I have rarely seen such ridiculous coaching. If Texas loses , it is entirely on the coaching
Texas-Arizona … Stupid Coaching
- Thread starter dbem1
- Start date
Stoops says hold my beer
Not anymore, at 9 million a year he has the State of Kentucky holding his beer.
Well that’s a wrap.
Still Arizona State proved the doubters wrong.
Still Arizona State proved the doubters wrong.
The no targeting call was huge! That was one of the more blatant targeting hits you’ll see.
Crazy one. I think they win in regulation if that was called. For them to review it that long and decide no targeting is almost unfathomable.
It was the most obvious favoritism crooked shit I’ve seen in a long time. That was like the Rams-Saints NFC title game where pass interference wasn’t called when the guy got drilled.
Arizona State having the ball at the 35ish with a minute and a half to go? That could’ve won the game and the refs knew it.
Only thing I can think of on the non targeting call is the defender didn't lead with the crown of the helmet. His head was up the whole time.
It's been obvious in the SEC for decades. Alabama and Tennessee have had the best whistle in the conference for as long as I can remember.
Don’t agree, he didn’t lower his head, it was helmet to helmet but incidental.
It might be a good idea to know what the crown of a helmet is before calling targeting. A clue is, not facemask.
lol incidental. Get out of here. The rule was made to protect players from head injuries. He used his helmet, whether the crown or not to hit a defenseless WR directly in his head.
1,000% targeting.
lol. There is helmet to helmet contact by some players on every single play. Learn the rule. He didn’t lower his helmet and use the crown, that’s the rule. He went in for a tackle, he did not lead with his head, the momentum of the players caused the helmet to helmet collision, it wasn’t intentional and it was his facemask that hit. Thats not targeting per the rule.
I know that you are a Georgia fan and SHOULD know everything about football, but you are wrong. You can’t lead with any part of the helmet above the neck of a defenseless player. Now go brush up on your football rules dawg man.
Jmo but when i watch texas its like watching uk at times in that you can tell sark is trying to get touches for guys.
They usually get out to a decent lead running their offense, then start bogging down when they start cycling in the touches. Its exactly what uk would do the under scang and coen and the first half of Bush's tenure.
Hell Texas's entire season is basically a giant touch count because Manning is obviously better but they keep playing ewers.
So i really think its poor coaching in theyre held hostage by nil and portal more than poor in game decisions.
They usually get out to a decent lead running their offense, then start bogging down when they start cycling in the touches. Its exactly what uk would do the under scang and coen and the first half of Bush's tenure.
Hell Texas's entire season is basically a giant touch count because Manning is obviously better but they keep playing ewers.
So i really think its poor coaching in theyre held hostage by nil and portal more than poor in game decisions.
I see more and more coaches overthinking stuff and/or getting way too greedy. TX was clearly in control of the game early on and then, inexplicably, seemed to take their foot off the gas. On several series, instead of just picking up a first down and keeping the drive going, Sark went for a big play which was unsuccessful. On a few occasions, ran an over-designed semi-trick play instead of justgrinding out 3 yards to get a first down. I see this type of coaching almost every Saturday and sometimes on Sunday, too.
ASU could have also won if they had held Texas when they were 4th and 13 in the first OT. ASU decided to blitz which I thought presnap that was a big mistake. You should be able to defend the line to gain in that situation successfully playing straight up, blitzing just opens the door for a big play.
NO it wasn't. It was accidental. He didn't intentionally lead with his helmet, they collided helmet to helmet. By the way, the non target call against ASU was terrible. He took his forearm and hit the WR in the neck. Anything above the shoulders and intentional is targeting. There was another they could have called also when Ewers was hit, I think it was on the play he threw the pick with 5 minutes to go.
But bad coaching there and worse decision by Ewers. Up 8 at midfield, if you are going to throw it, make sure it is a conservative play, he threw into double coverage. Same in the redzone with 2 minutes to go, passed the ball on 1st and 2nd down. There you run it and make ASU burn their final timeout, then kick the FG with about 10 seconds to go. The kicker missed but it almost cost them the game in regulation leaving ASU 1:40 and a timeout.
You typed a lot that I didn’t waste my time reading after the first sentence. Read the targeting rule before you tell someone that they are wrong.
I have, but most importantly, the REFS have. IT WAS NOT INTENTIONAL. BOTH PLAYERS COLLIDED HELMET TO HELMET. Neither player used their helmet to make a hit, they both are allowed space on the field and the runner ran into the defensive player as much as the defensive player ran into the ASU player. Simple really, if you have half a brain, which obviously you do not. COLLISION, look up the definition. If the Texas safety would have stopped dead in his tracks, they still would have collided because they was both going toward each other, not like the Texas player sprinted 15 yards seeking out the hit, there was very little space between them after the pass was caught.
Last edited:
So I read the story on a 6 million dollar NIL deal for the Texas QB to sign with a mystery school and not enter the draft. Who do you think is the mystery school?
From what I heard on sports radio, the rule no longer requires a crown of the helmet hit. It merely needs to be a hit to the head and neck area of a defenseless player.
And intent has no determination in the call.
Irrelevant now. Intent is not a factor. It’s a hit to the head or neck area. Crown of the helmet is no longer a criteria.
Missed/ignored call 100%.
Taaffe 1) did not launch himself into Stovall and 2) did not lead with the crown of his helmet, which are the two elements involved in targeting.
The quote above is a little quote I copy and pasted from a article explaining the call.
The quote above is a little quote I copy and pasted from a article explaining the call.
I don’t know what targeting is’: Did a non-call cost Arizona State a playoff game? Is the name of the article.
There was one play after Texas got the ball back where the TE was tackled a full yard short of the first down marker but he slid past the first down marker and they gave them the first down. It was seriously a full yard short. 😂
Beginning with the 2022 season, the rulebook’s definition of “crown of the helmet” was updated to more precisely focus on the top of the helmet and is now defined as “the top segment of the helmet; namely, the circular area defined by a 6-inch radius from the apex (top) of the helmet.”
If a player leads with the crown of his helmet, it’s targeting whether or not the player is defenseless.
When targeting is in question, it’s ruled a foul. However, there still needs to be at least one indicator of targeting, and instant replays must confirm the targeting call because there is no “stands” option.
Here are four key ones defined by the NCAA rulebook:
If a player leads with the crown of his helmet, it’s targeting whether or not the player is defenseless.
When targeting is in question, it’s ruled a foul. However, there still needs to be at least one indicator of targeting, and instant replays must confirm the targeting call because there is no “stands” option.
OK, so then what are the indicators of targeting in college football?
Here are four key ones defined by the NCAA rulebook:
- Launch — a player leaving his 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
The actual rule states below that any of these things are indicators but are not limited to just these things. By the rule it was targeting as you notice "intent" is not mentioned anywhere in the rule. 😂....
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
Can't graze a QB's helmet or use hands to a player's facemask but lowering your head and running straight helmet to helmet isn't a penalty? K
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Does the UF game really tip off at 11 AM?- Latest: the nail at the foul line
-
