sees what he hits, and the NCAA has repeatedly said that’s what they want.

Replay has to confirm ALL ASPECTS of targeting. You can confirm defenseless player and forcible contact to the head/neck area, but I don’t see how anyone who knows NCAA rules can confirm an indicator. Replay made the correct decision based on the rules they have to go by, and I really don’t see how that is debatable.

If we want this hit to be penalized then the rule needs to be rewritten (again). At some point you can’t legislate every violent hit out of the game.

Also, disregarding the potential TGT, this was a good clock discussion play. The clock was running and stopped for an injury. Texas declined the 10-second runoff which is why the clock started on the snap rather than the referee’s signal.

[dammitbobby]

I agree - this is not targeting and I am really shocked at how many officials think it is cut-and-dried targeting. I thought the first one was closer to being called targeting but agree also with no call on that one as well.

I know this is a hot take but I think with the current state of things around officiating, social media, gambling concerns, etc. that Shaw and Co. need to bring officiating out of the darkness and into the light a little bit, in that there needs to be public justification and validation for some high visibility or controversial calls. While I do think the crew got these two calls right, public  indignation, assumptions, and innuendo are hurting officials, and officiating, more than ever, and is just making it worse. I completely understand the need and desire to remain invisible, and this can be a slippery slope, but frankly every aspect of the game has become public, and officiating needs to move that direction as well. It's doing more harm to the avocation and its future than good by remaining silent.

[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]

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.

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.

[BTP]

For the benefit of those of us who have not worked under NCAA rules in some time:

What more would need to happen here for this to be "leading with helmet . . . to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area"?

There's nothing in the text of the indicator that suggests having the head up means it doesn't apply. Not that this is necessarily dispositive.

[Ralph Damren]

I agree - this is not targeting and I am really shocked at how many officials think it is cut-and-dried targeting. I thought the first one was closer to being called targeting but agree also with no call on that one as well.

I know this is a hot take but I think with the current state of things around officiating, social media, gambling concerns, etc. that Shaw and Co. need to bring officiating out of the darkness and into the light a little bit, in that there needs to be public justification and validation for some high visibility or controversial calls. While I do think the crew got these two calls right, public  indignation, assumptions, and innuendo are hurting officials, and officiating, more than ever, and is just making it worse. I completely understand the need and desire to remain invisible, and this can be a slippery slope, but frankly every aspect of the game has become public, and officiating needs to move that direction as well. It's doing more harm to the avocation and its future than good by remaining silent.

Fully agree, Bobby. In the ole' day...pre-replay from several angles, stop action, everyone with cellphones every cellphone with a camara and such...calls such as this might be debated around the pickle barrel but forgotten. Our officials are making split-second calls and most often stick to them. We wounder why recuriting new,young officials is such a challange. If they haven't yet grown a thick skin, they will soon feel that being a Walmart Greeter is much easier.

[Morningrise]

Also, disregarding the potential TGT, this was a good clock discussion play. The clock was running and stopped for an injury. Texas declined the 10-second runoff which is why the clock started on the snap rather than the referee’s signal.

My understanding is that, when replay stops the game to review something, that creates a second reason why the clock stopped, and therefore wipes out the injury runoff. Even though the injury happened first, and then replay paged the crew almost a minute later, I think by interpretation the review still counts as a thing that stopped the clock.

[Morningrise]

What more would need to happen here for this to be "leading with helmet . . . to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area"?

Indeed, 9-1-4 says "leading with helmet . . . to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area" counts as an indicator all by itself. If we're saying this hit had no indicator, then we're saying one of two things:

a) We're not actually supposed to take that particular indicator as literally as the others.

If that's the case then it, or the surrounding verbiage, ought to be revised, to make this clear.

or b) Some part of that indicator's definition was not met.

If the indicator wasn't met, what part wasn't met?

Leading? The helmet was the frontmost part of the attacker's body and the only part that made the initial contact.

Forcible contact? Looked pretty forcible to me.

To the head or neck area? Yep.

So the only word in the entire definition that you could possibly debate is the word "attack."

And, I mean, I guess that's plausible. I can buy that this isn't what they mean by "attack." He's kinda running through the guy and his head is plenty up: he didn't adjust his body to change and choose how and where the contact would happen.

But at the same time, I also want to ask, if a helmet-first hit, by a defender who has lined up a defenseless opponent and charged straight at him from a considerable distance, isn't enough to qualify as an "attack," then what is? Is there any action that would meet this indicator's definition - without also meeting a second indicator's definition? or is this indicator just redundant?

[dammitbobby]

Just to stir the pot a little.

Terry McAulay posted this on Twitter yesterday.



Why was the clear and obvious targeting foul in Texas/Arizona St not enforced by Replay?

I’ll start by saying it was not:
1. Because one team was favored,
2. The Replay Official and the Big Ten Command Center don’t know the rule,
3. It was a critical situation in a game of huge importance.

Failure to properly apply the targeting rule as written has been an ongoing issue for every major Conference the entire 2024 season.
Some background:

2 years ago, those involved in training Replay staff to properly and consistently apply the targeting rule had done a terrific job in creating a process that did indeed significantly improve the accuracy of targeting replay reviews, mostly with crown of helmet targeting fouls, but defenseless player targeting reviews also improved.

This had the unintended consequence that more targeting fouls were correctly called leading to more players being disqualified. The overseers of the game (note: this is *not* the NCAA, Conference Commissioners have complete control of college football) noticed and were very concerned about the rising targeting numbers.

In an effort to lower the numbers, the definition of “crown of helmet” was changed with clear guidance that it was not a foul unless the very top of the helmet was used, thus, the numbers for that type of targeting (on any opponent, defenseless or not) were dramatically lowered.

The rules makers also gave the National Coordinator the ability to reverse, on appeal, 2nd half targeting fouls if, and only if, there was a clear and obvious error by Replay officials. Successful appeals were extremely rare, initially.

Fast forward to 2024.

It became patently obvious to me that the guidance for Replay Officials, or rather Conference Command Centers who make the final decisions, went from having to indisputably confirm all targeting aspects of a given play to “find any reason you can to *NOT* confirm targeting” on both crown of helmet targeting and defenseless player targeting.

I’ve posted numerous examples this year of clear and obvious targeting fouls that were not penalized (Cal/Miami, Ga/Ga Tech, Texas/Texas A&M, UCF/Utah, etc.) It’s incredibly disappointing that people who’ve spent much of their lives upholding the integrity of the game by enforcing the rules, are no longer doing so.

Additionally, the National Coordinator began reversing targeting fouls that were in no way the result of a “clear and obvious error by Replay.” This confirmed to me that nationally, the philosophy was indeed to find any way possible to not enforce the rule.

Ultimately, all of this created the perfect storm that allowed the Big Ten Command Center to come up with some reason to make the decision that there was no targeting on the play in Texas/ASU, although I’m still struggling to figure out what that reason might be.

Targeting has been hotly debated since its inception in 2008 and even more so with the addition of automatic disqualification in 2013, which I’ve always opposed. However, it is the rule, it’s a player safety rule, and until the rule is changed, must be enforced as written.

If the Conference Commissioners desire is to lower the numbers, then they must change the rules and deal with criticism that they appear to be deemphasizing player safety. The status quo that has Command Centers ignoring the clearly written language to achieve a desired result cannot continue. The integrity of the game is at stake.


9:04 AM · Jan 2, 2025
https://x.com/tjmcaulay/status/1874834206745858496

[Ted T]

Bill Lemonnier was pretty emphatic that this should have been targeting.

[Clear Lake ref]

Isn’t he over the Big 10 who officiated this one?

[Grant - AR]

Isn’t he over the Big 10 who officiated this one?

No, Bill Carollo is the Big 10 supervisor.