Other Bowl Games Thread

[Word]

Might as well get rid of the targeting call if that isn’t going to be enforced. That was textbook crown of helmet to helmet.

Yep I was going to post the same thing. Just do away with the rule of they are not going to call it.

 

[cheeseheadgophfan]

only if saying he's not defenseless; don't know how that isn't targeting

Note 1: “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 notlimited to:

This is the language from the NCAA rulebook....the way I read it is that there has to be an attempt takes aim for the purpose of forcible contact which is more than a normal tackle.

IMO...the Texas player (and I was cheering for ASU) was making or attempting to make a normal tackle and the tipped pass and the WR lowering his head lead to the contact...no launch, no lowering head.....just my thoughts. It needs to be cleaned up before next season.

 

[WilliamsArenaGuy]

Again, Oregon got absolutely fucked with this draw as the #1 overall seed, while Penn State, the team they beat in the conference championship game, drew Boise St.

What difference does it make? They’d have to beat them anyway to win a championship. If they’re gonna lose 34 to nothing then clearly they’re not the best team.

 

[upnorthkid]

oregon not dead yet

 

[upnorthkid]

Note 1: “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 notlimited to:

This is the language from the NCAA rulebook....the way I read it is that there has to be an attempt takes aim for the purpose of forcible contact which is more than a normal tackle.

IMO...the Texas player (and I was cheering for ASU) was making or attempting to make a normal tackle and the tipped pass and the WR lowering his head lead to the contact...no launch, no lowering head.....just my thoughts. It needs to be cleaned up before next season.

first point of contact was helmet to helmet. don't think it was intent at all, but letter of the law is that's targeting. it's high forcible contact coming first from the facemask/head to the head of the opponent.

the rule is purposely written this way to allow the on field official to have interpretation/leeway, but that also brings in the problem. Would rather those are all called from a conference booth who reviews it and has the say. It stays neutral and is not influenced on the field and will in theory be more consistent over the year. You then have an all star crew for the CFP. call on the field stands unless unanimous to overturn. also would move things along faster. there's a reason the NFL has moved so much to expedited review.

 

[upnorthkid]

white flag officially up with oregon punting for some inexplicable reason. its the CFP. go down fighting all the way to the end to me

 

[Gophers1992]

The thing that drives me nuts about this comment and I’m not saying it’s you because other people would make it. By not calling it that’s as much as deciding the game is if you are calling it. You took away Arizona State’s chance to win in regulation and just about gave Texas the win regulation.

Oh yeah you’re absolutely right, but for whatever reason people favor the idea of “let them play”, which is really just code for selectively ignoring the rules.

 

[bleedsmaroonandgold]

Oh yeah you’re absolutely right, but for whatever reason people favor the idea of “let them play”, which is really just code for selectively ignoring the rules.

+1

The way officials avoid deciding the game is by making the correct call, not trying implement some weird value code for when some calls should or shouldn't be made.

 

[Outsider]

Again, Oregon got absolutely fucked with this draw as the #1 overall seed, while Penn State, the team they beat in the conference championship game, drew Boise St.

And Oregon played like azz today. They are getting waxed. I would argue that OSU got the shitty draw honestly. And I’m not even an Ohio fan.

 

[WindyCityGopher]

And Oregon played like azz today. They are getting waxed. I would argue that OSU got the shitty draw honestly. And I’m not even an Ohio fan.

They’re getting waxed by the best team in the tournament, one that’s absolutely loaded with talent and now playing to that potential. The #1 overall seed shouldn’t draw that in the quarters.

 

[GopherFanatic19]

They’re getting waxed by the best team in the tournament, one that’s absolutely loaded with talent and now playing to that potential. The #1 overall seed shouldn’t draw that in the quarters.

Committee did that on purpose so they (B1G) wouldn’t have an all B1G final. Now can PSU still make it happen, of course. But the best bet was OSU and Oregon

 

[Schnauzer]

Committee did that on purpose so they (B1G) wouldn’t have an all B1G final. Now can PSU still make it happen, of course. But the best bet was OSU and Oregon

I fear either OSU or PSU may be the next to get the ASU targeting ref treatment if it starts looking like an all B1G final.

 

[Sparlimb]

Interestingly, all 3 winners so far were the teams without the bye. Watching the two games today, both ASU and Oregon started really slow. The speed of the game seemed to take them by surprise. ASU got it going quicker and was able to make it a game. Oregon took too long (although they played the much better team and heavy favorite to win it all now).

 

[stocker08]

You could combine the Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Iowa rosters into one team.......and if the buckeyes came to play........they'd win easily.

I actually don't think that's true.

 

[Gopherchase]

Man what a game that was. I may not care for him but Skattebo is one hell of a football player.

He reminds me a lot of Mo with more power. I think sometimes we all forget that Mo was on his way to about 250 against The Ohio State University before he popped his Achilles. He could have been in New York for the Heisman ceremony that year and potentially the next had he not gotten injured. He was so good I think he actually stunted PJ‘s growth as a head coach he could just give the ball to Mo.

 

[upnorthkid]

I actually don't think that's true.

Just looking at this year for fun
Qb: Howard better
Rb: kaleb johnson
Wr: Jeremiah smith by far the best. Next is still OSU with Ekbuka. Then maybe you have Jackson
OL: if you take the best, I’d give the all star line the edge
DL: this would be tight but all star team edge slightly
LB: this probably ends up being a stylistic choice of how to play, but I’d take OSUs guys over who you can assemble from the rest though it’s competitive
DB: edge all star team by a ways except at safety with Downs. Secondary is OSUs weakest unit and it’s still quite good
K/P edge all star team

Think the game would be close but high end is OSU with the best qb and the WRs that are literally uncoverable when OSU is on as we’ve seen the last 2 weeks. That said, I think people underestimate how good a mid tier big ten all star team would be. The teams listed though are missing the game breakers at wr and a special enough qb. Brosmer is probably your starter but his weapons are far lesser than OSUs

 

[gopher7]

Note 1: “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 notlimited to:

This is the language from the NCAA rulebook....the way I read it is that there has to be an attempt takes aim for the purpose of forcible contact which is more than a normal tackle.

IMO...the Texas player (and I was cheering for ASU) was making or attempting to make a normal tackle and the tipped pass and the WR lowering his head lead to the contact...no launch, no lowering head.....just my thoughts. It needs to be cleaned up before next season.

I agree with this. To me it looked like the Texas guy was just trying to make a normal play and heads just ended up in the wrong spot. You also have to consider the speed at which that happens, people are in the air... I didn't see anything malicious about it.

 

[Slim Tubby]

I agree with this. To me it looked like the Texas guy was just trying to make a normal play and heads just ended up in the wrong spot. You also have to consider the speed at which that happens, people are in the air... I didn't see anything malicious about it.

Me neither...making a play without intent is a fair assessment. Yet, isn't it still suppose to be a flag if the crown of the helmet is used (not in this case) or if any body part makes contact to the player's head/spine regardless of intent/targeting?

Confusing indeed.

 

[MilosRevenge]

I wonder if the ESPN echo chamber media machine will go after the controversy of that non-call targeting with the same vigor they went after Indiana’s right to be in the playoff?

Greenberg just led First Take with the non call. Played the ASU coach soundbite, put the entire rule up on the screen and then pushed back on even the slightest defense of it.

 

[MNVCGUY]

Me neither...making a play without intent is a fair assessment. Yet, isn't it still suppose to be a flag if the crown of the helmet is used (not in this case) or if any body part makes contact to the player's head/spine regardless of intent/targeting?

Confusing indeed.

This is where the ejection part is problematic. There didn't seem to be intent to injure but there 100% should have been a penalty. Call it unnecessary roughness or something but to have no penalty of any kind after a hit like that is just a bad look for everyone involved.

 

[MaxyJR1]

Note 1: “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 notlimited to:

This is the language from the NCAA rulebook....the way I read it is that there has to be an attempt takes aim for the purpose of forcible contact which is more than a normal tackle.

IMO...the Texas player (and I was cheering for ASU) was making or attempting to make a normal tackle and the tipped pass and the WR lowering his head lead to the contact...no launch, no lowering head.....just my thoughts. It needs to be cleaned up before next season.

This leaves out the part of forcible contact to the head and neck area of a defenseless player. This doesn't need to include any of the above stated criteria. The first contact is with the helmet, forcibly to the head of a defenseless player. It was targeting.

They need to publicly put out a statement and clarify why it was not called.

Every week there are calls made where the booth Official on TV is in complete disagreement with the game officials on many calls. It goes to show how objective these calls can be. When the "rules experts" are all saying it's targeting, there needs to be a public explanation.

Now ASU still would have needed yards to get a quality FG. No guarantee. It would have been a 45+ yarder without another 1st down.
I believe you can't grab and pull your own player into the endzone for a TD.
You can't justify an all-out blitz on 4th and 13 and not cover a wide open player.


In the end it was great cinema and a lot of fun to watch.

 

[MaxyJR1]

I agree with this. To me it looked like the Texas guy was just trying to make a normal play and heads just ended up in the wrong spot. You also have to consider the speed at which that happens, people are in the air... I didn't see anything malicious about it.

I agree, but that's not the rule. The first contact is with the helmet to a to head of a defenseless player, end of story IMO.

 

[USAF]

This leaves out the part of forcible contact to the head and neck area of a defenseless player. This doesn't need to include any of the above stated criteria. The first contact is with the helmet, forcibly to the head of a defenseless player. It was targeting.

This.

100 percent targeting. Textbook targeting.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

I agree, but that's not the rule. The first contact is with the helmet to a to head of a defenseless player, end of story IMO.

Appeared to meet every tenet of the rule? Once a player is defined as defenseless, which is nuanced but in this case was pretty clear, the rest is straightforward. The only question is why we don’t see consistent enforcement, people talking about lowering the crown, inches of the crown of the helmet, etc.

Just get rid of it, otherwise. Or get rid of the problem official(s).

 

[MaxyJR1]

Appeared to meet every tenet of the rule? Once a player is defined as defenseless, which is nuanced but in this case was pretty clear, the rest is straightforward. The only question is why we don’t see consistent enforcement, people talking about lowering the crown, inches of the crown of the helmet, etc.

Just get rid of it, otherwise. Or get rid of the problem official(s).

That the non-defenseless part of the rule. If you initiate contact with any player with the 6" circle of the crown of the helmet it is supposed to be targeting.

 

[matt]

Appeared to meet every tenet of the rule? Once a player is defined as defenseless, which is nuanced but in this case was pretty clear, the rest is straightforward. The only question is why we don’t see consistent enforcement, people talking about lowering the crown, inches of the crown of the helmet, etc.

Just get rid of it, otherwise. Or get rid of the problem official(s).

Have you seen a definition of defenseless?

 

[50PoundHead]

Last play I saw in the ASU/Texas game before heading to the Roseville AMC 16 to see "A Complete Unknown" was Dillingham's decision to go for it on 4th and goal instead of taking the gimme points (if any points are indeed gimmes). It was 17-3 at the time and ASU's defense had steadied itself and adjusted to blunt Texas' speed advantage. I can go either way on the strategy, but I just thought there was plenty of time left in the game and that taking the points could have been easily justified.

One can't prove the negative and there's no way to guess how the game would have flowed from that point if ASU had kicked a field goal, so I'm not contending that taking the points would have ended the game in regulation with ASU on top. I just continue to marvel (and admittedly I am old and grew up watching football in a vastly different era in terms of strategy) at how going for it on 4th down has become the new "thing."

As for targeting and what may have been a non-call (again, I did not see the game at that point), let's remember a year ago when Marvin Harrison, Jr., was knocked out of the semi-finals against Georgia by a clear instance of targeting according to the rule book. I've seen more crap not called this year (clear targeting, unnecessary roughness along the sidelines) than ever and it's leading to a lot more stupidity on the field. 49ers WR Jennings should have been run the other night against the Lions when he kept blocking the Lion's DB for about 10 seconds after the play was dead. Of course, a Lions' player comes in and shoves Jennings so it's all off-setting. Every sport looks like it's turning into UFC.

 

[Some guy]

Have you seen a definition of defenseless?

The only way it wasn’t targeting is if he wasn’t defenseless
There is a whole bunch of defenseless things but the applicable one;

A player attempting to catch a forward or backward pass, or a player who has completed the catch but hasn’t had ample time to protect themselves or hasn’t clearly become the ball carrier yet



So when he turns up field…there is an argument to be made he was no longer defenseless. I disagree with that argument but that’s the way it isn’t targeting.


If you say he isn’t defenseless…I disagree with you….but if he isn’t defenseless that isn’t targeting

 

[Ope3]

What difference does it make? They’d have to beat them anyway to win a championship. If they’re gonna lose 34 to nothing then clearly they’re not the best team.

I'm not a fan of making the #1 Seed play a team they already beat in the regular season/same conference, right off the bat (Oregon's first game).

Ideally, they should Re-Seed after the Opening Round, but I get that makes logistics a lot harder for planning the NYE/NYD Quarters.

 

[Some guy]

I'm not a fan of making the #1 Seed play a team they already beat in the regular season/same conference, right off the bat (Oregon's first game).

Ideally, they should Re-Seed after the Opening Round, but I get that makes logistics a lot harder for planning the NYE/NYD Quarters.

The reseeding won’t help when the seeding is wrong

The real issue is Ohio State should’ve been seeded over Penn state. Penn state had a better record due to softer schedule but ended up with same number of losses once they played Oregon.
Ohio state should’ve have been the 6
Penn state should have been the 8

If you’re saying Penn state should be seeded higher because they were 11-1…then Indiana should also have been seeded higher at 11-1

This would have made Indiana the 8 and Ohio state the 10
Which also would’ve solved the issue




Inconsistent logic caused the seeding issues. So reseeding won’t help