"Randy Cross: The Texas Win Is Tainted"

[cgvr]

Texas’ 50-47 double overtime win over Notre Dame, for many people, was the highlight of college football’s opening weekend. After all, the game was thrilling, and Charlie Strong got perhaps the biggest win of his Texas tenure. Randy Cross, however, believes the win should come with an asterisk. “That thing is tainted because they didn’t call the targeting foul in the end zone,” the CBS Sports college football analyst said on CBS Sports Radio’s Tiki and Tierney. “That was complete B.S. The Big 12 should be embarrassed.” Cross is referring to a third-quarter hit on Torii Hunter Jr., who dropped what would have been a 19-yard touchdown reception.

http://tikiandtierney.radio.cbssports.com/2016/09/06/randy-cross-the-texas-win-is-tainted/

 

[RobertGKemp]

What about the clear hit on the UT QB on the INT

LINK

 

[cgvr]

What about the clear hit on the UT QB on the INT

LINK

Copy of my response in other thread....

It's at around the 6:32 mark of the third 1/4. Rochell definitely makes helmet to helmet contact after the throw. However, I don't believe it was beyond making a legal tackle. No worries if you disagree. Our guy was concussed, maimed.... Your guy hopped up like a spring chicken and the guy who hit him is a house...

Rule 9-1-3: No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below).

Note 1, Definition of Targeting: “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: Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area"

 

[IrishBlessings]

Texas’ 50-47 double overtime win over Notre Dame, for many people, was the highlight of college football’s opening weekend. After all, the game was thrilling, and Charlie Strong got perhaps the biggest win of his Texas tenure. Randy Cross, however, believes the win should come with an asterisk. “That thing is tainted because they didn’t call the targeting foul in the end zone,” the CBS Sports college football analyst said on CBS Sports Radio’s Tiki and Tierney. “That was complete B.S. The Big 12 should be embarrassed.” Cross is referring to a third-quarter hit on Torii Hunter Jr., who dropped what would have been a 19-yard touchdown reception.

http://tikiandtierney.radio.cbssports.com/2016/09/06/randy-cross-the-texas-win-is-tainted/

Agree with Randy Cross 100 percent. Beach is off base IMO in that other thread. The BIG12 replay person should be fired from that job and ND needs an apology.

Tori got laid out - how.in the hell was that play NOT reviewed. Complete Bull Sh...t. !!

 

[cgvr]

Agree with Randy Cross 100 percent. Beach is off base IMO in that other thread. The BIG12 replay person should be fired from that job and ND needs an apology.

Tori got laid out - how.in the hell was that play NOT reviewed. Complete Bull Sh...t. !!

Beach typically shows up when ND players have problems or when we lose. He's a lying sack of southern cal crap.

Let him tell us again how bush's car was "suped up" after the bowl game when the NCAA has the receipts from December...among other things....

 

[cgvr]

Agree with Randy Cross 100 percent. Beach is off base IMO in that other thread. The BIG12 replay person should be fired from that job and ND needs an apology.

Tori got laid out - how.in the hell was that play NOT reviewed. Complete Bull Sh...t. !!

The problem was exacerbated by kelly throwing up a white flag. He had every opportunity to go bonkers and challenge the reception while going nuts over the hit.

It was a total HC failure.

 

[IrishBlessings]

The problem was exacerbated by kelly throwing up a white flag. He had every opportunity to go bonkers and challenge the reception while going nuts over the hit.

It was a total HC failure.

In hindsight BK should of challenged whether it was a catch or not then like u say gone ape shit over the targeting. But I've coached a lot of teams and with the new rule and probably not knowing exactly how it works, etc. I give BK a mulligan. With so much shit going on it is sometimes hard to react or make in game decisions sometimes that would of made a big difference. Plus once the announcer stated the new rule (where the both could review it and call a flag, etc.) I like probably all ND fans and BK assumed that would happen. When it didn't I wanted throw my pint class threw the bar's Flat screen. Bk in his defense probably assumed a replay and penalty would be called - by the time he realized it wasn't it was too late - your too harsh on calling BK out on that.

 

[Toby Smart]

I see the Texas fans were prepared to come here with a justification to the missed call on Tori. They thought about this one long and hard. Tuitt was thrown out of a game for a targeting call that was far less than what happened to Tori.

 

[Java65]

What about the clear hit on the UT QB on the INT

LINK

Yea, that was 50/50. I could see it being called and I can see in not. Rochell had his head up looking at the QB and the front hit the facemask of the QB. In the Hunter case it was clear and unmistakable. Hits him with the crown of the helmet and Hunter was defenseless.

It's analogous to both of us speeding and you get a ticket and I don't but I was going 5 mph over the limit and you were going 60 mph over the limit. Hard to complain when it's that egregious.

 

[perseverare]

it is in the books. no amount of .... will change a thing. The game was lost before the kickoff.

 

[IRISHJD98]

<iframe src="" width="600" height="600" frameborder="0"></iframe><script src="https://platform.vine.co/static/scripts/embed.js"></script>

 

[IrishBlessings]

<iframe src="

View embedded media

" width="600" height="600" frameborder="0"></iframe><script src="https://platform.vine.co/static/scripts/embed.js"></script>

when you watch it like that - that could of been called a TD - he secured the ball and got both feet down. he would of stayed up on his feet had he not of been hit. And the helmet to helmet is egregious - not even close.

 

[1Redrum]

That is what I thought live. Both feet down with control of the ball. TD! Also when watching from this angle it is clear the helmet hits first

 

[HRC08]

Watching the vine that in this thread... I'm not sure it was targeting. The db definitely gets a lot of his shoulder in there.

Furthermore, come on guys: it's football! Aren't we always complaining about football being regulated out of the game of football?

Lastly I hate this game of bringing up one or two plays to justify a loss. Notre dame didn't lose because of this play. Hell Texas had a few sure TD's dropped. Would they be bringing up those plays if they lost? Probably and we'd all be calling them sore losers and that's what some of you are acting like.

 

[perseverare]

oh,mit was targeting...most assuredly.

 

[88ND]

The problem was exacerbated by kelly throwing up a white flag. He had every opportunity to go bonkers and challenge the reception while going nuts over the hit.

It was a total HC failure.

You got that right. I knew of the new rule with regards to replay and if he didn't shame on him.
Regardless...I said to the people in the room why isn't Kelly going out of his mind.

I'll tell you why....because he still doesn't think Texas will give his squad a tough game.

BK is wearing out his welcome very quickly with me.

 

[napy2121]

What about the clear hit on the UT QB on the INT

LINK

What about it? I think if were being honest one was a light tap of facemask to facemask and the defender never even completed a tackle and held up in a clear effort to avoid a penalty, the other was crown of the helmet to helmet, unmistakable. The ACC already acknowledged the error on the egregious hit and we can't go back in time. We all need to move on regardless. If bvg can take his head out of his ass and we get some better play on that side, we should be able to outscore enough opponents to have a nice season. Let's just move on.

 

[88ND]

What about it? I think if were being honest one was a light tap of facemask to facemask and the defender never even completed a tackle and held up in a clear effort to avoid a penalty, the other was crown of the helmet to helmet, unmistakable. The ACC already acknowledged the error on the egregious hit and we can't go back in time. We all need to move on regardless. If bvg can take his head out of his ass and we get some better play on that side, we should be able to outscore enough opponents to have a nice season. Let's just move on.

Nope....more lazy play from our ****ing lazy defense.

God damn it our team defense is SO lazy.

That should have been called too. ❕

 

[napy2121]

Nope....more lazy play from our ****ing lazy defense.

God damn it our team defense is SO lazy.

That should have been called too. ❕

Stop being rediculous and dishonest about that play/no call. Frankly that's one play where no one was being lazy, we put pressure on the qb, and it caused a poor throw that lead to a pick. There isn't one thing lazy about the play in question.

 

[LH24ND]

Agree with Randy Cross 100 percent. Beach is off base IMO in that other thread. The BIG12 replay person should be fired from that job and ND needs an apology.

Tori got laid out - how.in the hell was that play NOT reviewed. Complete Bull Sh...t. !!

As predicted crickets on the blatant hit that was not called down here in Houston. Watched this for years when it comes to Texas.

 

[88ND]

Stop being rediculous and dishonest about that play/no call. Frankly that's one play where no one was being lazy, we put pressure on the qb, and it caused a poor throw that lead to a pick. There isn't one thing lazy about the play in question.

I'm being 101% honest. You're not following ...
It's lazy because our player comes in and leans in on the Texas QB. Causing the helmet to helmet.

Bend your knees, saw the QB in half at the belt, color change, etc..whatever you want to call it. No harm, no foul.

But it takes effort and energy to play that way.

Our whole defense wants to lean into opposing players instead of tackling correctly.

L A Z Y

 

[napy2121]

I'm being 101% honest. You're not following ...
It's lazy because our player comes in and leans in on the Texas QB. Causing the helmet to helmet.

Bend your knees, saw the QB in half at the belt, color change, etc..whatever you want to call it. No harm, no foul.

But it takes effort and energy to play that way.

Our whole defense wants to lean into opposing players instead of tackling correctly.

L A Z Y

This board is unreal, the guy put pressure on the qb, the helmet to helmet might have been the weakest contact ever, it wasn't called and nobody is discussing it because the defenders intent was clear he pulled up to AVOID a penalty, the pressure caused a pick. No laziness, great play, evrything you want in a play. Just stop. If he goes in and tackles the guy well after he ball is released he's more at risk for a late hit then pulling up to avoid a late hit call and tapping helmets. It's just intellectual dishonesty all around to say anyone was lazy, or that the minor tap in helmets was somehow anywhere near the pile driving crown of helmet to helmet on hunter. I'm going to let this go now- you can have the last word I'm going to move on because nothing can be done.

 

[DieHard_Irish]

it is in the books. no amount of .... will change a thing. The game was lost before the kickoff.

Just WTF does this mean??

 

[Get Nasty]

If that's not targeting, there is no such thing as targeting. Plain and simple. He went at the head of a defenseless player. Very simple, very pathetic it wasn't reviewed. End of story, shouldn't have been that close. Move on, Defense needs to grow up.

 

[cgvr]

Just WTF does this mean??

It's real easy...

 

[88ND]

This board is unreal, the guy put pressure on the qb, the helmet to helmet might have been the weakest contact ever, it wasn't called and nobody is discussing it because the defenders intent was clear he pulled up to AVOID a penalty, the pressure caused a pick. No laziness, great play, evrything you want in a play. Just stop. If he goes in and tackles the guy well after he ball is released he's more at risk for a late hit then pulling up to avoid a late hit call and tapping helmets. It's just intellectual dishonesty all around to say anyone was lazy, or that the minor tap in helmets was somehow anywhere near the pile driving crown of helmet to helmet on hunter. I'm going to let this go now- you can have the last word I'm going to move on because nothing can be done.

It's lazy. It's being completely naive on your part. We aren't talking about late hits here.

Could his helmet avoided the Texas qb helmet? Yes or no? It's black and white. In this case it easily could have but not when you LEAN in only to hit someone rather than get low to make a proper tackle.

Example...last year Sheldon day was one of the biggest on the defensive side for us. Yet he managed to make text book tackles better than anyone.

It's lazy play and it's the whole defense.

 

[HDK]

Watching the vine that in this thread... I'm not sure it was targeting. The db definitely gets a lot of his shoulder in there.

Furthermore, come on guys: it's football! Aren't we always complaining about football being regulated out of the game of football?

Lastly I hate this game of bringing up one or two plays to justify a loss. Notre dame didn't lose because of this play. Hell Texas had a few sure TD's dropped. Would they be bringing up those plays if they lost? Probably and we'd all be calling them sore losers and that's what some of you are acting like.

Agreed. I have always been troubled by targeting. You have two guys running toward one another at full speed. It looks like the guy tried to hit him with his shoulder. I think it is not as clear-cut as some are saying.

(One real good example of targeting occurred in last year's bowl game when Joey Bosa lowered his head and plowed into Kizer's chest. I remember watching that last year and thinking why would he do something so stupid?)

In college football 2015, that is possibly a catch. In college football 2016 that is not a catch.

It was a big play in the game, but no bigger than the bomb Texas completed early in the third quarter or the field goal they blocked.

 

[88ND]

Agreed. I have always been troubled by targeting. You have two guys running toward one another at full speed. It looks like the guy tried to hit him with his shoulder. I think it is not as clear-cut as some are saying.

(One real good example of targeting occurred in last year's bowl game when Joey Bosa lowered his head and plowed into Kizer's chest. I remember watching that last year and thinking why would he do something so stupid?)

In college football 2015, that is possibly a catch. In college football 2016 that is not a catch.

It was a big play in the game, but no bigger than the bomb Texas completed early in the third quarter or the field goal they blocked.

Nobody loves old school football more than I, having said that if they are going to protect the head and yes they should do so in some circumstances...it's either a rule or isn't.

The hit on Hunter was an obliteration of the rule. It was a hit to the head of a defenseless player.
There is a huge difference between that and a ball carrier. If hunter had the opportunity to become a ball carrier after catching that he is no longer defenseless and it can't be called because the ball carrier can give head fakes, lower himself etc.
But the head is now protected on the sitting duck player as it should be.

Both instances both players, hunter and buechelle were defenseless.

The severity of the impact is irrelevant. It was hit to the head of a defenseless player.

It's either a rule or not. Call it consistently or remove the rule.

 

[IRISHJD98]

If that's not targeting, there is no such thing as targeting. Plain and simple. He went at the head of a defenseless player. Very simple, very pathetic it wasn't reviewed. End of story, shouldn't have been that close. Move on, Defense needs to grow up.

Yep. The ACC officials should have thrown the flag in the first place. Regardless of the impact on the game, the rule is about protecting players. You have have the courage to call it when the stakes are high.

I'm guessing that replay got some cheers in Texas's internal post-game highlight review.

 

[HDK]

Nobody loves old school football more than I, having said that if they are going to protect the head and yes they should do so in some circumstances...it's either a rule or isn't.

The hit on Hunter was an obliteration of the rule. It was a hit to the head of a defenseless player.
There is a huge difference between that and a ball carrier. If hunter had the opportunity to become a ball carrier after catching that he is no longer defenseless and it can't be called because the ball carrier can give head fakes, lower himself etc.
But the head is now protected on the sitting duck player as it should be.

Both instances both players, hunter and buechelle were defenseless.

The severity of the impact is irrelevant. It was hit to the head of a defenseless player.

It's either a rule or not. Call it consistently or remove the rule.

The problem I have is the disqualification part. In either the Rochelle hit or the hit on Hunter I don't see someone head-hunting. If you want to call it a personal foul, fine, but I don't think you should be thrown out of the game and suspended the next week for a play that unfolds in the snap of a finger unless it is really egregious.

 

[IRISHJD98]

The problem I have is the disqualification part. In either the Rochelle hit or the hit on Hunter I don't see someone head-hunting. If you want to call it a personal foul, fine, but I don't think you should be thrown out of the game and suspended the next week for a play that unfolds in the snap of a finger unless it is really egregious.

Serious question - What part of Hunter do you think the defender was targeting with his shoulder?

 

[lyonhawk]

To everyone saying Torii got hit more with the shoulder first than helmet, do you realize leading with the shoulder to the head of a receiver is still targeting?

 

[mbd11]

I'd say about 90% of the time that play would be called targeting in CFB.

But BK should've thrown a flag to at least challenge whether it was a catch or not. When it became apparent that they weren't calling anything, he could've thrown the flag before attempting the FG.

 

[Son of Wasatch]

 

[88ND]

To everyone saying Torii got hit more with the shoulder first than helmet, do you realize leading with the shoulder to the head of a receiver is still targeting?

It's not what..it's the recipient's head. It can be your hand anything...don't touch the head of a defenseless player. Now pause a min.......
Things happen fast true, however the average height of a division I player is 6'1"

So you essentially have 5'1" area to target.

But wait...it doesn't look macho , and it requires effort to lower yourself into the qualified target area.

 

[HDK]

Serious question - What part of Hunter do you think the defender was targeting with his shoulder?

Okay--I thought to be called for targeting you had to use your helmet. So if you can target with your shoulder, that was targeting. I still think it is a very difficult call when you are playing at full game speed.
I don't

 

[beachcardinal]

Agree with Randy Cross 100 percent. Beach is off base IMO in that other thread. The BIG12 replay person should be fired from that job and ND needs an apology.

Tori got laid out - how.in the hell was that play NOT reviewed. Complete Bull Sh...t. !!

To be clear these were my points. 1. It should have been called targeting. 2. A coach cannot call for a review of a non-targeting call. 3, evry play in CFB is reviewed, so if it wasn't that was an error. 4, for a booth call on a penalty it has to be egregious, just a belief it is a penalty isn't enough.

A will add a new point: If yuo are going to call a game tainted based on a call, to be fair you really have to review all the calls to see how it impacted the game.

 

[beachcardinal]

Okay--I thought to be called for targeting you had to use your helmet. So if you can target with your shoulder, that was targeting. I still think it is a very difficult call when you are playing at full game speed.
I don't

I'd say about 90% of the time that play would be called targeting in CFB.

But BK should've thrown a flag to at least challenge whether it was a catch or not. When it became apparent that they weren't calling anything, he could've thrown the flag before attempting the FG.

By rule a coach cannot seek a targeting review when one is not called. I was trying to see if it was a penalty to throw the review flag when you weren't entitled to one, but could find anything that said it was. Hard to fault the coach for not doing something the rule does not allow.

 

[beachcardinal]

Beach typically shows up when ND players have problems or when we lose. He's a lying sack of southern cal crap.

Let him tell us again how bush's car was "suped up" after the bowl game when the NCAA has the receipts from December...among other things....

Hey, long time no read. When I came back to this site I somehow lost my ignore list. How are your imaginary friends? I know you are a guy constrained by the truth but you might note I came back to the site before the game. But anyway, welcome back to ignore!

 

[IrishBlessings]

By rule a coach cannot seek a targeting review when one is not called. I was trying to see if it was a penalty to throw the review flag when you weren't entitled to one, but could find anything that said it was. Hard to fault the coach for not doing something the rule does not allow.

Beach - the point is that BK should of "challenged the catch" - then he could of gone ballistic about the targeting w/ the extra time being taken whether it was a catch or not - whether that would of helped or not - probably not - the Big12 replay person would probably still not of done anything about the targeting even if he was forced to watch whether it was catch or not a few times over and over - but, at least BK could driven home his point better that a targeting was also warranted.

If you watch the replay over - it may of could been called a catch - he secured the ball and had both feet down - the hit made him fall to the ground. He may very well of stayed on his feet w/out that hit.