#1 Georgia vs #4 Ohio State (Atlanta, GA)

S

Summa

Well-known member
Ohio State has been on the wrong end of two controversial targeting calls in the playoffs that likely cost them the game. 2020 with Clemson and 2022 with Georgia.
 
Last edited:
N

nutsnbolts

Well-known member
adselder09 said:
Wasn't a deadball foul, he was attempting to break up the pass. They got rid of the 15-yard penalty regardless if targeting was upheld or not at least one season, if not two seasons ago.

Why wasn't illegal touching called on Harrison? He went out of bounds and was the first to touch the ball after coming back in. Referee's hat was off indicating the player had gone out of bounds.
Click to expand...
Sorta. He was attempting to hammer the receiver as hard as he could. He wasn’t looking for the ball at all. But, intent is not part of the rule. I still think it was targeting, clearly hit him in the helmet with the side of his helmet. But it’s over, not worth arguing about.

As far as the illegal touching. My guess is they forgot about it after the targeting was reversed. The only diffference it would have made at that point was a field goal attempt from five yards farther back.

Are we biased? How many call reversals have favored the BIG TEN over their opponent? It SEEMS like every reversal goes against the BIG TEN, but is that real? Do I just not remember saying ‘well they caught a break with that reversal’, or has that really not happened?
 
T

tom 48

Well-known member
Hammerdrill said:
Wrong,.

Players are also prohibited from targeting and marking forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless player with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. The rulebook says: “When in question, a player is defenseless.” And in this case, there needs to be at least one indicator of targeting.
Click to expand...
Well, it was determined not to be targeting and there's nothing anyone can do about it now.
 
C

chs1971

Well-known member
adselder09 said:
Wasn't a deadball foul, he was attempting to break up the pass. They got rid of the 15-yard penalty regardless if targeting was upheld or not at least one season, if not two seasons ago.

Why wasn't illegal touching called on Harrison? He went out of bounds and was the first to touch the ball after coming back in. Referee's hat was off indicating the player had gone out of bounds.
Click to expand...
Doesn't have to be deadball to be unnecessary roughness. In fact late hit and UR are 2 different fouls.
 
C

chs1971

Well-known member
Hammerdrill said:
He doesn't have to crouch or launch. He only has to forcibly strike the head and neck area. Without it being slowed way down, and the clip doesn't, it's hard to tell exactly where he was stuck. In the era of targeting, we have seen a shot like this called, and not called. It is almost silly to even argue about it, since it can go either way on every call. I mean, that one by the TCU player on the UM player, how was that not called? lol
Click to expand...
I know, but others are claiming the defender did both.

He did not.
 
A

adselder09

Well-known member
nutsnbolts said:
Lol all you want.
When you’re fourth and goal from the two, at that time in the game, you take the points.
Calling a double reverse in that situation is probably the dumbest play call imaginable.
It eliminated points and fired up TCU.
Click to expand...
Double Reverse Pass - it was the Philly Special. Harbaugh got too cute. That was the 1st drive of the game though, there were still 55 minutes of football to be played. Again, you're completely dismissing TCU's play. The
 
A

adselder09

Well-known member
chs1971 said:
Doesn't have to be deadball to be unnecessary roughness. In fact late hit and UR are 2 different fouls.
Click to expand...
Fair, but I was assuming the poster in question wanted the penalty, even though targeting wasn't called, which was the rule a few years back.

Not sure how you can call unnecessary roughness penalty on that play though. What is the defensive back supposed to do, let him catch the ball for a TD?
 
A

adselder09

Well-known member
nutsnbolts said:
Sorta. He was attempting to hammer the receiver as hard as he could.
Click to expand...
In an attempt to break up the pass. .
nutsnbolts said:
He wasn’t looking for the ball at all.
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with anything?
nutsnbolts said:
I still think it was targeting, clearly hit him in the helmet with the side of his helmet. But it’s over, not worth arguing about.
Click to expand...
That's fair, I disagree. Didn't think it was live. Didn't think it was after 3 flags flew. And didn't think it was after replay.
nutsnbolts said:
As far as the illegal touching. My guess is they forgot about it after the targeting was reversed. The only diffference it would have made at that point was a field goal attempt from five yards farther back.
Click to expand...
Had targeting been confirmed, that would have obviously wiped out the illegal touching. So I agree that is likely what happened. Was more a response to the poster who asked about unnecessary roughness penalty after they determined it wasn't targeting.
nutsnbolts said:
Are we biased? How many call reversals have favored the BIG TEN over their opponent? It SEEMS like every reversal goes against the BIG TEN, but is that real? Do I just not remember saying ‘well they caught a break with that reversal’, or has that really not happened?
Click to expand...
The B1G or Ohio State? Ever since that flag in the Fiesta Bowl against Miami, it seems the Buckeyes have been on the wrong side of most 50-50 plays/calls.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
.
Top