Absolutely pathetic. Multiple national media members commented specifically about how bad this call was. If this was targeting, then a defender is really better off making the suspension count by turning himself into a missile and going full blown crown-to-crown and trying to take the opposing player out. Instead, Demo pulled up, was ultra careful on the hit, and yet is suffering the same punishment as a player who could have tried to give the opposing player a concussion. Nice job NCAA. You can't even get a f'#^ing replay right.
This reminds me of a penalty called on my grandson in a lacrosse match. Happened right in front of me and I spontaneously yelled, "What for". Official looked me right in the eye and said, "It was a legal hit, just too rough" So, are we headed to a rule that if either the tackler or ball carrier leaves his feet, it is "too rough"? ******** call, by a wannabe, upheld by a bunch that likely slept through the hearing. (Wait a minute, that would make them the UIL.)
Statement from Head Coach Steve Sarkisian (8:00 PM CT): "The staff of The University of Texas Football will no longer recruit defensive players over 5'8" with their cleats on."
So the NCAA denied the appeal. I wonder how much having so many commentators all over the country say it was not targeting affected the ruling? As in you can't tell US how to do our job.
If the rules today had applied in 1969 I would have been ejected before the coin toss & maybe the National Anthem every game. By today's standards I was a dirty Sombitch.
Which one? I vote all of them. Put me in charge and the season will be postponed one week while I replace every damn one of them. NO ONE from Cali-prune-ya or Pennsylvania. Sorry, Joe, but Arizona will be marginal. I'll get a list of referrals from Texas & Oklahoma HS coaches, put Mike Defee in charge, and meet with him weekly at The Schooner in Nederland for gumbo and grading. Anyone who knows Walt Anderson need not apply
I don't think there is a rule. They make it up as they go along. If it isn't called on the field, some guy watching on TV halfway across the country can drop his bonbons, do a replay and call it in to the field. Instant penalty because he needs time to go pee.
what if a ball carrier initiates contact with his facemask on a defensive player's side of the helmet? Is it OK if the ball carrier does it?
Weird. In searching for more technical explanations on the interwebs, Google gave me a link that no longer works. Rules expert: Big 12 made right call upholding Texas LB ... https://www.on3.com › news › demarvion-overshown-s 14 hours ago — Breaking: #Texas LB DeMarvion Overshown's targeting appeal denied by NCAA. Horns247 - Texas Longhorns Football & Recruiting ... And when I go to On3 I can't find any reference to a "rules expert" on the 247sports article either.
Hell they called him for targeting in the Alabama game when he bumped into the qb legs while he was going down in the end zone for the no safety call. They missed multiple obvious calls in that game. We have a serious ref problem and they can’t even get it right on reviews.
The On3 article referred to some rule screenshot of the definition of "defenseless" and it included a QB looking downfield during pass protection. The problem I see with this is that he wasn't blindsided from any other direction... he was literally in the QB's face. I'm fine with this being the standard (facemask to facemask or helmet) if it's upheld all the time. It's just not. And we'll especially notice it when it's not called against our opponent.
Horns11, So the rule is you can’t make helmet to helmet contact on a “defenseless” player? If that’s the case, then we can’t argue about the helmet to helmet so it just comes down to if he was defenseless. He was looking downfield…. Until his view got blocked. So I guess it’s up to the ref to decide if that’s “defenseless” or not. And sure, it’s a crappy rule. But that’s besides the point when it comes to the appeal.
