The problem with the targeting no call is that ASU was called for Targeting in their last game, and it was less egregious than the no call Targeting that didn't go their way this game. That's my issue, targeting seems to be based on feelings and not on anything objective. The ASU coach lays it out at 3:14.
Except on the ASU int the Texas receiver also took a hit to the head while defenseless without a targeting call. That also would’ve changed the game but nobody is talking about that
@@GucciGuwop1017 no the db didnt try to hit isiah bond in fact he didnt even hit him with his helmet, isisiah bond is just weak and fell when he got touched.
@Speciesidkhe literally got a shoulder and forearm to the neck. TBH both were targeting but if you don’t call one you don’t call the other. There were way worse calls in favor of ASU all game and they lost plain and simple
@@GucciGuwop1017 No he didn't, the db hit him in the shoulder. And only Texas fans are crying about it because they know that the officials fucked over ASU.
The problem with targeting is people don't understand it. The officials and review team got the call correct. Ball was tipped. Receiver is no longer defenseless. Head and neck area no longer protected. The defensive player did not hit ASU player with crown of helmet. No targeting.
Asu fan here for 30 years, we had our shots to beat Texas but didn't, it was a fantastic game, congrats to Texas for advancing. \|/ forks up, we will always be proud to be a sundevil and of this team's season , God bless good luck to Texas going forward.
@MarcRiley-sf4gw well typically we don't bother anyone and just go about our business...and dont win too terribly much.....we love our team but I'm trying to set the few crazed ones straight on how to act .....no keyboard warriors on my watch haha 😂 appreciate the love sir
The targeting penalty is a failed attempt to reduce concussions. Helmet-to-helmet contact is almost always coincidental - it's very obvious when watching replays. If officials determine that a player is trying to injure another, that's what the unsportsmanlike conduct penalty is for. The targeting penalty should be eliminated.
@tjjones5729 Yep. If Shaun Wade doesn't get that bogust targeting call vs Clemson in 2019, OSU wins the championship. It's a BS call. Sometimes they call it, sometimes they don't, No consistency.
Josh Pate made a valid point that targeting needs grades of severity. It’s what they do with flagrant fouls in bb, or like running into the kicker/punter vs roughing the k/p. Some wouldn’t warrant warrant ejection but are still dangerous.
It’s supposed to be to protect players neck as using the crown of the helmet can potentially crush your vertebrae and was happening a lot before the rule was put in place. It also dangerous to use your helmet as the primary contact with the crown, launching yourself like a missile. Should not matter if the head, it should be the technique that gets penalized, not the results.
That play was NOT targeting. They Both had their helmets hit each other. There was NO clear intent of targeting on that play. DEFEND the 4th and 13 cost ASU the game.
@@allenrice-cw8dcbond wasn’t targeting because there was no forcible contact to the head/neck area. (The hits impact was absorbed in the chest) the asu one was targeting and you need to look up the rules. Intent does not at all matter in targeting.
No targeting on Bond which would negate the INT. O linemen can't drag anyone forward and NO ONE mentions that. ASU is what lost them the game, overall ASU got way more favorable calls
Bond was hit in the chest by the off ball defender’s shoulder. He popped right back up because it was just a deflected hit. Just watched it from a number of angles. Tho I can see why some might want to determine it differently-at least wanted that is acknowledgment that the no-call was incorrect. Don’t get why the o lineman wasn’t called for helping the runner (tho had read a piece that it is called rarely-I believe in the NFL not since ‘91). It’s not reviewable tho, and was not called during the play, which they might have just missed because they didn’t have the vantage. There was also a missed TX offensive PI on a clear path INT by ASU on the same drive where TX scored its final regulation TD. The reason everyone is talking about a textbook targeting call at a definitive moment at the end of the game is because they decided not to call it not because it wasn’t clear, but because they either a) didn’t want to make a call very late in the game that could have impacted the regulation time outcome or worse, b) the field is tilted toward the heavy favorite.
No it's not. Here is one of the indicators that is required against a defenseless player directly from the rule: "Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area". Where is crown in there? Every hit to the head/neck area with the crown of the helmet will be Targeting, but not every Targeting will involve the crown of the helmet.
Targeting is defined as either a forcible hit with the crown of the defender's helmet, or a forcible hit (with any part of the body) in the head or neck area o
I'm sorry, why is everyone overlooking the penalty on the Skattebo TD run when the OL pulled him into the endzone. Not one person on that ESPN panel brought that up. But lets all jump on the questionable targeting call on Texas. Such hypocrisy. That said, Skattebo is an amazing player.
Totally! And why is everyone overlooking the offensive pass interference by Texas when Simmons on ASU had a clear path to an INT on that final regulation TD scoring drive by Texas?
@@andywagneraz Yeah, and the refs also missed the targeting on ASU on the Ewers interception pass. The ASU defender clearly used forced contact with his helmet on Isaiah Bond head area. Seems maybe as if the refs just didn't want to be the reason the game was decided there later in the 4th quarter , because there was plenty of missed calls on both sides. To me it all evens out in the end.
The three ASU highlights leading up to the targeting by Texas included a miss targeting call against ASU with a missed pass interference that resulted in an interception, a missed offensive pass interference that resulted in 85 yard catch and a missed pulling the running back into the end zone, which is illegal. All of those tied the game up before making the Texas targeting call even relevant. But yes, let’s act like the one missed call is the reason ASU lost. Looked a lot more like ref’s at least being consistent with their review of targeting.
The TD pulling the runner into the endzone is baffling to me because NOBODY talked about it, but that has been illegal forever. Pushing is allowed, but pulling/lifting etc. to advance progress is not, but not ONE announcer or commentator after the game questioned that play.
@ complaining about 1 call that maybe should have gone ASU’s way and ignoring the dozens of bad or missed calls that kept ASU from being slaughtered is baffling to me. People trying to say the ref’s favored Texas and made sure they won is astonishingly biased.
While you're targeting the non-targeting call, be sure to target the illegal pulling of Skateebo into the end zone. According to the NCAA Football rule 9-3-2. Another offensive player can push but cannot pull a ball carrier for forward yardage. Doing so is a 5 yd penalty. So, instead of Skat's late TD, it should have been no TD and ball back at the 7 yard line.
When I saw that, that was the first thing that popped into my mind. Isn't that illegal procedure? I was not pulling for either team, the targeting looked borderline either way, but I didn't see any discussion of a touchdown reversing call that should have been made.
On the highlights they showed, there was also an obvious hold by Texas allowing Ewers to scamper into the end zone. I think we need to separate calls missed by the refs in live game play and ones that go to the booth to be reviewed from multiple camera angles. The booth reviews owe us a clear explanation which they still haven’t done.
He shouldn't have placed himself in such a position down the middle if he didn't want to get hit . Michael Irving was taking hits like that during the 87 national championship, results in alligator arms.
1. Hit with shoulder, not helmet. 2. The ball was intercepted, he can’t be a defenseless receiver if there isnt a pass in play. So no, 2 examples of not meeting the definitions of targeting.
@@frankc.astle214 watch the play then read the definition. Definition is “lead with helmet” the player literally leads with shoulder and doesn’t even make helmet contact. 2 the ball was already intercepted when he was hit. The defender had already caught the ball and came down. He isn’t catching an already caught ball. So what are you even talking about? What’s next? Are we gonna call roughing the kicker calls when you hit the nose guard? Make it make sense
@@frankc.astle214They see how his neck flocked back in all they just mad get over it skattebo ain have enough ASU ran out gas skattebo wasn't called for pi when he dipped his shoulder into our db but we got hit with pi and facemask in tht same play chill lol
0:40 is targeting as well. Refs chose not to call either penalty letting the players decide the outcome of the game. Also 0:47 is OPI but was called DPI. Ball don't lie in the end.
@@dave3823dude didn’t hold him once, skattebo ran right by him, gaffe caught up, skattebo gets clear as day push off and catches ball. Now taffe does come and hit him in the facemask while trying to tackle but the OPI was definitely first
@taylortuttle1 u want that on an arm to the chest? That's not targeting and they even stopped the game and looked at it hoping it was trying to cheat for Texas
@@reginaldprice446 defenseless receiver, launched himself into the head/neck area. They called the game consistently. If you don’t call the one on the INT, you don’t call this one. Both players were defenseless.
@@reginaldprice446that arm came up and clipped him under the chin. He clearly came up with it. That’s why he was fixing his helmet. And he was defenseless.
Another example of officials not wanting to make a call that would probably determine the outcome of the game. By not making the call, they still determined the outcome.
Why is everyone conveniently ignoring the defenseless Texas receiver being decapitated on that interception? Is that not targeting because he wasn’t hurt? The DB launches and puts his shoulder into his throat. I thought the receiver was dead before he even hit the ground.
@@connorshroyer5180no they didn’t. ASU lost, because they couldn’t defend 4th and 13. And they also got away with the targeting mentioned in OP. The refs tried their hardest but it wasn’t enough.
It was a consistent call. Rewind it back to when ASU did the same thing on the 4th quarter Ewers interception. The Texas receiver was defenseless and took a shot to the head on that interception. No call.
The only thing that was consistent is the refs missed two calls. Two obvious calls, they decided not to let those calls decide the game. I don't agree with it, but I truly believe the refs purposely didn't make either call.
are you just flat out blind? the one on the Ewers throw was the ASU guy going in sideways and hitting him with the side of his helmet in the top of the chest. The only reason he hit him in the head at all is the Texas reciever lowered his head. The one they didn't call the DB for Texas launched himself and lowered and hit with the crown. This game was rigged for Texas and they wanted them to win.
Please. ASU was trash four 3 quarters of that game, thenTX does what they've been doing under Sark for four years - give up double-digit leads during the second half of the game and most of the time come back to win by one score. No matter how many times TX plays ASU, they would win 99% of the time. Don't be deceived by that 4th QTR. It's typical TX when they play almost anyone. That one call didn't determine the outcome of the game. ASU should do less talking next time and try showing up for more than just one quarter of the game.
The play was clearly targeting . The problem is the rule does not account for unintended collisions, particularly when the movement of the offensive player ( lowering his head) create the “targeting “.
By this definition, the hit on Isaiah Bond should've been called as well. That was on a game changing interception. If you think one was but not the other then you are just being biased.
@@Jeremy32Miller In that case you would take the first penalty which was offensive pass interference or replay downs.. That's ultimately what I'm saying calls were missed , it is what it is.
In my opinion, YES! If the Refs hadn’t BLOWN THE TARGETING CALL ASU would have had a First Down and PROBABLY could have moved the ball down the Field to kick a Field Goal and Win the Game! However, we will NEVER KNOW because the Refs WANTED Texas to win the game! THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE FOR NOT CALLING TARGETING ON THAT PLAY!!! NO EXCUSE!!!
So you don’t know the rules…. The rule prohibits players from initiating forcible contact against an opposing player. That could be leading with the crown of the helmet while making forcible contact, or making forcible contact with the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet. The call was not blown! You just don’t know!
An SEC team getting away with targeting at a crucial point in a game they are almost certainly going to lose if it gets called… yeah that tracks. Cough UGA in 22…. Officiating in this sport needs a significant overhaul.
By the way, the TD that Skateboo "scored" shouldn't have been allowed. No, an offensive lineman cannot legally "carry" a runner into the end zone in the sense of lifting or pulling them forward. While pushing a runner is allowed, grabbing, pulling, or lifting them to assist in forward progress is prohibited and penalized as "helping the runner
So the bowl committe needs a couple of cities like Cincinnati or Pittsburgh host a bowl game ….. technically it’s neutral for Ohio state, Penn state……. And SEC fans proved they have no problem traveling 30,000 strong to Columbus for a cold weather playoff game, disproving a typical ESPN narrative that fans don’t want to go to cold weather locations… at least start out by including the pinstrip bowl in the playoff bowl location!!
Did the no call penalty in OT when Cam's teammate threw him into the endzone help ASU? Yes. That should have been a penalty and no TD. But, people on here crying about targeting which played no outcome on the win or lose. Also it wasnt targeting. Yall just playing what-if's... Well, what if Auburn didnt miss those field goals....the end. MOVE ON ASU is not the better team and they can't win just b/c of one guy.
@@TL-qr3ii y'all love saying this. If that were true, the ref wouldn't have called the false start to make it 4th & 13 in OT for Texas. Or would have thrown a flag at Skattebo being pulled into end zone for a TD. So enough with this dumb theory.
Swallowing the whistle and refusing to enforce the rules of the game is still deciding the game. But, yes, generally speaking when a refs refuse to do their jobs, the criticism is much, MUCH quieter than when the make a call in the affirmative that affects the game. The long review cycle for that play had very little to do with evaluating the play and everything to do with evaluating the outcome. Gutless officiating.
That wasn’t targeting; he didn’t lead w the crown of his helmet and he wasn’t even going for bond, once the pick happened he put his shoulder into him and that was all. Which is exactly why it wasn’t reviewed. Helmet contact isn’t targeting, FORCIBLE contact w the crown of the helmet is targeting. If that pick was targeting then there’s targeting every play even incidental
@@TheBlackestKnight21 That was targeting, who care's if he was going for him or not, there was forceable contact to the neck and head. Taaffe hit face to fact not with the crown of his helmet.
IF the refs called the targeting launch hit at the 5:36 mark of the 4th qtr, they would've called the second one. So you see where we're going with this. I'm an ASU fan (my son attended there) and have been to many ASU games. And I saw 2 penalties there that were not called.
@ your son going there means nothing in this conversation, and other missed calls don’t make up for an OBVIOUS MISSED CALL that screamed “we can’t give ASU the game like this”. That was a clear targeting end of story
ASU got away with a definite missed targeting play on the Ewers pick and that crucial play wasn’t targeting he made a great play on the ball and receiver without leading with the crown of his helmet! That was just a great play! We love ed reed Troy P B Dawkins because they made great plays like that
That’s because of the cal was made ASU would’ve got a change of downs and would’ve been able to mill the clock down to win the game with a walk off kick. Had this occurred at any other point in the game we wouldn’t be talking about it like this but when you’re in a situation like that making the wrong call feels like you are deciding the game for them
The rule says you have to hit him in with the crown of your helmet not the front of your helmet the crown of your helmet… Case closed good game by both teams, but don’t blame the entire game on a non-call that was not there… Or jump on the Waaaaambulance with the qb and Skattebo…..
Yes and by rule the crown of the helmet is defined as a 6” circle at top of helmet and if they were actually serious about the rule they’d mandate that all helmets would be marked with a contrasting color on every helmet. And as far as neck area goes, uniform and specifically number placement should be regulated ( which many aspects of jerseys are) so that any hit above the numbers could easily be defined as neck area.
Looked like a perfect form tackle to me, as the player didn't lead with the helmet. Based on the rule, it is probably targeting (but the rule is bad and the other option is to not tackle the player). I understand if you are throwing yourself at a player head first like a missile; but if an offensive player turns his head directly into yours, he is just as much as fault as the defender (and there is nothing the defender can really do). Football was neutered long ago, and I am glad the ref making the no call was not haha.
Didn’t lead with helmet? It was the first part of the defender to make contact. By definition a perfect form tackle is eyes up, head in front of ball carrier and making contact with shoulder pads around the numbers or waist area.
So what do you call that hit on Isiah bond? Better question, did you see scataboo getting pulled into the end zone for the touchdown to go up 31-24? ?? That’s a penalty
If you read the rule book forcible contact to the head/neck alone is not enough, there needs to be at least one other "indicator" and I don't think the Texas defender either: took aim at the head/neck, didn't leave his feet or upward thrust, didn't lead with his head and didn't utilize the crown of the helmet.
They also missed a targeting against ASU on the Ewers interception. The ASU corner launched himself at Bond's head and made forcible contact. Also, Taaffe made contact with his facemask. Thats by definition not targeting.
I thought the same thing, but when I read the rules that only one component of targeting needs to be present, not all four elements. It does not have to be all elements. So they could have called it -- if they had called it earlier on Bond.
Dead wrong the asu player did not launch he jumped in the air trying to play the ball second there was no contact with the crown of the helmet by the asu defender. He high is a huge part of targeting and on the Texas targeting. The Texas fender hit the receiver with the crown of the helmet. It doesn’t matter where you hit the receiver. What matters is what part of the helmet the defender uses. The crown of the helmet part of the rule is for the tackling defender. Not the part of the helmet that is being hit. It doesn’t matter what part of the helmet you hit if you use the crown of the helmet it’s targeting no matter what
Simple solution to force correct calls on this issue; every football helmet has a 6” diameter circle that the rule defines as crown,included on the helmet. When review time comes no questions or interpretations!
I somehow think that there was a 2nd rd playoff wide conscious decision to not call targeting on players bc it wasn’t just this call, but there were multiple targeting calls throughout the entire day that got reverse and could’ve easily been upheld. Maybe bc it’s the 2nd rd of the playoff and they don’t want to eject players and have the Refs being a storyline for why teams lose and get eliminated or maybe it was something simple like the NCAA wanted to have a special guest help out and they decided to honor Stevie Wonder by letting him be in charge of all replays. Idk but I just find it a little bit interesting that not one targeting call throughout the entire was upheld.
The tackler clearly ducked his head, hit with the crown of his helmet, then brought his face up. Bad calls against West Coast teams vs East Coast teams have been common for years.
He didn’t lower his head, and he didn’t lead with the head the head and body hit at the same time. This was a textbook tackle how every kid is taught to wrap up and tackle
@@SunniMerlot Well then I'll be sure to not send my kids to any Nike camps, since the coaches there don't even know what a good form tackle looks like haha.
It took away from the game for dang sure. We will never know what would have happened if ASU got the call. It was clear targeting to the tee all the elements.
@@djnfbrhkelkondwvb6853 The part of the rule where it says you have to use the crown of the helmet for it to be targeting. That's what it has to do with it.
@Exokrack I get it, but the offensive player crouched right before the hit which caused the helmet to helmet contact. They are about the same height, so he hits his chest if not.
@dave3823 Incidental contact while going to make a tackle is not what the rule is meant for. The rule specifically states that you must "attack" while lowering your head and there's no possible way you can percieve that as an attack on the head.
@@AC-im4hino you are entirely wrong here. The spirit of the rule was the reason it was used, but it wasn’t about player safety it’s about helping sec teams whenever they need a jump, Ohio stats vs Georgia 2022, Georgia takes out osu’s best player in a call that was ruled targeting on field. It was overturned because Georgia would’ve lost if this was called, puts osu in field goal range to take a 2 score lead. This rule only exists to help sec programs, it isn’t used for other programs. Now to address what the rule is supposed to do, you are also wrong, the intent is completely irrelevant
Fantastic effort by ASU with the play of Leavitt and Skattebo. Being honest, that non call sure looked like it prevented ASU from winning in regulation but letting the receiver get behind them cost them the game in ot. One they could control the other they couldn’t. Nevertheless it was a great game!!!
If you are going to complain about this no-call, you also have to eliminate the ASU TD in OT for pulling the runner into the end zone. That is an illegal play and should have negated the touchdown and moved the ball back 5 yards. Rule 9-3-2b states that a teammate cannot grasp, pull, or lift the ball carrier to assist in forward progress.
Officials made a decision on the spot that they didn’t want their call to affect the outcome of the game. Whether you like the rule or not, that was classic targeting, has to be called. Arizona State. Got screwed!
That should have been called for targeting its a plain hit right to the helmet right before the player was knocked to the ground by the Texas player who tackled the receiver I think a full investigation is required from the NCAA and the officials should be suspended and fined
15:15 we only had like 33 sacks all season 😂 now all the sudden we have 12 in 2 games vs the best teams we've played. If we win a natty we should give Michigan a hug.
The only defense to the no targeting call, would be saying the Texas defender didn't "lower the crown" to make the hit. Implying they hit face to face. Still should have been a flag, IMO.
Somehow you didn’t comment on the missed targeting on the Bond hit. Watching the stupidity of your arguments reminds me why I stopped watching ESPN on TV. You act like ASU would have won based on 1 play. Now go back and look at all the missed calls or non-calls that benefited ASU. Texas won. Get over it.
110% targeting. But they didn’t call it when Ewers threw the interception either. I think that they didn’t want it to be the story of the game . Which it ended up being anyway
A penalty does not decide who wins the game, the scoreboard does. On the other game the next thing they will be saying was that Oregon should not have been there...that's why they play the games people.
It was targeting. Copied and pasted from the NCAA rule book. The NCAA targeting rule in college football aims to prevent dangerous hits to the head or neck area that can cause serious injuries. According to the rule, 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 rule was adopted in 2008 and has been enforced to ensure player safety.
i disagree that the receiver was defenseless. he begins to turn and run the ball before he’s tackled. also there was no contact with the crown of the helmet, so the previous rule doesn’t apply either
I hate the rule, how its enforced, and the terrible impact it has on games. With that being said, the result of this play was the reason the rule was created in the first place
They missed a targeting call on asu before this call they also called dpi when skattebo was the one who pushed off on that 63 yard reception they also didn’t call the penalty when the offensive lineman suplexed his player into the endzone (clearly an assist) the refs were terrible in this game and yall refuse to talk about the bad calls only the one targeting penalty
The NCAA targeting rule in college football aims to prevent dangerous hits to the head or neck area that can cause serious injuries. According to the rule, 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 rule was adopted in 2008 and has been enforced to ensure player safety.j Learn the rules.
@@major-mishap Thanks for agreeing with me. You have to target and make forcible contact. He was about as vertical as you can be, not aiming for the head or neck area.
Officials and the booth should be available for post game interviews.
They should have their assets audited
You mean Post game Lynchings
For what? The game is over and the call was made. Nothing will change
@@iam_nell Longforns fans should keep their head on a swivel. Its officially Open Season after this game
Why? So they can get more air time? They shouldnt be in broadcast booths or known by first name basis.
The problem with the targeting no call is that ASU was called for Targeting in their last game, and it was less egregious than the no call Targeting that didn't go their way this game. That's my issue, targeting seems to be based on feelings and not on anything objective. The ASU coach lays it out at 3:14.
Except on the ASU int the Texas receiver also took a hit to the head while defenseless without a targeting call. That also would’ve changed the game but nobody is talking about that
@@GucciGuwop1017 no the db didnt try to hit isiah bond in fact he didnt even hit him with his helmet, isisiah bond is just weak and fell when he got touched.
@Speciesidkhe literally got a shoulder and forearm to the neck. TBH both were targeting but if you don’t call one you don’t call the other. There were way worse calls in favor of ASU all game and they lost plain and simple
@@GucciGuwop1017 No he didn't, the db hit him in the shoulder. And only Texas fans are crying about it because they know that the officials fucked over ASU.
The problem with targeting is people don't understand it. The officials and review team got the call correct. Ball was tipped. Receiver is no longer defenseless. Head and neck area no longer protected. The defensive player did not hit ASU player with crown of helmet. No targeting.
Asu fan here for 30 years, we had our shots to beat Texas but didn't, it was a fantastic game, congrats to Texas for advancing. \|/ forks up, we will always be proud to be a sundevil and of this team's season , God bless good luck to Texas going forward.
Yall definitely earned our respect. I’m glad yall fought the way yall did because it let people know you can’t play the game on a computer. 💪🏽
@jmacc1014 appreciate that sir, congrats and good luck going forward. \|/
YOU are a great fan. I love this. You gave me hope for ASU fans. :)
@MarcRiley-sf4gw well typically we don't bother anyone and just go about our business...and dont win too terribly much.....we love our team but I'm trying to set the few crazed ones straight on how to act .....no keyboard warriors on my watch haha 😂 appreciate the love sir
The targeting penalty is a failed attempt to reduce concussions. Helmet-to-helmet contact is almost always coincidental - it's very obvious when watching replays. If officials determine that a player is trying to injure another, that's what the unsportsmanlike conduct penalty is for. The targeting penalty should be eliminated.
@tjjones5729 Yep. If Shaun Wade doesn't get that bogust targeting call vs Clemson in 2019, OSU wins the championship. It's a BS call. Sometimes they call it, sometimes they don't, No consistency.
Josh Pate made a valid point that targeting needs grades of severity. It’s what they do with flagrant fouls in bb, or like running into the kicker/punter vs roughing the k/p. Some wouldn’t warrant warrant ejection but are still dangerous.
It’s supposed to be to protect players neck as using the crown of the helmet can potentially crush your vertebrae and was happening a lot before the rule was put in place. It also dangerous to use your helmet as the primary contact with the crown, launching yourself like a missile. Should not matter if the head, it should be the technique that gets penalized, not the results.
What is a shame is the no call for targeting on bond.
Exactly
That play was NOT targeting. They Both had their helmets hit each other. There was NO clear intent of targeting on that play. DEFEND the 4th and 13 cost ASU the game.
@@allenrice-cw8dcbond wasn’t targeting because there was no forcible contact to the head/neck area. (The hits impact was absorbed in the chest) the asu one was targeting and you need to look up the rules. Intent does not at all matter in targeting.
@@nonot8232 he launched himself into the hit.
That wasn't targeting !!! He was hit in the chest area !!!
No targeting on Bond which would negate the INT.
O linemen can't drag anyone forward and NO ONE mentions that.
ASU is what lost them the game, overall ASU got way more favorable calls
Bond was hit in the chest by the off ball defender’s shoulder. He popped right back up because it was just a deflected hit. Just watched it from a number of angles. Tho I can see why some might want to determine it differently-at least wanted that is acknowledgment that the no-call was incorrect.
Don’t get why the o lineman wasn’t called for helping the runner (tho had read a piece that it is called rarely-I believe in the NFL not since ‘91). It’s not reviewable tho, and was not called during the play, which they might have just missed because they didn’t have the vantage.
There was also a missed TX offensive PI on a clear path INT by ASU on the same drive where TX scored its final regulation TD.
The reason everyone is talking about a textbook targeting call at a definitive moment at the end of the game is because they decided not to call it not because it wasn’t clear, but because they either a) didn’t want to make a call very late in the game that could have impacted the regulation time outcome or worse, b) the field is tilted toward the heavy favorite.
Was it targeting on the Ewers' pass to Bond that got intercepted??
Key word is “Crown” clean hard hit
No it's not. Here is one of the indicators that is required against a defenseless player directly from the rule: "Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area".
Where is crown in there? Every hit to the head/neck area with the crown of the helmet will be Targeting, but not every Targeting will involve the crown of the helmet.
Targeting is defined as either a forcible hit with the crown of the defender's helmet, or a forcible hit (with any part of the body) in the head or neck area o
“Crown” is clearly stated
Yes and crown as defined in rule is a 6 inch diameter circle
@@dave3823Read the whole rule.
I'm sorry, why is everyone overlooking the penalty on the Skattebo TD run when the OL pulled him into the endzone. Not one person on that ESPN panel brought that up. But lets all jump on the questionable targeting call on Texas. Such hypocrisy. That said, Skattebo is an amazing player.
This is also true!!
That was definitely a good no call and I'm no Texas fan! Targeting is to subjective...needs to be redefined
Totally! And why is everyone overlooking the offensive pass interference by Texas when Simmons on ASU had a clear path to an INT on that final regulation TD scoring drive by Texas?
@@andywagneraz Yeah, and the refs also missed the targeting on ASU on the Ewers interception pass. The ASU defender clearly used forced contact with his helmet on Isaiah Bond head area. Seems maybe as if the refs just didn't want to be the reason the game was decided there later in the 4th quarter , because there was plenty of missed calls on both sides. To me it all evens out in the end.
Im sayin though.
If they can't consistently enforce the penalty, they need to get rid of it
I guess that goes for holding, pass interference too?
The three ASU highlights leading up to the targeting by Texas included a miss targeting call against ASU with a missed pass interference that resulted in an interception, a missed offensive pass interference that resulted in 85 yard catch and a missed pulling the running back into the end zone, which is illegal. All of those tied the game up before making the Texas targeting call even relevant. But yes, let’s act like the one missed call is the reason ASU lost. Looked a lot more like ref’s at least being consistent with their review of targeting.
The TD pulling the runner into the endzone is baffling to me because NOBODY talked about it, but that has been illegal forever. Pushing is allowed, but pulling/lifting etc. to advance progress is not, but not ONE announcer or commentator after the game questioned that play.
@ complaining about 1 call that maybe should have gone ASU’s way and ignoring the dozens of bad or missed calls that kept ASU from being slaughtered is baffling to me. People trying to say the ref’s favored Texas and made sure they won is astonishingly biased.
That was not OPI. Even if you want to argue that then you probably should note the TU player holding/interfering earlier in the route...
@@dave3823 pushing off is opi. The whole play should have been called back, not 85 yards for asu.
@@fnkdtnk Look at stats lol. Slaughtered? Uhhhhh, Texas was manhandled all things considered
While you're targeting the non-targeting call, be sure to target the illegal pulling of Skateebo into the end zone. According to the NCAA Football rule 9-3-2. Another offensive player can push but cannot pull a ball carrier for forward yardage. Doing so is a 5 yd penalty. So, instead of Skat's late TD, it should have been no TD and ball back at the 7 yard line.
And how about the clear block in the back on the punt return TD? Should have been Texas ball at their own 10.
When I saw that, that was the first thing that popped into my mind. Isn't that illegal procedure? I was not pulling for either team, the targeting looked borderline either way, but I didn't see any discussion of a touchdown reversing call that should have been made.
On the highlights they showed, there was also an obvious hold by Texas allowing Ewers to scamper into the end zone. I think we need to separate calls missed by the refs in live game play and ones that go to the booth to be reviewed from multiple camera angles. The booth reviews owe us a clear explanation which they still haven’t done.
Arizona State was robbed!
Isiah Bond was targeted with a no call... so suck it
He shouldn't have placed himself in such a position down the middle if he didn't want to get hit . Michael Irving was taking hits like that during the 87 national championship, results in alligator arms.
1. Hit with shoulder, not helmet.
2. The ball was intercepted, he can’t be a defenseless receiver if there isnt a pass in play.
So no, 2 examples of not meeting the definitions of targeting.
@@linkjoestar8924he was hit in the head/neck area going for the catch. what are you even talking about?
@@frankc.astle214 watch the play then read the definition. Definition is “lead with helmet” the player literally leads with shoulder and doesn’t even make helmet contact. 2 the ball was already intercepted when he was hit. The defender had already caught the ball and came down. He isn’t catching an already caught ball. So what are you even talking about? What’s next? Are we gonna call roughing the kicker calls when you hit the nose guard? Make it make sense
@@frankc.astle214They see how his neck flocked back in all they just mad get over it skattebo ain have enough ASU ran out gas skattebo wasn't called for pi when he dipped his shoulder into our db but we got hit with pi and facemask in tht same play chill lol
0:40 is targeting as well. Refs chose not to call either penalty letting the players decide the outcome of the game. Also 0:47 is OPI but was called DPI. Ball don't lie in the end.
If you want to try and stretch that into OPI then what about the UT player holding earlier in the route?
@@dave3823dude didn’t hold him once, skattebo ran right by him, gaffe caught up, skattebo gets clear as day push off and catches ball. Now taffe does come and hit him in the facemask while trying to tackle but the OPI was definitely first
Asu got away with targeting literally the last drive, like what are we doing
Came here to say this, on the INT they snapped Bond’s head back. No call at all.
@taylortuttle1 u want that on an arm to the chest? That's not targeting and they even stopped the game and looked at it hoping it was trying to cheat for Texas
@@reginaldprice446 defenseless receiver, launched himself into the head/neck area. They called the game consistently. If you don’t call the one on the INT, you don’t call this one. Both players were defenseless.
@@taylortuttle1so the chest is head neck area?
@@reginaldprice446that arm came up and clipped him under the chin. He clearly came up with it. That’s why he was fixing his helmet. And he was defenseless.
Another example of officials not wanting to make a call that would probably determine the outcome of the game. By not making the call, they still determined the outcome.
Someone brought a a good point that ASU touchdown by the RB was illegal bc he was pulled into the endzone. There were missed calls on both sides.
@@alcoballic9593 How is that illegal?
ASU lost on the 4th and 13 touchdown pass
No they did not. ASU had as much of a chance to win in OT as Texas did and they let Texas score two TDS in 2 plays. ASU lost
By definition !!
Why is everyone conveniently ignoring the defenseless Texas receiver being decapitated on that interception? Is that not targeting because he wasn’t hurt? The DB launches and puts his shoulder into his throat. I thought the receiver was dead before he even hit the ground.
After the ball arrives it’s fair game. Pass was picked and then he was hit. Also he was aiming for his chest regardless. ASU got screwed
@@connorshroyer5180no they didn’t. ASU lost, because they couldn’t defend 4th and 13. And they also got away with the targeting mentioned in OP. The refs tried their hardest but it wasn’t enough.
Arizona state players caught the ball spun and lowered his helmet. Not targeting
@@connorshroyer5180it’s still targeting. The interception would’ve still counted if they made the call
@@taylortuttle1 shouldn’t have even been in OT
Its funny how they talk about defensless receiver but not talk about the hit on Bond when he was defenseless
This is true
That wasnt helmet to helmet
That was helmet to chest
@@ericcheatem6261it was shoulder to head on a defenseless player after launching. That's targeting
@@ericcheatem6261don’t matter he was defenseless and was hit in the head
Targeting? Not called on bond. Flag not thrown for dragging Skataboohoo in during OT. Biased network smh. Call it both ways or not at all.
I was thinking the same thing! They’re praising the offensive lineman for carrying Skataboo into the end zone but that is literally a penalty
It was a consistent call. Rewind it back to when ASU did the same thing on the 4th quarter Ewers interception. The Texas receiver was defenseless and took a shot to the head on that interception. No call.
The only thing that was consistent is the refs missed two calls. Two obvious calls, they decided not to let those calls decide the game. I don't agree with it, but I truly believe the refs purposely didn't make either call.
Facts
Facts, funny how espn isn’t talking about that fair is fair. If they didn’t call it for Texas they did they should’ve called it for Arizona State
The Texas receiver did not take a shot to the head. Watch that play again.
are you just flat out blind? the one on the Ewers throw was the ASU guy going in sideways and hitting him with the side of his helmet in the top of the chest. The only reason he hit him in the head at all is the Texas reciever lowered his head. The one they didn't call the DB for Texas launched himself and lowered and hit with the crown. This game was rigged for Texas and they wanted them to win.
No way the Committee was gonna let Arizona State get into the semifinals
So the Committee told ASU to not defend on 4th and 13?? Stop begging to be saved by the refs.
After watching the Rose Bowl, I can see Texas lose by at least 21 points
@@AussieW-q7yTexas is going to get exposed big time
Please. ASU was trash four 3 quarters of that game, thenTX does what they've been doing under Sark for four years - give up double-digit leads during the second half of the game and most of the time come back to win by one score. No matter how many times TX plays ASU, they would win 99% of the time. Don't be deceived by that 4th QTR. It's typical TX when they play almost anyone. That one call didn't determine the outcome of the game. ASU should do less talking next time and try showing up for more than just one quarter of the game.
Committee tried to get ASU in!
The play was clearly targeting .
The problem is the rule does not account for unintended collisions, particularly when the movement of the offensive player ( lowering his head) create the “targeting “.
no, a defensive player should not have his lowered while tackling
By this definition, the hit on Isaiah Bond should've been called as well. That was on a game changing interception. If you think one was but not the other then you are just being biased.
Where the off ball defender hit Bond in the chest with his shoulder (from which Bond just popped up)?
@andywagneraz That wasn't chest. It was head/neck
That was text book targeting
Skattebo pushed off the corner for the catch but no call was made as well
Not to mention all the missed holding calls all game. No o-line in the country is that perfect
The defender still pulled his face mask afterwards idk why y’all are still on this
Skatatrash pushed off and that wasn’t targeting bunch of pansies
@@Jeremy32Miller In that case you would take the first penalty which was offensive pass interference or replay downs.. That's ultimately what I'm saying calls were missed , it is what it is.
You can see ther every play but I get it you wanted to add in a reason
In my opinion, YES! If the Refs hadn’t BLOWN THE TARGETING CALL ASU would have had a First Down and PROBABLY could have moved the ball down the Field to kick a Field Goal and Win the Game! However, we will NEVER KNOW because the Refs WANTED Texas to win the game! THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE FOR NOT CALLING TARGETING ON THAT PLAY!!! NO EXCUSE!!!
So you don’t know the rules….
The rule prohibits players from initiating forcible contact against an opposing player. That could be leading with the crown of the helmet while making forcible contact, or making forcible contact with the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet.
The call was not blown! You just don’t know!
An SEC team getting away with targeting at a crucial point in a game they are almost certainly going to lose if it gets called… yeah that tracks. Cough UGA in 22…. Officiating in this sport needs a significant overhaul.
That’s not the CROWN of the helmet and also, the ball was tipped!
@@sethhoward9300You still cannot forcefully hit a defenseless player in the upper body. It was Targeting.
@@mr.simonphoenix7181 With the CROWN of the helmet.. do not ignore the context
@@sethhoward9300 The ball being tipped doesn't matter.
@ ok it doesn’t but the hit was Not with the CROWN
By the way, the TD that Skateboo "scored" shouldn't have been allowed. No, an offensive lineman cannot legally "carry" a runner into the end zone in the sense of lifting or pulling them forward. While pushing a runner is allowed, grabbing, pulling, or lifting them to assist in forward progress is prohibited and penalized as "helping the runner
But no one will say that!! And it should had been a penalty and a loss of downs I think
ASU had one on Texas so they both wash out
Well you gotta get Texas to a bowl game in Texas c'mon now
And have Texas play IN Texas's home state.And they call it neutral???
@@donnagreene7766the Cotton Bowl is a neutral site. Dallas, not Austin. It’s not a gimme for Texas by no means.
So the bowl committe needs a couple of cities like Cincinnati or Pittsburgh host a bowl game ….. technically it’s neutral for Ohio state, Penn state……. And SEC fans proved they have no problem traveling 30,000 strong to Columbus for a cold weather playoff game, disproving a typical ESPN narrative that fans don’t want to go to cold weather locations… at least start out by including the pinstrip bowl in the playoff bowl location!!
Did the no call penalty in OT when Cam's teammate threw him into the endzone help ASU? Yes. That should have been a penalty and no TD. But, people on here crying about targeting which played no outcome on the win or lose. Also it wasnt targeting. Yall just playing what-if's... Well, what if Auburn didnt miss those field goals....the end. MOVE ON ASU is not the better team and they can't win just b/c of one guy.
Complete miss.They may have scored on next play who knows but that was a penalty
@@brians1225he must be a Texas fan
Totally targeting lol
don't want to admit refs in the bag for SEC.
@@TL-qr3ii y'all love saying this. If that were true, the ref wouldn't have called the false start to make it 4th & 13 in OT for Texas. Or would have thrown a flag at Skattebo being pulled into end zone for a TD. So enough with this dumb theory.
The refs decided they were not going to decide that game for either team and personally I appreciated that
While doing so, they changed how they officiated all year
They decided the game by not calling it.
@ exactly lol
Swallowing the whistle and refusing to enforce the rules of the game is still deciding the game. But, yes, generally speaking when a refs refuse to do their jobs, the criticism is much, MUCH quieter than when the make a call in the affirmative that affects the game. The long review cycle for that play had very little to do with evaluating the play and everything to do with evaluating the outcome. Gutless officiating.
As a horns fan, game was great. Wild and nerve racking. There’s no way we’re getting past Ohio state though 😅
Ohio State could be going in overconfident. I like Texas chances.
@@inezherreraaguilarjr9038sure you do Homer, I like Ohio state’s chances.
ASU was holding dang near every play 😂
There were so many missed calls that favored ASU but everyone wants to look at one specific play.
get real man that was targeting and changed the outcome of the game more than likely
Ahh, yes. The refs were totally helping ASU who was getting blown out until half way through the 4th quarter…. 😂
What about the targeting not called in Arizona’s St pick?
I just spoke to an offial I know personally and he said the Arizona state one was more of targeting than the Texas one
That wasn’t targeting; he didn’t lead w the crown of his helmet and he wasn’t even going for bond, once the pick happened he put his shoulder into him and that was all. Which is exactly why it wasn’t reviewed. Helmet contact isn’t targeting, FORCIBLE contact w the crown of the helmet is targeting. If that pick was targeting then there’s targeting every play even incidental
@@TheBlackestKnight21 That was targeting, who care's if he was going for him or not, there was forceable contact to the neck and head. Taaffe hit face to fact not with the crown of his helmet.
IF the refs called the targeting launch hit at the 5:36 mark of the 4th qtr, they would've called the second one. So you see where we're going with this. I'm an ASU fan (my son attended there) and have been to many ASU games. And I saw 2 penalties there that were not called.
@ your son going there means nothing in this conversation, and other missed calls don’t make up for an OBVIOUS MISSED CALL that screamed “we can’t give ASU the game like this”. That was a clear targeting end of story
Refs better keep that same energy for the next 3 games.
PLEASE be smarter than this. You guys pushing this narrative is super embarrassing.
it was a blatant ref cheat. no question. it's on video. you can't talk it down.
ASU got away with a definite missed targeting play on the Ewers pick and that crucial play wasn’t targeting he made a great play on the ball and receiver without leading with the crown of his helmet! That was just a great play! We love ed reed Troy P B Dawkins because they made great plays like that
ESPN reduced a classic game into a 1 call that could’ve gone either way.
Not when it went to review. They have to make that call especially when it was clear. Refs saved Texas for sure!
That’s because of the cal was made ASU would’ve got a change of downs and would’ve been able to mill the clock down to win the game with a walk off kick. Had this occurred at any other point in the game we wouldn’t be talking about it like this but when you’re in a situation like that making the wrong call feels like you are deciding the game for them
No….
The SEC would be sad if Texas was gone before the final 4
I’ve seen targeting hits like this one all season long
What gets lost in all this is Arizona St. not having one of the best wide receivers in the country not playing due to injury.
Yeah because TX wasn't missing any players right?
You have back ups for a reason. Lame excuse
Cry about it
Texas’ star running back hasn’t played all season.
@@BuzzLiteworthim not sure this is an excuse, i think its more just saying how much better this hame couldve even been with another stud on the field
The rule says you have to hit him in with the crown of your helmet not the front of your helmet the crown of your helmet… Case closed good game by both teams, but don’t blame the entire game on a non-call that was not there… Or jump on the Waaaaambulance with the qb and Skattebo…..
Yes and by rule the crown of the helmet is defined as a 6” circle at top of helmet and if they were actually serious about the rule they’d mandate that all helmets would be marked with a contrasting color on every helmet. And as far as neck area goes, uniform and specifically number placement should be regulated ( which many aspects of jerseys are) so that any hit above the numbers could easily be defined as neck area.
Looked like a perfect form tackle to me, as the player didn't lead with the helmet. Based on the rule, it is probably targeting (but the rule is bad and the other option is to not tackle the player). I understand if you are throwing yourself at a player head first like a missile; but if an offensive player turns his head directly into yours, he is just as much as fault as the defender (and there is nothing the defender can really do). Football was neutered long ago, and I am glad the ref making the no call was not haha.
Agreed. It was a bang bang play. That’s like feet getting tangled up on a PI and they wave it off.
Didn’t lead with helmet? It was the first part of the defender to make contact. By definition a perfect form tackle is eyes up, head in front of ball carrier and making contact with shoulder pads around the numbers or waist area.
He didn't use the crown of the helmet
Per the rules that were read he didnt need to lead with the crown of the helmet ijs
Are you an idiot
Def not targeting some casuals need to learn the rules. It was a clean hit look up targeting hits you’ll see the difference
The rules from the rulebook were read…
@jimmyevanss5697 Did you not see/hear Greeny read the rules...
Texas got bailed out by the refs but Texas fans will say we had a bunch of no calls to lucky the reciever was ok
So what do you call that hit on Isiah bond? Better question, did you see scataboo getting pulled into the end zone for the touchdown to go up 31-24? ?? That’s a penalty
That play doesn’t decide the game. Neither team could make a field goal
It clearly did. Texas was suppose to lose that game
@@youknowwhyimhere2307didn't it go into OT ?
Who said ASU would have had to make a fg
@@youknowwhyimhere2307 supposed to?
It wouldn’t have went into overtime at all. The way ASU was moving the ball, the momentum was on their side
We have never seen that not be called targeting
Griffin Ohio state got hit like that against Georgia! Ref thru flag, than reversed it!
@ still called…
This was a badly refd game towards the end
12:58 honorable mention: big bird catching the show
To be honest, the best thing about this game was having Tessitore and Palmer rather than Herbstreit and Fowler as the announcers.
If you read the rule book forcible contact to the head/neck alone is not enough, there needs to be at least one other "indicator" and I don't think the Texas defender either: took aim at the head/neck, didn't leave his feet or upward thrust, didn't lead with his head and didn't utilize the crown of the helmet.
Clear defenseless opponent. Still in the process of the catch.
They also missed a targeting against ASU on the Ewers interception. The ASU corner launched himself at Bond's head and made forcible contact. Also, Taaffe made contact with his facemask. Thats by definition not targeting.
So a facemask is not located on a player's head?
I thought the same thing, but when I read the rules that only one component of targeting needs to be present, not all four elements. It does not have to be all elements. So they could have called it -- if they had called it earlier on Bond.
Dead wrong the asu player did not launch he jumped in the air trying to play the ball second there was no contact with the crown of the helmet by the asu defender. He high is a huge part of targeting and on the Texas targeting. The Texas fender hit the receiver with the crown of the helmet. It doesn’t matter where you hit the receiver. What matters is what part of the helmet the defender uses. The crown of the helmet part of the rule is for the tackling defender. Not the part of the helmet that is being hit. It doesn’t matter what part of the helmet you hit if you use the crown of the helmet it’s targeting no matter what
Crazy how people in the comments have no idea what targeting is when they literally go over it in the video.
Simple solution to force correct calls on this issue; every football helmet has a 6” diameter circle that the rule defines as crown,included on the helmet. When review time comes no questions or interpretations!
I somehow think that there was a 2nd rd playoff wide conscious decision to not call targeting on players bc it wasn’t just this call, but there were multiple targeting calls throughout the entire day that got reverse and could’ve easily been upheld. Maybe bc it’s the 2nd rd of the playoff and they don’t want to eject players and have the Refs being a storyline for why teams lose and get eliminated or maybe it was something simple like the NCAA wanted to have a special guest help out and they decided to honor Stevie Wonder by letting him be in charge of all replays. Idk but I just find it a little bit interesting that not one targeting call throughout the entire was upheld.
The tackler clearly ducked his head, hit with the crown of his helmet, then brought his face up. Bad calls against West Coast teams vs East Coast teams have been common for years.
He didn’t lower his head, and he didn’t lead with the head the head and body hit at the same time. This was a textbook tackle how every kid is taught to wrap up and tackle
Not at the Nike camps I’ve coached at
That's exactly what I was thinking. He didn't lower his head. No targeting
Exactly, his face mask hit the kids helmet because he was wrapping up, he was not using the crown of his helmet as a weapon
That isn't how you are taught to tackle.
@@SunniMerlot Well then I'll be sure to not send my kids to any Nike camps, since the coaches there don't even know what a good form tackle looks like haha.
It took away from the game for dang sure. We will never know what would have happened if ASU got the call. It was clear targeting to the tee all the elements.
If the ref’s had called targeting, this would have wrecked the game between Texas and Ohio State
Why don't the officials have to be questioned????
@0:41 you want to complain about targeting and you all failed to call it on ASU
He was basically standing straight up... good no call.
???
Are you an idiot
If that is the case it should be a call. Bc the runner did not put his shoulder down. It makes it more obvious.
What the heck does that have to do with anything
@@djnfbrhkelkondwvb6853
The part of the rule where it says you have to use the crown of the helmet for it to be targeting. That's what it has to do with it.
I understand the rule, but can someone explain how else the defensive player would make the tackle?
Shoulder across the numbers and wrap up below the waist, u never tackle a player how he did, ever.
With his shoulder? And not his helmet to another players helmet? Kinda simple honestly.
@Exokrack I get it, but the offensive player crouched right before the hit which caused the helmet to helmet contact. They are about the same height, so he hits his chest if not.
Harry Douglas is corny AF
Super
😁😁
Potentially targeting by the exact letter of the rule but definitely not in the spirit of the rule. Officials 100% got it right.
How is completely avoidable head contact not exactly what Targeting is intended for? How idiotic...
@dave3823 Incidental contact while going to make a tackle is not what the rule is meant for. The rule specifically states that you must "attack" while lowering your head and there's no possible way you can percieve that as an attack on the head.
I agree the officials got it correct.
@@AC-im4hino you are entirely wrong here. The spirit of the rule was the reason it was used, but it wasn’t about player safety it’s about helping sec teams whenever they need a jump, Ohio stats vs Georgia 2022, Georgia takes out osu’s best player in a call that was ruled targeting on field. It was overturned because Georgia would’ve lost if this was called, puts osu in field goal range to take a 2 score lead. This rule only exists to help sec programs, it isn’t used for other programs. Now to address what the rule is supposed to do, you are also wrong, the intent is completely irrelevant
@nonot8232 Seems like you have a ton of conspiracy theories. Are you sure you're mentally sane and stable?
Ref's should not have the right to make calls, THAT DETERMINE THE OUTCOME OF GAMES IN ANY SPORT 😡💯
Thats what they are there for😂. You're just talking
@@trethebarber660this guy is an idiot
Oregon can never win when it matters…
Fantastic effort by ASU with the play of Leavitt and Skattebo. Being honest, that non call sure looked like it prevented ASU from winning in regulation but letting the receiver get behind them cost them the game in ot. One they could control the other they couldn’t.
Nevertheless it was a great game!!!
Yes, it was absolutely a criminal call.
That was a good high tackle if the the defender tries to tackle him any other way he would have definitely missed that tackle.
There is nothing about that hit that was a tackle...
Anyone complaining about the College football playoffs is crazy! This round of games were AMAZING!!!!
If smith was in this draft class he will not be drafted over travis Hunter
Man stop smoking crack, maybe hunter goes over him if he’s drafted to be a corner, but as a receiver it isn’t even close.
If you are going to complain about this no-call, you also have to eliminate the ASU TD in OT for pulling the runner into the end zone. That is an illegal play and should have negated the touchdown and moved the ball back 5 yards. Rule 9-3-2b states that a teammate cannot grasp, pull, or lift the ball carrier to assist in forward progress.
Teams with byes 0-3. If Georgia loses the committee would need to rethink those byes in the future
That was not targeting. Unbiased opinion here.
What about the hit that was made on the Texas player 🤔
Officials made a decision on the spot that they didn’t want their call to affect the outcome of the game. Whether you like the rule or not, that was classic targeting, has to be called. Arizona State. Got screwed!
That should have been called for targeting its a plain hit right to the helmet right before the player was knocked to the ground by the Texas player who tackled the receiver I think a full investigation is required from the NCAA and the officials should be suspended and fined
It's a tipped ball for starters and more importantly we see that play every week in the NFL not get flagged. That's a hard hit. Man up
15:15 we only had like 33 sacks all season 😂 now all the sudden we have 12 in 2 games vs the best teams we've played. If we win a natty we should give Michigan a hug.
I just hope no Ohio State players listening to all the news/podcasts that are full of praises..
Ohio state need to keep playing angry..
The only defense to the no targeting call, would be saying the Texas defender didn't "lower the crown" to make the hit. Implying they hit face to face. Still should have been a flag, IMO.
Somehow you didn’t comment on the missed targeting on the Bond hit. Watching the stupidity of your arguments reminds me why I stopped watching ESPN on TV. You act like ASU would have won based on 1 play. Now go back and look at all the missed calls or non-calls that benefited ASU. Texas won. Get over it.
NCAA shame on you.
You don't give a crap about player safety.
Yes, terrible non call.
Why aren’t they talking about the more obvious blown targeting call on the Ewers int
That and the fact that there should had been a penalty on #77 for pulling skataboo in the end zone
I wish we can go back to his face when Michigan beat him in the horseshoe with his hands on his hips🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
110% targeting. But they didn’t call it when Ewers threw the interception either. I think that they didn’t want it to be the story of the game . Which it ended up being anyway
A penalty does not decide who wins the game, the scoreboard does. On the other game the next thing they will be saying was that Oregon should not have been there...that's why they play the games people.
It was targeting. Copied and pasted from the NCAA rule book.
The NCAA targeting rule in college football aims to prevent dangerous hits to the head or neck area that can cause serious injuries. According to the rule, 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 rule was adopted in 2008 and has been enforced to ensure player safety.
i disagree that the receiver was defenseless. he begins to turn and run the ball before he’s tackled. also there was no contact with the crown of the helmet, so the previous rule doesn’t apply either
Except people want it to be called targeting because it would give ASU an advantage, not because they cared about player safety lmao.
Refs just returned the favor. A few plays earlier? A no call on a blatant facemask on Eullers
I hate the rule, how its enforced, and the terrible impact it has on games. With that being said, the result of this play was the reason the rule was created in the first place
Agree! That is not a targeting. The defender never lower his head. Also, the ball was tipped.
It wasn’t targeting, but the prior non call targeting tried to give the game to Arizona State.
The refs got a call from the NCAA saying "we don't want ASU in the tournament. We want Texas for ratings."
They missed a targeting call on asu before this call they also called dpi when skattebo was the one who pushed off on that 63 yard reception they also didn’t call the penalty when the offensive lineman suplexed his player into the endzone (clearly an assist) the refs were terrible in this game and yall refuse to talk about the bad calls only the one targeting penalty
For chip kelly to knock off his former team is crazy work 🤣🤣
Didn’t lower his head. Not targeting. Not sure why these guys are on TV if they can’t see that.
Any contact with the helmet to the head and neck area of a defenseless receiver is targeting.
The NCAA targeting rule in college football aims to prevent dangerous hits to the head or neck area that can cause serious injuries. According to the rule, 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 rule was adopted in 2008 and has been enforced to ensure player safety.j Learn the rules.
@@major-mishap Thanks for agreeing with me. You have to target and make forcible contact. He was about as vertical as you can be, not aiming for the head or neck area.
@@davidwagner9644 Nope. Have to target and make forcible contact.
@@DrMTR1991 Any contact to the head and neck area of a defenseless player is target. You do not need to lower the crown of the helmet.