Refs do have their biases, but in a 60 minute game I think the handful of bad calls they make are overstated.
I'm not sure if Cal choked or Miami is simply (I hate to say it) the best team in college football. I can see Cam Ward taking them all the way.
He’s been amazing for them this season. Without him they’re probably 3-3 instead of 6-0. Just highlights the importance of having a game-changer instead of a game manager at QB.
In what world is that not an incredibly egregious non-call? I didn't watch the game but did the Cal player get a concussion from that play? It seems textbook to me. You haven't address it for some reason but do you believe that should have been a targeting call? Yeah, I get it - Cal blew it but that was targeting and not a "judgement" call right? That should have been a penalty and the UM player should have been kicked out of the game right? I have my biases as we all do but come on - how biased do you have to be to not admit that was a terrible non-call?
The Swindle forever changed my perception of the refs, especially those from the ACC. The well has forever been poisoned. The end of the innocence
I think Miami is the better team, but I also think if that rather obvious targeting penalty had been correctly upheld (or called in the first place) that game was over and Cal would have been able to run out the clock. Ergo … the refs by definition cost Cal that game.
Difference is, this ends the game for Miami and the ACC folks in Charlotte knew it. So they wave off the blatant penalty.
I give you FSU/BC 2023...FSU struggling early and the penalty count at half was 11-0 in FSU's favor. FSU on the verge of losing after a 21 point comeback by BC and they throw the 18th penalty on BC to FSU's 3 penalties....game over....
One of the announcers said the Cal QB was not a "defenseless player". In the context of the rules, I am not sure what that means or if that played into the no-call for targeting.
The criteria for targeting depends on whether the player hit is defenseless or not. If a defenseless player is involved, any forcible contact to the head or neck of the defenseless player is targeting. In this case, the QB is a ball carrier and not defenseless, so targeting only applies if the defender leads with the crown of his helmet and forcibly hits the opponent. Which is exactly what the Miami defender did.
My theory isn't as juicy, but I don't think the NCAA really wants plays like that determining the outcomes of monumental games, etc. It's sort of like a they could call holding on every play if they wanted to type thing. With the targeting especially. It's still the rule, but I don't think they want it flipping games. I could be wrong...
I'm really close to this opinion as well. Refs are human and if we are honest we all have (or used to have) imposter syndrome. When the spotlight is bright- and in this case the entire conference's hopes for an undefeated champ are on the line- it's not unreasonable that a ref doesn't want to make the one call to seal the outcome. It takes a very strong man (or woman these days) to stand up to that pressure. As I said earlier in the thread back in 03 I (unfortunately) got obsessed w/ the Swindle, and my research showed something sorta similar happened there. Fear of Bobby Bowden was one (of many) reasons for that outcome and that egregious screw job. We also saw it in a smaller way in our game vs UGA last year. At one point we clearly got a first down, but Kirby questioned it. The CBS announcers said we clearly made the line- it wasn't close. The call to uphold the first down was merely a formality. But IMO the replay ref buckled under the Kirby pressure. He probably asked himself 'Who am I to question the 2x national title winning coach" Gulp... And sure enough they moved the ball back, CBN called a dumb play on the 4th down, it failed miserably, and the game was lost.
A massive hit with the crown of his helmet to the ear-hole... with a launching jolt no less... Targeting. We had a player that hit some dude in the azz with the crown of his helmet get a targeting call. If you tackle someone with the CROWN OF THE HELMET... targeting. I hate that rule, but it's there, and they refs need to live by the rules. They're reffing to justify breaking the rules on targeting.
If wasn’t so blatant … I mean, the Miami defender left his feet and planted the crown of his helmet on the runner’s ear hole! … then I could see a ‘technical’ violation that was iffy being passed in the interest of not affecting the game. When the QB is knocked out fo the game on a blatant targeting penalty … I’d say they just erred on the side of letting Miami get away with it because they wanted them to win. Hard to find another explanation that fits.
