Play-Off Game: #5 Texas vs #4 Arizona State -- Peach Bowl -- 1/1/2025 at 1 PM [ESPN]

They didn't, but the butt tackle warranted an ejection!

 

Until next week

 

I know the rule- I just disagree with your assessment of the play

 

God help us.

 

Does anyone know who made the replay call? Was it the refs or was it referred to some other group? Again, to me that was still a pivotal call, 15 yards and asu was in fg position.
I have seen plenty of those hits be called targeting and even the TV ref thought it was targeting. Just so confusing. Anyhow, fun game to watch.

 

What part? You don't think the player was defenseless? Or you don't think there was forceable contact to the head/neck?

 

And the walkon third string QB had nothing to do with it?

 

I agree with that. The Texas player didn’t launch and they hit facemask to facemask. If the Texas player had lowered his head and hit with the crown or led with a forearm to the head, then targeting would have been the right call.

For the refs to call targeting in that situation would have been letting the refs decide the winner.

 

ASU showed me something. That was as gritty and gutsy a performance as I think I have ever seen.
They were outmanned and showed way more heart than Texas.
I want our Gators to play like that even when they have all the talent they need.

 

Targeting was not called, even after a review, wow! So what is targeting then??

 

If they’re gonna have targeting in football, that had to be called. Helmet to helmet, the tackler lowered his head…. That literally could have been the difference in the game

 

Yeah the riff raff is getting sorted out and we’re down to what it should have been from the beginning.

8 teams max

 

steveGator said exactly what I thought as well: facemask into facemask - didn't lower the head - and the refs didn't decide the game, which they would have in the case of calling it targeting.

I think targeting is one of those things that will frequently generate controversy.

 

I think it distinction needs to be made in targeting between intentional hitting and incidental contact. Lowering your head and launching is different than both feet on the ground and your helmets bump while tackling.

 

And that would likely gave been game over. Hmmmm

 

It definitely needs to be an exact rule. Butt yes , heads no.... figure it out because it changed the outcome yesterday and it cant be distinguished as to a certain call.

 

Personally, I think if you're trying to wrap up and tackle, and the helmets hit, that's should not be targeting. And I believe this is what happened during the game. But as currently written, Texas should have been penalized for targeting.

As for Skatterbo, he was a very good player last year, but I thought he was too slow and not laterally quick enough to play on Sundays. Coach Dillingham agreed with this assessment and told Skat to lose 15 pounds and work on quickness and speed. To Skat's credit, he exceeded everyone's expectations and probably went from a late day 3 or UDFA to a potential 2nd or 3rd rounder.

Skat is a Devil, but this Wildcat has to give credit where credit is due. And I, for one, will be happy to see him playing on the net level.

 

Looking at the rule IMHO it wasn't targeting and here is why:

What is targeting in college football?

The NCAA defines targeting as any hit that "goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball."

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. Head to head contact is NOT enough for a targeting call.

In this photo the UM player is clearly leading with his helmet and his hands are so low there is clearly no intent to wrap the offensive player. LSU player was not necessarily defenseless. And you could argue the UM defender only had one way to assist in the tackle. But at the same time if they went the other way the refs could have argued the player was already ready wrapped up making them defenseless and the UM defender was deliberately getting lower than the LSU player. The ruled the defender led with his helmet.


Now compare the TEXAS defender


He is not leading with his helmet his hands are actually set to wrap up on contact. The ball carrier is leaning into the contact. They both are near equal in height if anything UT Taffee at 6'0" is barely below Stovall who is listed at 5'11". All open field tackles work best when getting lower than the ball carrier. W/o going frame by frame looks a lot like Taffee couldn't get low enough fast enough so he slid up Stovall's shoulder pad. But again the DB is not leading with his helmet compared to the UM defender who was using just his helmet aeb his hands and elbows pulled back.

Head to head contact is NOT enough for a targeting call.

The fact Taffee post impact STILL wraps his arms around Stovall further supports intent to tackle legally.

ESPN next frame after contact if you ever played defense especially DB (which I have at a low level when it was called spearing back in my day....you know leather helmets etc) you know there is no way you can lead with your helmet AND wrap up the offensive player.



Leading with your head as a DB will get you killed. It did for Ole Miss DB Chuck Mullins roughly one year after this paralyzing tackle.

 

maybe their star WR will transfer to us