Football Officiating > NCAA Discussion
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:
--- Quote from: bctgp on January 02, 2025, 12:28:21 AM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version