I was curious if the tipped ball changes the designation from being "defenseless".  Any good explanation on the two no calls?  It has been an odd thing to watch.

I don’t think the tipped ball makes a difference on targeting. I thought the hit on Bond on the interception was targeting so was happy that neither were called. 

 

Only people who don't read the rules are upset. The targeting rule changed this year to require an "indicator." This gives the officiants some leeway in making targeting calls. 

Taft did not contact the player with "the crown" of his helmet. And even though there was forcible contact on a defenseless player none of the required indicators were present.

 

See rule below.

 

Internet's complaining about Texas "always" 🙄 getting calls in their favor, yet no one has a problem when calls went in ASU's favor. Bond's head got whipped backwards from a defender launching directly at him. Taaffe's play looked more like incidental contact, going in for the tackle and the receiver turned his head right into him as he arrived. They just met face to face.

Shout out to DM0 and Adrian Phillips 🤘🏽

"QB can't throw a hospital ball."

People are just selectively outraged at any call that "benefits" Texas. Statistically the refs were a huge net positive to ASU. 

All of this is spot on.  Couldn’t believe the Bond no call but the outrage is only on the Taafe hit. SVP on ESPN spent 5 minutes on it last night.  No mention of the bond play. 

National media loves an underdog story. They will beat this into the ground for the next few days. The thing that scares me most about that is refs could be very quick to call it in our next game. I think the refs got both no calls right in that game. Let the players decide the outcome.

If we're gonna dissect plays frame by frame and make calls by definition lets take a look at Scattebo's long catch. 

Jessie Palmer "I dont know who they're gonna call this on" "There's a little shove in there late"

Edited January 2, 20251 yr by ATX16
more info

10 hours ago, Treston Marshall said:

Only people who don't read the rules are upset. The targeting rule changed this year to require an "indicator." This gives the officiants some leeway in making targeting calls. 

Taft did not contact the player with "the crown" of his helmet. And even though there was forcible contact on a defenseless player none of the required indicators were present.

 

See rule below.

 

very helpful, thank you

Based on the rule posted above, it is clear there was no indicator and they got the call right. It would really help if the "rules expert" on the broadcast actually knew the rules. He clearly said (or at least strongly implied) that for a defenseless player forcible contact is all that is required. If he would have said that there also has to be an indicator, I don't think there would be nearly the outcry (because it is really hard to argue there is an indicator). But when the "expert" on the broadcast creates the impression they got the call wrong, that narrative just spirals out of control. Especially when it goes against the underdog and is at such a critical time.

9 minutes ago, bevocbs said:

Based on the rule posted above, it is clear there was no indicator and they got the call right. It would really help if the "rules expert" on the broadcast actually knew the rules. He clearly said (or at least strongly implied) that for a defenseless player forcible contact is all that is required. If he would have said that there also has to be an indicator, I don't think there would be nearly the outcry (because it is really hard to argue there is an indicator). But when the "expert" on the broadcast creates the impression they got the call wrong, that narrative just spirals out of control. Especially when it goes against the underdog and is at such a critical time.

This has really been bothering me. The amount of shock jocks who are saying this was "textbook" targeting or who say "if that's not targeting then I don't know what is" is crazy. 

They are right about one thing, they don't know what targeting is and they have certainly not read the textbook. Please just read the damn rule before giving your hot take.

Taaffe did what you’re taught from the start. Hit hard, drive through the player, keep your head up and wrap them up and drive to the ground

 

he didn’t do anything other than fundamentally hit a player who was in a bad spot due to a throw. 
 

and call me old school; but this “defenseless” needs to be pretty obvious. If a player is jumping up for a pass in the middle of the field you better be prepared to get hit and hit hard. Come on with that. 

13 hours ago, Traves said:

I don’t think the tipped ball makes a difference on targeting. I thought the hit on Bond on the interception was targeting so was happy that neither were called. 

 

Absolutely and would have nullified that pick and kept a Texas drive to that would have possibly ended the game.

😂 legend weighs in