Imagine that, the Big 10 sides with Ohio State on targeting call appeal. I guess they need to ensure OSU has all their key players for Penn State game. Protect that playoff at the expense of others.
Big 10 Overturns Targeting Call
- Thread starter Kato
- Start date
Can't have an important player for OSU miss the first half against PSU now can we?? The officiating is already awful and now we have the league office compounding the problem. If the refs had called our game against OSU properly we would have won. They would have had around five more holding calls against their offense and defense and Ryan Day would have been flagged for throwing his headset just like they did for Rhule earlier in the game. How they justified that double standard is beyond me. I guess at this point they don't even feel the need to hide their animosity toward NU. And those two offensive pass interference calls against us were ********. At least the first one did not end up costing us points but the second one surely did. That changes everything especially if they did flag Day which would have given us the ball around their 40 yard line.
We still got the penalty yardage
Targeting is such a stupid rule
I’m glad they’re calling it much, much less frequently than in years past
Targeting is such a stupid rule
I’m glad they’re calling it much, much less frequently than in years past
I will be rooting for Penn State. They are like us (outsiders) and are not part of the Big 10 Good Ole Boy Network and never will be. The only way to win games against Big 10 Good Ole Boy teams is to outscore those teams by as many TDs possible because at least half will be taken away by some fake penalty.
USC, Oregon, Washington, and UCLA better watch out!
USC, Oregon, Washington, and UCLA better watch out!
The B1G is such a ****** conference it makes rooting for serial child diddlers & butt rapists seem like the moral thing to do
I don't like the ejections and suspensions either, especially when there are worse cheap shots that either go uncalled or just result in a personal foul penalty.
So, change the rule for everyone, instead of just intervening on behalf of the darlings.
What’s Moral got to do with it? I definitely agree that was certainly a terrible thing that happened - that should have never happened, and Sandusky is a POS rotting in jail (as he should be). But I do think Bill O’Brien and James Franklin have done an admirable job righting the ship for their football program.
And if you asked Penn State fans, I’m sure their team have been screwed over by Big-10 officials and refs just as much as we’ve had.
Pennst is home to one of the worst ref screw jobs Nebraska has ever suffered
Would be funny if Franklin had the runs during the game as a tribute to Matt Rhule’s favorite head coach
That review was very close on both the targeting and catch. Personally, I thought no targeting and no catch. If they had ruled no targeting and catch/fumble, that would have been a huge turn in the game. That targeting call depends on a the player being defenseless and I'm not sure how a player is defenseless if he has actually completed the catch and is now a runner. That was probably the OSU argument.
The protection scheme for OSU by the B1G is obvious. PSU might as well drop their pants and bend over cuz they’re gonna get screwed.
Corruption or incompetence? A sad state of affairs when that question has to be asked about so many things today.
I don't think they have a chance, refs or no refs.
pennst is pennst - a tier 2 program annually propped up by the mainstream media AP voters
absolute frauds. and ohiost is no juggernaut.
I've watched Penn State for a lot of years. In the past I think they may have folded after being down 20-6 at the half to USC and down at the half to Wisconsin with two injured star players. That's just speculation on my part of course but something seems... different about them this year. I'd like them to find a way to beat OSU at home if not for the injuries last week. Still think there's a good chance they pull it off. Guess we'll see
Problem is that day didn't throw his headset but I agree with you on everything else!!!
I said this exact thing to a buddy of mine who was hopeful we could upset OSU. I said… “Well, we need to be up by 17-21 pts to upset OSU. If it’s within one score the refs will decide the game.”
What punishment could be given to them that would be worse than the death penalty?
That doesn't seem to be enough to discourage them. Perhaps boot them from the B1G.
Didn’t Nebraska lose a challenge this season for essentially the same type of hit?1
Gbayor early in the year?
I think that’s the only targeting flag we’ve drawn all season
Could be wrong
Is that a common thing - overturning a suspension like that? While I don’t like the ejection rule (15 yard penalty is adequate for targeting) - that play was close enough that the call on the field could stand.
What was weird about it was that I swear they also gave Banks credit for the catch and no fumble. The ball obviously came out before his knee hit the ground, but that penalty moved the ball to the 46. If the pass is incomplete, the penalty should be enforced from the previous spot. If it was a fumble (which it was), same thing - the 15 yards should have enforced from the previous spot - giving NU the ball at the 27 yard line, first and 10.
Of course, the previous play was bogus when Banks got called for OPI that negated a fantastic catch that would have given NU the ball at the….wait for it….46 yard line.
So yeah - the refs were not exactly on top of their game.
What was weird about it was that I swear they also gave Banks credit for the catch and no fumble. The ball obviously came out before his knee hit the ground, but that penalty moved the ball to the 46. If the pass is incomplete, the penalty should be enforced from the previous spot. If it was a fumble (which it was), same thing - the 15 yards should have enforced from the previous spot - giving NU the ball at the 27 yard line, first and 10.
Of course, the previous play was bogus when Banks got called for OPI that negated a fantastic catch that would have given NU the ball at the….wait for it….46 yard line.
So yeah - the refs were not exactly on top of their game.
It was a clear shoulder and forearm to the head.
Targeting definition
The 2019 edition of the NCAA rulebook defines targeting as "taking 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."More specifically, Rule 9, Section 1, Articles 3 and 4 define targeting this way:
"Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet
ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul. ...
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. When in question, it is a foul. ...
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 indications of targeting (emphasis NCAA's) include but are not limited to:
- 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
- A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass
- A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier
- A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return
- A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier
- A player on the ground
- A player obviously out of the play
- A player who receives a blind-side block
- A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped
- A quarterback any time after a change of possession a ball carrier who has obviously given himself up and is sliding feet first"
We're not used to the victim of said penalty. Usually recipient of the penalty so even if hit originated on shoulder pads we tend to get the flag
This will be a hot take - I agree with the Big Ten, it never should have been called targeting to begin with.
Big hit - shoulder to shoulder contact.
Big hit - shoulder to shoulder contact.
Shoulder to helmet .. it was targeting by the definition. I have no problem with it being overturned since it’s a ***** rule. I think refs should be financially penalized for a ****** job - you know like any other job
Then shame on Banks for wearing his face mask on his shoulder.
Good Lord, Buckeye fans have been entitled divas for so many years they can convince themselves of anything.
Targeting needs to have a Flagrant 1 and 2.
I watched the replay again and he clearly hits him in the shoulder.
Right or wrong it’s a business. Just like us in 80’s and 90’s. Win and see if things change
@UltimateGarageHusker the kind of guy whose posts you side with/laugh at. A clear, obvious CU fan/troll.
Very rational.
A**hole.