Review on Hunter hit
- Thread starter ZORO50
- Start date
Did Cole Luke tell Kelly to challenge that play also?
You have to be kidding me blowing a timeout on that.
Kelly asked him directly. ???
You have to be kidding me blowing a timeout on that.
Kelly asked him directly. ???
According to the announcers tonight, new rule says a targeting event can be reviewed and called by the booth even if it is not called by the refs on the field.
Beach, sorry about sc. My brother attended sc's business school and I have many respectable sc alum friends. I bet both nd and sc will be very different teams by the time they meet in November. Fight on!
I actually thought Hunter scored. He caught it, controlled it , the foot went down, then the hit came. But I always thought as soon as your in the end zone with the catch and ball control, the play is over. Anything after shouldn't matter. Am I wrong?
It is not a catch because the receiver needs to control the ball all the way to the ground.
I'm not sure of the rule. But go and look at the replay. Hunter caught the ball , did in fact have it controlled while his foot touched the ground. Then, the hit came. Again I've seen catches called TDs where the ball wasn't controlled. This wasn't that. It was also targeting. Absolutely no doubt. The helmets collide due to the fact the Texas player came flying in. I'm not saying he was trying to hurt Hunter. But nonetheless, he initiated the contact and should have been ejected.
It was text book helmet to helmet, and leading with the helmet. How any officiating crew could miss that is beyond me. That said, we didn't lose because of the officials, we lost because our defense stinks ... AGAIN!
He was on the ground for 10 minutes it seemed. They had all the time in the world to view the hit and choose to do nothing. What is calling a TO going to accomplish other then waste a good TO?
Not only was it helmet to helmet but the Texas DB pushed his head back after the hit which to me was intent to mess him up. Refs suck. That was a difference maker because Hunter is way better than Stepherson. The fact that he was laid out for 10 minutes and the ND trainer wouldn't let him up is a clear indication that the Refs should be suspended. It should have been reviewed and argued by ND coaches.
Thanks we were a disaster. ND fought hard and looks good. Just needs to fix some things on defense. SC is lost this year.
The refs were too busy looking for another ND receiver downfield to call a bogus holding call against.
According to the announcers tonight, new rule says a targeting event can be reviewed and called by the booth even if it is not called by the refs on the field.
I am probably wrong but I thought the new rule was that a targeting review could be started from the booth even if not called on the filed, not that a coach could. However, since the new rule allows review and every play is reviewed in college football, it means the play was reviewed form the booth.
I'm not a doctor but if I saw a guy lying on the ground dazed and half unconscious, I'd think he got hit in the head. Did the refs think he stubbed his toe?!
The specific targeting rule we are wondering about states:
"b. The replay official may create a targeting foul, but only in egregious instances in which a foul is not called by the officials on the field. Such a review may not be initiated by a coach's challenge."
So, the question becomes, "What is the definition of 'egregious?'" That play must have been very close!
"b. The replay official may create a targeting foul, but only in egregious instances in which a foul is not called by the officials on the field. Such a review may not be initiated by a coach's challenge."
So, the question becomes, "What is the definition of 'egregious?'" That play must have been very close!
When the receiver is in the air, he has to maintain possession all the way to the ground, not just get his feet down.
No catch is correct, but definitely helmet to helmet... How is that not called
Go back and look at the play in slow motion. The safety wasn't targeting the head/neck area, but more so Hunter's left shoulder. A clean hit. Had he not been knocked out, no one would even be discussing it.
Dude, get real will ya. The league officials already admitted they missed it. But please don't just post BS. It's clearly a helmet to helmet. It didn't cost ND the game, nor did the officials. The defense did. You could at least take off the BS glasses and demonstrate some honesty
I think that the correct thinking is the ref on the field should have called it but those in the booth should not have. It was close with the shoulder, not egregious. A missed call but not the fault of the replay guy IMO
It's not close. It's obvious. Not saying it was intent to injure, as I'm not in the defenders head, but definitely a penalty. Showed the film to my wife who has ZERO interest in either team, or football in general and she sees helmet to helmet. Like I said, obvious.
Wrong. I looked at the replay from different angles. The Texas player came flying in and the helmets were the first thing collide. It's irrelevant whether it was intentional. When there is head to head collision, and there was without a doubt, that is targeting and the Texas player should have been ejected.
Since they did not take him off the field on a stretcher the Big 12 replay officials determined the hit was not egregious.
Being laid out on your back for a good 5 minutes did not warrant a review in their estimation.
The Big 12 Replay officials should be suspended. The ACC officials on the field should also be suspended for missing the call in the first place. That 1 play cost ND the game. Yes, their D was shitty but that 1 play cost ND the win. ND should of won that game despite their shitty D if they don't get railroaded by the officials.
Helmet to helmet isn't targeting.
But that okay sure was targeting. It was a classic case of trying to "blow the receiver up" to dislodge the ball. 101% sure that was the db's intent.
Intent with helmet to helmet contact is targeting. That wasn't even a hard call. The officials have to anticipate that whenever a pass is thrown over the middle inside the 20 and it goes to the end zone. Make the call and let the booth sort it out but you have to make the call. Players lives and health are at risk! Not just the receivers either. Miss the WR and hit a teammate and the same result could have happened.
But that okay sure was targeting. It was a classic case of trying to "blow the receiver up" to dislodge the ball. 101% sure that was the db's intent.
Intent with helmet to helmet contact is targeting. That wasn't even a hard call. The officials have to anticipate that whenever a pass is thrown over the middle inside the 20 and it goes to the end zone. Make the call and let the booth sort it out but you have to make the call. Players lives and health are at risk! Not just the receivers either. Miss the WR and hit a teammate and the same result could have happened.
And how about the ACC officials, were they biased when they missed the call? Why is every mistake based on a crooked ref?
Beach, agreed, I'm with you on this question. There is/was no conspiracy, simply a badly missed call.
Longhorn here,
Posted this on another thread:
Wanted to give my two cents and then you can ban me.
1. he led with shoulder, and impacted the shoulder first, helmet contact was incidental. Was trying to knock the ball out and receiver was going to the ground. Was clearly not trying to target the receiver high.
2. If you are going to complain about this play, how about the CLEARLY INTENTIONAL targeting on Shane Beuchele's interception? The defender is rushing Beuchele, has his head up and can clearly see Beuchele release the ball, takes a step or two and then launches the crown of his helmet into Beuchele's. Call that, and Longhorn's have a first down and no easy score for ND.
Fair is fair, right?
Posted this on another thread:
Wanted to give my two cents and then you can ban me.
1. he led with shoulder, and impacted the shoulder first, helmet contact was incidental. Was trying to knock the ball out and receiver was going to the ground. Was clearly not trying to target the receiver high.
2. If you are going to complain about this play, how about the CLEARLY INTENTIONAL targeting on Shane Beuchele's interception? The defender is rushing Beuchele, has his head up and can clearly see Beuchele release the ball, takes a step or two and then launches the crown of his helmet into Beuchele's. Call that, and Longhorn's have a first down and no easy score for ND.
Fair is fair, right?
Look I get it. The Texas D back's job is to hit hard and separate the ball from the reciever. That's exactly what happened. However, I cannot tell how times over the last few years I've seen the same senerio and every time it was targeting. In fact not all the time, but most instances the player lead with the shoulder and still helmets collided. The intent of the rule is for player safety. Hunter had no chance to avoid the hit. He was looking back for the ball, the Texas player lined him up and leveled him. Now personally I have no issue with that. That's the way the game has been played for decades. But, since the targeting rule was implimented, that type of hit is now prohibited. Again it wasn't dirty, but it was targeting as the rule is written.
Dude, don't be ridiculous, even the league officials admitted they missed it. Hey it didn't cost ND the game, Texas won the game, because they deserved to win. But please, please be honest, the film clearly shows a helmet to helmet hit. I'm not saying it was malicious or intent to injure, but clearly helmet to helmet. Everything isn't discussed for argument purposes. Good luck this year, please do win the Big 12
The ACC has already agreed their officials missed the call so I'm not sure why some people seem to think there is either doubt that the call could have gone either way - it couldn't - or that the play didn't warrant a review and subsequent penalty from the booth - it did. The NCAA rule book is available online. Here is the pertinent language regarding the targeting rule:
As far as using replay the rule has already been stated but here it is again:
- 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). When in question, it is a foul. (The Texas player clearly met this definition of targeting)
- Rule 9-1-4: No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet,
forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is
a foul - Rule 9-1-4, 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" (The Texas defender clearly met this definition of targeting)
- Rule 9-1-4, Note 2, Definition of a defenseless player: 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 (Torii Hunter clearly met this definition of defenseless player)
As far as using replay the rule has already been stated but here it is again:
- The replay official may create a targeting foul, but only in egregious instances in which a foul is not called by the officials on the field. Such a review may not be initiated by a coach’s challenge.
