I think certain teams and conferences get preferential whistles and non whistles. Ratings = $$$ and that's what matters.
Do you think college football and/or basketball is rigged? If so......
- Thread starter Myotis
- Start date
The actual rule states below that any of these things are indicators but are not limited to just these things.
ARTICLE 4 No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below) When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6).
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 not limited to:
• 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
• 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
• Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
• Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet
You will notice in my quoted post above it doesn't have to be with the crown of the helmet it can be with any part of the helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist hand or elbow. Also, it can be any of the above single indicators, it doesn't have to be any combination of things and isn't limited to just those 4 things. His arms are open and not making contact with the player but the helmet is which plainly shows that he is leading with his helmet to the head/neck area and I think we all can agree it was forcible contact as he laid the dude out due to the blow to the head.
Having officiated a few basketball games over the years I admit it can be hard to get every call right. Missing a bang bang call in live action is one thing but when you review a play in slow motion for 5 minutes with the game potentially on the line and still miss the call based on the rule book, it raises suspicions that a fix is on.
There’s the human element that always comes into play. To me, clean tackle. No malicious intent. Clearly this is the way the officials saw it as well, even after a lengthy evaluation. They wear helmets for a reason. Domes will find domes in football. As I said in an earlier post, the missed pull into the end zone was much more of a blatant miss. ASU lineman yanked his rb into the end zone.
Last edited:
Now do the forearm to the unsuspecting defenseless WR that was blown up on the interception and tell us whether the “fix” was on with that no targeting call. (This conclusion of a “fix” is what really I find silly, not the complaint of the decision, in either case).
The first thing you must decide is whether the player is defenseless, by rule. A WR is defenseless when in the act of catching. When he becomes a runner, he is no longer defenseless. The ASU player caught the ball and was making his turn to run up field. Because targeting must be clear on replay for the call to take, it must be clear that the WR had not become a runner, because the defender didn't lead with the crown of the helmet, on which case “defenseless” is irrelevant. I have watched it in slow motion many times and I do not find that it is clear he was defenseless. He made the catch and was in the beginning act of running up field.
Last edited:
Look about the 14:40 mark. That was ruled not targeting. Someone really needs to define “rigged.”
And he EASILY could've hit the receiver lower rather than coming in high as he did. He could've targeted the ball. He wasn't interested in a tackle.
Not interested in the excuses. The rules have been in place for years now. No reason not to call that on review
Last edited:
This is exactly how I saw it, it was a textbook form tackle, head up, eyes on target, ready to wrap up. Facemasks were the contact points on both players.
Now as for as out and out cheating, some teams seem protected. I think there needs to be better consistency, especially with holding and pass interference.
My belief is the replay guys are the issue. They are making judgement calls. When the rules say it has to be clear any 50-50 that gets over turned is a problem. The ruling on the field was targeting. The people in that replay world are 50-50 on a segment of the rule. Therefore video review didn’t clearly show it wasn’t targeting the ruling on the field should have stood. I can’t remember but if it was a booth review not initially a field call can’t really argue because they aren’t over turning the call on the field.
Yeah, I don’t see his “interest” at all, other than to make what looks like a typical tackle. No launch. No crouch. No leading with the crown. Granted, the rule goes beyond those things for a defenseless player, but those things are what demonstrate a targeting player’s interest. That is why they are explicitly in the rule. The Texas safety was clearly interested in stopping the ball right there. The idea that he was interested in targeting is ludicrous, for the reason people now bemoan it was not affirmed by the refs.
